Bush takes large lead on Kerry: latest polls

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Sep 6 2004, 05:47 PM

I think it is as clear as day to anyone who reads this board that you are intending on voting for dubya, but if you can even find one post where you say something positive about Kerry, I will take that back. So I would say the former, and if you live in Kansas it does not really matter anyway that is one state I will definately cede to Bush

I've said positive things about Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards. I've also said negative thinks about the President. I happen to think, though, that Kerry is not doing enough to convince the American people that he is a better choice. There's still time.


You're right about Kansas...no question my vote won't matter in the grand scheme.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Are you suggesting your tune would be one single bit different if the UN had given the nod of agreement?

Hell yes, I would be 100 percent behind that because there would have been world concensus and participation on this military action. If the Americans were fighting along side the Russians, the Germans, the Chinese, the French, etc. (the other Security Counsel members) I would be completely behind this action. The fact that none of these countries could find the evidence presented convincing was more than enough to say it was nothing but BS. The UN is there as mechanism to protect the countries that cannot protect themselves from the world superpowers, and their decisions must be followed by ALL countries, including the United States, no matter what the transgression was against them.

What about the 50+ countries that DID agree and still have troops over there?

And just how many swimmers in the pool are there from each of these countries? And what is their resolve? It seems that events of the past few months has scared off a few nations and their massive commitment to this action. Who is participating in this action anyways? Here's your answer.

Afghanistan (the puppet government), Albania, Australia (Bill O'Reilly's new best friends), Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait (the lone Arab state), Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands (a US Territory), Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines (turned tail and ran), Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands (proberly don't want any more of their islands nuked), South Korea (needing protection fron the US from the North Koreans), Spain (turned tail and ran), Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan.

Is this seriously the type of support that the US was hoping for? Banana republics and nations in dire need of US foreign aid?

but what right did Hussein have to invade Iran...or Kuwait....

Interesting that you bring up Iran. It was the US that backed Iraq in their attack of Iran. Doesn't seem like they should be pointing fngers in that regard. And Hussein was punished and declawed for his attack on Kuwait. There was no threat from Iraq. There was no need for an invasion. NOt on any of the excuses that Bush and Co. have trotted out, and continued to shift in an attempt o buy some credability in the invasion.

The US isnt there to take over the country, they went in and removed a dangerous dictator whom reigned terror over an entire region that was unable to fight back...

If this is the course of action that the US wishes to take, then why the hell are they not in Sudan? Why are they not in North Korea, where a manaical dictator IS killing his own people and DOES have weapons of mass destruction? Removing a dangerous dictator? That's a bullsh*t answer and you know it Tranny. The US military said that Hussein was no threat. It was the civilian group that forced the issue. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the drivers behind this invasion. Not the intelligence community. Not the military. It was the civilains in the pentagon. The two motivations that have been floated have been proven to be false. That leaves others, which are greed and a grudge. Neither is a good motivation for making an illegal military intervention into a country.

I have another question for you. Even IF Bush is re-elected and continues this vast right wing conspiracy you claim he is on, what happens in 4 years when he HAS to step down?

That's a simple answer. Another Bush (Jeb) runs for office. He's the guy that the PNAC has been grooming. He'll be a popular candidate as well, especially with the Hispanic community. If Bush feels he isn't ready, the PNAC finds another candidate they can easily control as Bush 43. It probably doesn't take a lot find a dim wit like Bush that would want to be President.

I'll say this. If the 2008 or 2012 elections are won by a Republican, and you see a lot of the names that are PNAC members, then I think you can come back and apologize then. If these guys disappear from the scene all together, then I'll come back and say just how wrong I was in accusing them of a clandestine operation to control the Whitehouse.

you use a whole bunch of media links to try and backup your outlandish claims!!

Really? I don't use links much because I don't believe what the mainstream media is telling us. The stories just don't add up. The media is way too fickle and doesn't follow through on stories so you never get the complete picture. You have to continue to dig yourself and find the information from other sources (you do remember what books are, right?). Unless you can look at a paper trail front to back then I can't believe what the sensationalistic press have to say on a topic. The perfect example is Afghanistan. WTF is going on there? We haven't heard jack as to what is going on there because it is no longer sexy to the American media, the front line reporters have moved on to Iraq and because the government has choked off reports coming out of there. Should that not be the primary front on the "War against Terror"? You speak of credability, but what credability does the media have when they can't follow a story through to its finish? What credability do you have in repeating everything that comes out of the press, even though it doesn't add up? Hell, at least I was proven right that the Americans were indeed lying in regards to WMD and their motivations of going into Iraq. Or do you still cling to the hope that WMD are going to be found?

Believe what you want Tranny. But I think you are placing way too much faith in the media and in believing that the Whitehouse is going to give the full story on soemthing that could be completely humiliating to them. The Whitehouse is in damage control and has been since going into Iraq. Every day they find a new excuse to ignore domestic affairs and focus on international affairs. Of course the media jumps on this because foreign affairs is much more interesting, and more of a distraction, than domestic affairs and what troubles America. Its a great strategy for keeping the Republicans in office. Get them watching the left hand so they don't worry about what the right hand is doing. But that is something you won't see in the media. It doesn't sell. And selling is what America is all about.

[transplant99]

Hell yes, I would be 100 percent behind that because there would have been world concensus and participation on this military action. If the Americans were fighting along side the Russians, the Germans, the Chinese, the French

3 of those 4 wanted Hussein to remain in power because of MONEY...no greater motive than that. Of course they disagreed with the action...it ended up costing them billions of dollars as they could
1) No longer sell arms to Hussein
or
2) No longer skirt the oil for food program and purchase his oil at rock bottom prices...illegally as outlined BY THE UN!!

The fact that none of these countries could find the evidence presented convincing was more than enough to say it was nothing but BS.

Are you serious? ALL of these countries Ok'd 17 resolutions against Iraq in regards to the WMD program he had....why did they do that if it was all BS??

The UN is there as mechanism to protect the countries that cannot protect themselves from the world superpowers, and their decisions must be followed by ALL countries, including the United States, no matter what the transgression was against them.

I see...so the UN is the all saying power among international disputes, but when they themselves are the ones that threaten military action aginst Iraq for transgressions of their own resolutions, yet do not follow through, then the rest of the world has to follow along? What's the point of threats if you aren't willing to follow up? I might add this is the same UN that had LIBYA appointed to chair and oversee its Human Right Violations division.

If this is the course of action that the US wishes to take, then why the hell are they not in Sudan? Why are they not in North Korea, where a manaical dictator IS killing his own people and DOES have weapons of mass destruction? Removing a dangerous dictator? That's a bullsh*t answer and you know it Tranny. The US military said that Hussein was no threat. It was the civilian group that forced the issue. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the drivers behind this invasion. Not the intelligence community. Not the military. It was the civilains in the pentagon. The two motivations that have been floated have been proven to be false. That leaves others, which are greed and a grudge. Neither is a good motivation for making an illegal military intervention into a country.

What's BS...that removing Hussein was a reason for the war or that he was a dangerous dictator?

Why are the US NOT in N Korea? Because they are in SOUTH KOREA...you know right next door which allows for the area to be stable. It keeps Kim in check. Funny how a democracy with support from the worlds super power is able to do that huh? The key is having a democracy in place in the region to negin with...i guess thats lost on you though. Hey maybe they should leave the S Koreans to fend for themselves since they have no right to help out other countries or "impose their version of democracy"....right? Kim can then roll into S Korea (like his father attempted) kill hundreds of thousands, get a bigger piece of the area, gain more power, and you can sleep better at night knowing the US isnt intervening in other countries domestic affairs. That's better.



That's a simple answer. Another Bush (Jeb) runs for office. He's the guy that the PNAC has been grooming. He'll be a popular candidate as well, especially with the Hispanic community. If Bush feels he isn't ready, the PNAC finds another candidate they can easily control as Bush 43. It probably doesn't take a lot find a dim wit like Bush that would want to be President.

I'll say this. If the 2008 or 2012 elections are won by a Republican, and you see a lot of the names that are PNAC members, then I think you can come back and apologize then. If these guys disappear from the scene all together, then I'll come back and say just how wrong I was in accusing them of a clandestine operation to control the Whitehouse.

Wow. The conspiracy theory is already planned well into the next decade...OK, now i understand.


Really? I don't use links much because I don't believe what the mainstream media is telling us. The

this board is LITTERED with links from you. What are you talking about.

The media is way too fickle and doesn't follow through on stories so you never get the complete picture. You have to continue to dig yourself and find the information from other sources (you do remember what books are, right?).

Read them all the time. Dont get the complete picture? OK then.

The perfect example is Afghanistan. WTF is going on there? We haven't heard jack as to what is going on there because it is no longer sexy to the American media, the front line reporters have moved on to Iraq and because the government has choked off reports coming out of there. Should that not be the primary front on the "War against Terror"? You speak of credability, but what credability does the media have when they can't follow a story through to its finish?


Not more than 2 hours ago I watched a report about Afghanistan....good timing. It's an ongoing struggle there as well as it is in Iraq. There are extremists in both countries that simply dont want the people to get control of their own governments. The Taliban is trying to hang on but are finding it increasingly difficult. Insurgents exist all over the region....sounds like Iraq doesnt it? They arent the good guys Lanny....they are the ones blowing things up. Why shouldnt the US be helping to weed them out and destroy them?

Hell, at least I was proven right that the Americans were indeed lying in regards to WMD and their motivations of going into Iraq. Or do you still cling to the hope that WMD are going to be found

Too rich.

YOU were proven right?? Holy moly, meglomania is alive and well I see. How were the Americans proven to be lying exactly? The UN itself ( you know the very body you are relying on in this most bizarre argument) admits FULLY that they existed, in fact their head guy says so to this very day. There are 17 resolutions against Iraq for breaking their agreements with the UN in regards to WMD. Are those all BS as well now? All made up?

And yes i have no doubt WMD will still be found...somewhere. Thats the scariest part of this whole thing to me...where the hell are the WMD that ALL countries on the security council admitted he had and punished him for? Still buried/hidden in the Iraqi desert or in the hands of some other rogue nation? If its the latter i truly pray that the US or someone else goes and gets them before they are used.

Believe what you want Tranny.

Thanks...I will.

But I think you are placing way too much faith in the media and in believing that the Whitehouse is going to give the full story on soemthing that could be completely humiliating to them.

Why do you think the media/White house is only what has formed my opinion? I have been around long enough to know where to gleen my info from, and where to read/watch and who to listen too. Here is a hint...it aint someone like Rush Limbaugh. Ditto Michael Moore.

Every day they find a new excuse to ignore domestic affairs and focus on international affairs

Ummm...its not the medias job to drive the agendas of candidates. If you want to see more discussion on domestic issues, maybe you should look at Kerry and ask why he isnt doing that. I have never ever seen him say one thing about what he would do differently in this regard. Only that he will be different...just dont know how. And when the face to face debates occur...believe me, you WILL see the media ask those domestic affair questions repeatedly. WHich will fly in the face of the "Bush controlled media" theory you possess.

[Cowperson]

This seems to be going well.

Cowperson

[sbailey924]

Here's why I'm voting for Kerry:

1) Bush's tax cuts have absolutely left states dry in many public financing. As a result, federal subsidation of my university has dropped significantly, and every year I have been in school tuition has increased. That is a bigger problem because....

2) My father was forced into early retirement, and now he has a lot of trouble to even do contracting work (he's an engineer). Our family's income has gone down (while tuition has gone up). My brother graduated college last May, and the only jobs he is even competitive for seem to be in movie theaters and restaurants. What is his degree good for, honestly? The job growth may be there, but there are still way less jobs under Bush than Clinton (you can't blame 9/11 and the inherited economy for everything; Bush has to take some blame).

3) Foreign policy on the hot issues, honestly, isn't that much different between the two. Kerry isn't going to pull out of Iraq. We blew the crap out of the place, we have to rebuild it. He says he's going to attempt to get more countries involved (may or may not work). Both will get the Iraq job completed. Both will continue the war on terror with al-Qaida (I don't know that any president would have acted differently after 9/11, yet somehow Bush is seen as "the best person we could have had," (to quote many acquaintances).

4+)I'm against No Child Left Behind (underfunds the schools that need funding), for same sex marriage, pro choice.

I think the two main things that I agree with that Bush has done/said is about frivolous health care lawsuits (although the insurance companies have flown under the radar on this....they're trying to make up losses from other fields and the stock market by jacking up physician premiums) and AIDS relief (though I think it's messed up that he doesn't make the pharmaceutical companies charge less than they are, it would go a lot farther in the greater cause.....oh well, that's lobby groups for you).

And I'm done.

[Flame On]

Wow, often I don't agree with Lanny but in these cases I do. I've been noticing that there are some similarities between how Bush operates and how Hitler got to power. I'm not saying they have the same values, or that they're going to start building death camps, but I think they know how to pull the same cords to ignite the "nuke 'em" extremists. The EXTREME patriotism, the misguided blaming of a group i.e. Iraq = terrorist hot bed. I just find it all pretty scary. If you believe he's stating policy (which by the way why don't you already know it if he's already in power, cause he's done zip) and Kerry isn't or if you prefer them, great. I just agree with the sort of comment that says in 20 years people will look back in shame.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I thought Ronald Reagan was the New Hitler, or was that Richard E. Nixon?

Hard to keep all these fascists straight anymore.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Flame On@Sep 6 2004, 10:48 PM
Wow, often I don't agree with Lanny but in these cases I do. I've been noticing that there are some similarities between how Bush operates and how Hitler got to power. I'm not saying they have the same values, or that they're going to start building death camps, but I think they know how to pull the same cords to ignite the "nuke 'em" extremists. The EXTREME patriotism, the misguided blaming of a group i.e. Iraq = terrorist hot bed. I just find it all pretty scary. If you believe he's stating policy (which by the way why don't you already know it if he's already in power, cause he's done zip) and Kerry isn't or if you prefer them, great. I just agree with the sort of comment that says in 20 years people will look back in shame.

The late 1940's through the mid-1960's were a period of EXTREME patriotism in the USA.

Nothing today remotely compares.

The self-loathing left, the origin of "Give Peace A Chance" which sprang out of universities in the 1960's and 1970's, ensured from that point forward there would always be a vocal opposition to an aggressive USA foreign policy. The protests of the 60's and 70's would have been unthinkable in the 1950's, the era of McCarthyism.

To suggest that the "average" American has an attitude of "nuke 'em" is patently ridiculous. That element is certainly there, perhaps in abundance, but there are all kinds in America, not just one kind, and you saw them all over the Afghan and Iraq conflicts, howling their protest. Again, you would never have seen the like in the 1950's leading, as one example, into Korea.

Hitler came to power out of the ashes and poverty of World War I and the global economic downturn of the late 1920's and early 1930's. He had a message of a resurgent and mighty Germany, restored to its rigthful place as a global military leader and an economic power once again, and was elected from a base of misery on that basis and largely delivered on that promise until . . . . well, the war didn't go well. Although he didn't allow elections beyond his original gain of power, he probably would have won them if he had.

Bush came to power as the economic success of the 1990's was peaking, the opposite of Hitler, the speculative excesses of that period blowing up spectacularly in the mid-March period of 2000 with Bush barely in power a few months. That eventually led to a global downturn exacerbated by 9/11. As far as I remember, there were no elaborate promises of global dominion from a Presidential candidate who had been outside the boundaries of the USA only twice in his lifetime. Foreign policy was considered a distinct weakness of his until Dick Cheney joined the ticket. Without 9/11, its doubtful Bush would have taken more than a cursory interest in foreign affairs. In fact, our own Lanny is fond of reminding us of how the Bush team "screwed the pooch" in the months leading into 9/11, dozing fools largely disinterested in anything happening beyond the boundaries of the USA.

Bush/Cheney = Hitler? Yeesh.

Nuke-em Americans? Check the 1950's as a comparable. That's where you'll find them.

9/11 changed the world. Twenty years from now, that's what we'll remember.

Cowperson

[Reggie Dunlop]

I wouldn't mind seeing a slight return to McCarthyism if it meant Sean Penn would shut the hell up.

[Cowperson]

To add to the original premise of this thread, the election, a good Washington Post article today examining why Displaced is still on the fence and what he wants the candidates to do for the rest of the campaign.

In the next two months, these voters want the candidates to drop the flags, fireworks and florid freedom talk -- we're onto that game. Lose the negativity. More specifics, fewer ads -- and more debates.

And please: Beginning right now, start talking about something other than 9/11 and Iraq.

"They can't stop talking about it," complained Sarita Mohar, 23, a part-time teacher and first-time voter. "I am just sick of it."

"Address some of those issues other than the war on terrorism and . . . Iraq," said Bryan Miraszek, 38, a stay-at-home dad.

"I don't want to see four more years of 'Let's fight terrorism, let's fight the war,' " said Rick Dudek, 45, a truck mechanic. "You have to start taking care of other business here."

You may have to register to view this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...0-2004Sep5.html

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Hell yes, I would be 100 percent behind that because there would have been world concensus and participation on this military action. If the Americans were fighting along side the Russians, the Germans, the Chinese, the French

3 of those 4 wanted Hussein to remain in power because of MONEY...no greater motive than that. Of course they disagreed with the action...it ended up costing them billions of dollars as they could
1) No longer sell arms to Hussein
or
2) No longer skirt the oil for food program and purchase his oil at rock bottom prices...illegally as outlined BY THE UN!!

Holy double standard. So its hard to believe that the American executive could be motivated by money for their reasons to go into Iraq, and to think so would be a conspiracy theory, but its easy to consider that the international community is responsible for a multi-national conspiracy to keep the United States out of Iraq???

Wow!!!

The fact that none of these countries could find the evidence presented convincing was more than enough to say it was nothing but BS.

Are you serious? ALL of these countries Ok'd 17 resolutions against Iraq in regards to the WMD program he had....why did they do that if it was all BS??

And I thought they okayed these resolutions based on what transpired during the Gulf War, and supported these same resolutions for search purposes. If they were sure of the data that was presented they would have okayed the military action in Iraq. They thought what Powell presented was BS and voted to not support him.

Speaking on the Powell presentation to the UN, were you aware that Powell made his presentation in front of the General Assembly, and not to the Security Counsel? This was an unheard of move by the Uited States, especially on something as "sensitive" as the "intelligence" that was being presented. The feeling was that Powell had no substance to present that would have convinced the Security Counsel so he presented a grandstand presentation in front of the General Assembly to gain popular vote. He failed there as well. This was the first time in recent memory that information like this was shared in front of the General Assembly and not restricted to the Secuirty Counsel. If this was so important, why not go the recognized route and present to the Security Counsel who would have final say anyways? Answer is obvious. The information was not convincing enough for the Security Counsel to ammend the sanctions against Iraq, and the US new it.

The UN is there as mechanism to protect the countries that cannot protect themselves from the world superpowers, and their decisions must be followed by ALL countries, including the United States, no matter what the transgression was against them.

I see...so the UN is the all saying power among international disputes, but when they themselves are the ones that threaten military action aginst Iraq for transgressions of their own resolutions, yet do not follow through, then the rest of the world has to follow along? What's the point of threats if you aren't willing to follow up? I might add this is the same UN that had LIBYA appointed to chair and oversee its Human Right Violations division.

The UN should be the all saying power in regards to interventions into other countries, especially when one of the permanent Security Counsel members are involved. How else does the world prevent the Super Powers from dancing all over the globe at will? If law is going to transgress borders then the UN is mechanism for that. The General Assembly votes for who sits on the committees that oversee things such as Human Rights, so obviously the international community thinks Libya is up to the task. Someone nominated them and they were voted onto the commitee. The US had the right to veto such an action, but they didn't. Maybe the Ambassador to the UN should be queried as to why the right of veto was not exercised?

If this is the course of action that the US wishes to take, then why the hell are they not in Sudan? Why are they not in North Korea, where a manaical dictator IS killing his own people and DOES have weapons of mass destruction? Removing a dangerous dictator? That's a bullsh*t answer and you know it Tranny. The US military said that Hussein was no threat. It was the civilian group that forced the issue. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were the drivers behind this invasion. Not the intelligence community. Not the military. It was the civilains in the pentagon. The two motivations that have been floated have been proven to be false. That leaves others, which are greed and a grudge. Neither is a good motivation for making an illegal military intervention into a country.

What's BS...that removing Hussein was a reason for the war or that he was a dangerous dictator?

Why are the US NOT in N Korea? Because they are in SOUTH KOREA...you know right next door which allows for the area to be stable. It keeps Kim in check. Funny how a democracy with support from the worlds super power is able to do that huh? The key is having a democracy in place in the region to negin with...i guess thats lost on you though. Hey maybe they should leave the S Koreans to fend for themselves since they have no right to help out other countries or "impose their version of democracy"....right? Kim can then roll into S Korea (like his father attempted) kill hundreds of thousands, get a bigger piece of the area, gain more power, and you can sleep better at night knowing the US isnt intervening in other countries domestic affairs. That's better.

Nice double standard again. You preach containment with North Korea, which is an actual threat and HAS WMDs they could use right now AND are developing a missle system capable of reaching the United States, but say containment was not working with Iraq and invasion was needed to flesh out WMDs that had not been found in a decade of searching and did not have a delivery mechanism that could guarantee delivery to Isreal let alone the United States?

Wow!

And who is the primary threat again?

Oh, and what about that nasty Sudanese thing, where thousands of people are being murdered RIGHT NOW by a real tyranical dictator, not 20 years ago?

That's a simple answer. Another Bush (Jeb) runs for office. He's the guy that the PNAC has been grooming. He'll be a popular candidate as well, especially with the Hispanic community. If Bush feels he isn't ready, the PNAC finds another candidate they can easily control as Bush 43. It probably doesn't take a lot find a dim wit like Bush that would want to be President.

I'll say this. If the 2008 or 2012 elections are won by a Republican, and you see a lot of the names that are PNAC members, then I think you can come back and apologize then. If these guys disappear from the scene all together, then I'll come back and say just how wrong I was in accusing them of a clandestine operation to control the Whitehouse.

Wow. The conspiracy theory is already planned well into the next decade...OK, now i understand.

Well numbnuts, a lot of these guys have already survived through the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations, are through to the Bush 43 administration, and are running the show, so what is so hard to believe that they would not make it through to the next administrations? Hey, I'm not the one who sees an international conspiracy to keep the US out of Iraq.

Hell, at least I was proven right that the Americans were indeed lying in regards to WMD and their motivations of going into Iraq. Or do you still cling to the hope that WMD are going to be found

Too rich.

YOU were proven right?? Holy moly, meglomania is alive and well I see. How were the Americans proven to be lying exactly? The UN itself ( you know the very body you are relying on in this most bizarre argument) admits FULLY that they existed, in fact their head guy says so to this very day. There are 17 resolutions against Iraq for breaking their agreements with the UN in regards to WMD. Are those all BS as well now? All made up?

And yes i have no doubt WMD will still be found...somewhere. Thats the scariest part of this whole thing to me...where the hell are the WMD that ALL countries on the security council admitted he had and punished him for? Still buried/hidden in the Iraqi desert or in the hands of some other rogue nation? If its the latter i truly pray that the US or someone else goes and gets them before they are used.

Holy thick as a brick Batman! What part of the United Nations NOT backing the US in Iraq don't you get? If they were sure there was a need to have a military intervention they would have supported the US. They didn't. They thought the US case was horsesh*t. They felt that inspections were more than enough to weed out any WMDs, even though in a decade they had found jack. Oh wait, we do have to take into consideration the international conspiracy that is going on to keep the US out of Iraq!

BTW... I guess the US didn't think that the sanctions were near enough? That's funny, because it didn't stop the US from keeping sanctions in place against Cuba for 40 years. Again, the US does have an interesting way in dealing with these double standards.

But I think you are placing way too much faith in the media and in believing that the Whitehouse is going to give the full story on soemthing that could be completely humiliating to them.

Why do you think the media/White house is only what has formed my opinion? I have been around long enough to know where to gleen my info from, and where to read/watch and who to listen too. Here is a hint...it aint someone like Rush Limbaugh. Ditto Michael Moore.

Yeah, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are thankful you lost that remote control.

I love how you have competely dodged the issues. Once again, how is the United States actions in Iraq any different from those of the Nazis and the Soviets? How? Unilateral intervention with a bullsh*t coalition is hardly a quality excuse. Then again, which excise are we using this week? WMDs? The tyranical dictator? The threat to the region? The poor dresser that p*ssed of Mr Blackwell? Which is again?

[Flame On]

To suggest that the "average" American has an attitude of "nuke 'em" is patently ridiculous.
I didn't suggest the average american has that attitude, I suggested that Bush is tapping into the ones that do.

Hitler came to power out of the ashes and poverty of World War I and the global economic downturn of the late 1920's and early 1930's. He had a message of a resurgent and mighty Germany, restored to its rigthful place as a global military leader and an economic power once again, and was elected from a base of misery on that basis and largely delivered on that promise until
Well you amazingly forgot to mention how he whipped his country (Germany I mean) into a frenzy by placing much of the blame on the Jews and other minorities. This was integral to his rise to power. Blaming other groups cause Germany it'self could never have fallen so far on it's own.

9/11 changed the world. Twenty years from now, that's what we'll remember. Wrong, it changed Americas world and now it's doing that for the rest of us thanks very much, with aggresive knee jerk policy. You think those families who had members killed by the Irish Republican Army think the world changed after 9/11? No. The world at most, will remember the US reaction to 9/11.

[Cowperson]

I didn't suggest the average american has that attitude, I suggested that Bush is tapping into the ones that do.

So . . . you're saying gun owning, confederate flag waving, roll-your-own smokin', backwoods brewin', bucktoothed folks shouldn't vote for anyone? Why, are they over-qualified?

That's very elitist of you.

Well you amazingly forgot to mention how he whipped his country (Germany I mean) into a frenzy by placing much of the blame on the Jews and other minorities. This was integral to his rise to power. Blaming other groups cause Germany it'self could never have fallen so far on it's own.

Ah, I see. The Bush/Cheney ticket got elected on an anti-Muslim platform in 2000. Geez, I missed that completely.

Wrong, it changed Americas world and now it's doing that for the rest of us thanks very much, with aggresive knee jerk policy. You think those families who had members killed by the Irish Republican Army think the world changed after 9/11? No. The world at most, will remember the US reaction to 9/11.

As they should. That's the point isn't it? We can argue about whether or not it "should" be the point, but regardless, that IS the point.

Cowperson

[Clarkey]

If you really do have this much contempt for the U.S. I suggest you leave immediately and seek to make your living in a country a little more in keeping with your own ideals.

[Cowperson]

Another poll post-convention - CNN/USAToday/Gallup - with Bush having a lead of 52-45 among voters "likely" to vote.

The pollsters say Bush was 50-47 before the covention and therefore got a bounce of only 2%.

Love the cranky headline that has a bit of disgruntled partisanship in it: "Poll: Bush apparently gets modest bounce."

Also:

The number of Americans who believe the war in Iraq was a mistake dropped 10 points since the last full week of August -- from 48 percent to 38 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/06/...poll/index.html

Cowperson

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Clarkey@Sep 7 2004, 01:14 AM
If you really do have this much contempt for the U.S. I suggest you leave immediately and seek to make your living in a country a little more in keeping with your own ideals.

So . . . you're saying gun owning, confederate flag waving, roll-your-own smokin', backwoods brewin', bucktoothed folks shouldn't vote for anyone? Why, are they over-qualified?

Ah, I see. The Bush/Cheney ticket got elected on an anti-Muslim platform in 2000. Geez, I missed that completely.

Who are you talking to Clarkey? I don't have contempt for the US, just Bush and I don't live in the US.

So . . . you're saying gun owning, confederate flag waving, roll-your-own smokin', backwoods brewin', bucktoothed folks shouldn't vote for anyone? Why, are they over-qualified?
Um nooooo. I'm not saying they don't have a right to vote. But thanks for not dismissing that the Bush campaign does appeal to their fears, over actual policy plans.

Ah, I see. The Bush/Cheney ticket got elected on an anti-Muslim platform in 2000. Geez, I missed that completely.
Ummm no again. You posted an incomplete version of Hitler's rise to power that left glaring holes about groups he's singled out to blame for their down turn in economical condition. I was correcting your err.

As they should? Or what?

[Clarkey]

I wrote that to the guy who uses the name Lanny MacDonald.

[Cowperson]

Um nooooo. I'm not saying they don't have a right to vote. .

So, you're dismissing their fears as illegitimate? You're saying politicians should ignore the fears of those voters because their concerns have no merit?

But thanks for not dismissing that the Bush campaign does appeal to their fears, over actual policy plans

All campaigns on all sides in all elections since the invention of democracy appeal to the fears of voters.

The left AND the right sell fear and guilt. That's what they do. It's why attack ads work. The appeal to fears.

Ummm no again. You posted an incomplete version of Hitler's rise to power that left glaring holes about groups he's singled out to blame for their down turn in economical condition. I was correcting your err.

You would need a connection to 2000 to make it relevant. Again, where was the anti-Muslim campaign platform then? If I recall correctly, the Bush/Cheney ticket even - miraculously - pulled down a good chunk of the black vote. What are you saying? That they ran on an anti-Jewish platform in 2000?

I don't see someone on the USA campaign trail yelling from the rafters that Muslim-Americans need to be rounded up in the middle of the night and put in concentration camps in Nevada!!

I do see GW Bush on the campaign trail saying everything is hunky-dory with the economy and, as a bonus, he's taking the credit. The Democrats argue the opposite and say Bush should take the blame.

Yeah, that really compares with Hitler blaming Jews for the sorry state of the German economy.

Adolph Hitler? Nazi Germany? Holy crapola!! Disagree with the guy if you want but join the real world.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Hey Clarkey, how about you butt out in regards to where I live. You know nothing about me, nothing about my situation, so I'd advise you to stick to the subject matter. And I don't have contempt for the people of the United States, even though a lot of them are not the brightest bulbs in the socket, I have a strong contempt for their present administartion and their foreign policy.

See, the nice thing about living in a democracy is having the right to disagree with the people running the show and discuss their short comings publicly. As a matter of fact, that is one of the foundations of the United States and is protected by their Bill of Rights, of which I am protected by. It is our responsibility to openly debate the job that our elected officials do and keep them in check. If they don't do the job they are supposed to do, they lose their jobs come election time. That is democrasy in action.

Now, care to add to the topic at hand?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 7 2004, 03:05 AM
I don't see someone on the USA campaign trail yelling from the rafters that Muslim-Americans need to be rounded up in the middle of the night and put in concentration camps in Nevada!!

Now Cow, you know your history better than that. Hitler did not round up the Jews until after he was elected and was then on his way to getting WWII started. I also don't think that saying the Bush Administartions actions of late are comparable to that of the Nazis in the mid 30's as saying that Bush wants to round up all Muslims, imprison them in concentration camps and perform mass murder (hell do that using percission munnitions!). I know when I say that I see parrallels I refer to the militaristic buildup, the exportation of ideology and the nationalistic furor that the Republicans are using to their advantage. The minute the Bush administration starts rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps in Nevada is the day he and his cronies get gunned down. Americans are slow on the up take when whipped into a patriotic frenzy, but even that would be extreme to them and would require action on their part. As I've repeatedly said, Americans are great people, its their government that needs its head examined at the moment.