Bush Won
- Thread starter Odelay
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Odelay said:
it's a HOT one!!!!
Odelay said:
very true
Odelay said:
Agreed
Odelay said:
I agree that reducing troop sizes across Europe will always be considered first. I also would say the long term build up of troops in Iraq is almost a certainty in the light of continued insurgency.
It would only need George to open up a new front in his war on terror (Iran, North Korea and Africa being the current favourites) and continued reduction in coalition support for the need the draft to become very real. There is a reason all men in America between the ages of 18-25 (an extension to 18-34 is currently being considered by the chief of the Selective Service System) must register with the Selective Service System.
Despite denials that the U.S. plans to re-institute the draft (I have pointed out in previous posts that anything other than a denial would be political suicide in an election year), the Pentagon has stepped up preparations for a new Selective Service System that could allow for a full-blown draft by next year.
By early next year, the government will a mobilization infrastructure of 56 state headquarters, 442 area offices, and 1,980 local boards.
Ramping up is the “Selective Service System’s High School Registrar Program,â€
G
Guest
Guest
this is fantastic!!!
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml
it's pretty big 14.1mb but if you have the patience let it load, it is well worth it.
I ain't laughed that much in a long time
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml
it's pretty big 14.1mb but if you have the patience let it load, it is well worth it.
I ain't laughed that much in a long time
Jaygee
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Odelay: Of course big business has had a large hand in our affairs for many years. More than a century, in fact. Progressives were "griping" about this long before George W. popped up. What I am talking about is the intensifying of the situation under this crew, and of the naked exclusiveness and closed-off nature of the immediate cabinet. Many in the press and many in Washington have attested to this. They agree that compared to other administrations in memory, this one is very secretive.
Look, I know it seems far-fetched but when you consider how little so many people know about how Washington works, and how little so many people know about the nature of our complex democracy, it seems a natural thought that a few people with ambition can subvert it all for their own ends. All it takes, again, is getting people to trust you. And I firmly stand by my assertion that many of the policies of this administration would have had a much tougher sell were it President Richard Cheney. People would have been more inclined to consider every measure on its own terms, not having it mixed in with Bush's warm, comforting personality. I know this is a sweeping generalization, but when you hear of polls that state that over 50% of Bush voters still believe that Iraq had the WMD's we were looking for, and that Hussein was in fact partly responsible for 9/11, it speaks volumes about the power of emotional persuasiveness.
We were being screwed long before this bunch came to D.C., but Bush and Co. have been speeding it up and pushing this country in a very clear direction. We are not there by any stretch, but keep on going like this and we might become a country where "freedom" is more of a religious dogma than a physical reality. It comes down to the fact that most of us take our way of life as much for granted as we do oxygen, forgetting how fragile it is. Mess with it just a little, even skirting around the Constitution, and you've altered it.
And I don't really believe this is all a "conspiracy". They are completely open about everything. Like a broken record, I repeat that PNAC has been available for the world to read since 1992. People will make of it what they will. If they agree that we should be an imperial power, they will nod and continue on. If they don't, they will be disturbed. But a conspiracy by definition is kept secret. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the others have no need to hide very much because they know not enough people will question it all. They count on it. (Kind of like making love in front of a 1-year-old.)
People who are cynical about their motives call it "evil". A strong word, perhaps. I call it "delusional". It is possible that they truly believe they are doing good, but they ignore history. The kinds of things they are doing have rarely ended happily for those in past times who treaded similar paths. (The British Empire, f'rinstance.)
You don't agree, Odelay, but don't disregard me as a kook. I have a reputation among my friends for being very even-tempered and slow to jump to conclusions about these sorts of issues. If you met me in person, you would know that I'm not ranting. My mind is always open to being proved wrong.
What I am certain of, however, is that few of us here can prove much of anything.
Look, I know it seems far-fetched but when you consider how little so many people know about how Washington works, and how little so many people know about the nature of our complex democracy, it seems a natural thought that a few people with ambition can subvert it all for their own ends. All it takes, again, is getting people to trust you. And I firmly stand by my assertion that many of the policies of this administration would have had a much tougher sell were it President Richard Cheney. People would have been more inclined to consider every measure on its own terms, not having it mixed in with Bush's warm, comforting personality. I know this is a sweeping generalization, but when you hear of polls that state that over 50% of Bush voters still believe that Iraq had the WMD's we were looking for, and that Hussein was in fact partly responsible for 9/11, it speaks volumes about the power of emotional persuasiveness.
We were being screwed long before this bunch came to D.C., but Bush and Co. have been speeding it up and pushing this country in a very clear direction. We are not there by any stretch, but keep on going like this and we might become a country where "freedom" is more of a religious dogma than a physical reality. It comes down to the fact that most of us take our way of life as much for granted as we do oxygen, forgetting how fragile it is. Mess with it just a little, even skirting around the Constitution, and you've altered it.
And I don't really believe this is all a "conspiracy". They are completely open about everything. Like a broken record, I repeat that PNAC has been available for the world to read since 1992. People will make of it what they will. If they agree that we should be an imperial power, they will nod and continue on. If they don't, they will be disturbed. But a conspiracy by definition is kept secret. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the others have no need to hide very much because they know not enough people will question it all. They count on it. (Kind of like making love in front of a 1-year-old.)
People who are cynical about their motives call it "evil". A strong word, perhaps. I call it "delusional". It is possible that they truly believe they are doing good, but they ignore history. The kinds of things they are doing have rarely ended happily for those in past times who treaded similar paths. (The British Empire, f'rinstance.)
You don't agree, Odelay, but don't disregard me as a kook. I have a reputation among my friends for being very even-tempered and slow to jump to conclusions about these sorts of issues. If you met me in person, you would know that I'm not ranting. My mind is always open to being proved wrong.
What I am certain of, however, is that few of us here can prove much of anything.
G
Guest
Guest
tynanW said:
who ever did that is a genious.....
Woah! such great responses !! Let me squeeze in here and give you the republican prespective once again =P
That is certainly true in some aspects, and sadly I must agree with you.
I must agree with you... in the fact that the main stream media is not reporting the full story. The media has been extremely selective in the news it chooses to report. The "facts" that you see on the main stream media can no longer be considered facts, since they are only part of the story. And if anything the media has been more on the far left side than it have been in supporting Bush ( I will give a few examples in the following paragraphs). Thats the beauty of democracy, you as a sole individual have the right to filter out what you hear and decide for yourself which side is right, or would you rather let other people tell you who is right or wrong?
Likewise I sat horrified during election night watching the exit polls leaning towards Kerry.
Why be mystified? I agree that Bush administration is not without its faults, and honestly I might have voted for the Democrats this year had they chosen more "trustworthy" candidates. But the truth remains that when you look at the track record of Kerry and Edwards, they are not the most trustworthy bunch, certainly not more trustworthy than the Bush Administration. Thats why they not only won the electoral votes but also the popular vote. Because the American population are also horrified... horrified by kerry and edward's weak record, by the dishonest techniques they used to sway people's votes, by the false conspiracies they created and spread out by their henchman "mainstream media".
I am truly relieved to see that the American population was able to see through the viel of lies, swish swosh agendas/speeches.
So.. you are saying there are no special interest groups in the democratic party?....HAHAHA
But do elaborate on the Halliburton contract. I would very much like to hear your insite on this subject, rather than just pointing fingers at company names.
Its too bad that its the democrats that believe in expanding the federal government, raising taxes, letting people become more dependant on the "government".
ummm any proof? Wheres the facts?
Heres some news that might suprise you...the democrats of all the people are focusing on these "outer images". Do you honestly believe that the democrats didn't choose kerry and edwards for their outer appearances, their exceptional speech memorization skills, kerry's botoxed up, powder covered face? Dont forget these parties both hired independent research companies to go out and select citizens for brain scans. Thats right you heard it "brain scans", they would play different political ads, to these volunteer individuals, while they are hooked up to computers with sensors all over their body. These research companies would find out what issues make people react to, which specific words make people tick, even if they dont know it. Notice how Kerry used the word "mess" over hundreds of times, applying it on anything and everything that has to do with Bush. These days when it comes to politician, you have to sell yourself inorder to win. This is a different world, people made fun of Bush saying he was dumb or stupid just because his speeches weren't smooth and well memorized like Kerry's or Gore's, when Bush's test scores are much higher than Kerry or Gore. If our past presidents were to run for office now days they would have never won. Former Presidents like Lincoln who was infamous for having a screeching high voice, or Jefferson who was notorious for studdering throughout his speeches, or Washington who always fumbled with his words.
Government conspiracy is always there, and always will be there, no matter who takes office. Until the day when the government collapses and the doors swings wide open, there will always be secrets, doubts, and mistrust.
I would much rather that our military was stronger and more powerful than any other country. I fear the day when this country becomes overwhelmed by political correctness, and people's unwilliness to stand up for this nation for the sake and interest of another nation. This world is not a peaceful.. tree hugging bunny kissing world. If we let our guards down US will just be another chapter in the history book like many nations in the past IE (Roman empire).
First Gay marriage and guns are real issues. Religion? have you not been watching the speeches and debates? The only time Bush mentions anything about his beliefs are when the press or the debate mediator asks questions regarding their beliefs.
As for Guns its the democrats that has been repeatly raising these issues.
I admit that Bush people alike played on people's emotions, but that was based off of real issues, not made up issues like the Democrats like to put out to scare people IE: Black voter suppression (pamplets showing blacks being sprayed with water hoses at election polls), draft (still no proof there will be one), 911 conspiracy (that it was part of Bush's master plan to conquer the world!!/michael Mooreshit type).
Does no one remember how adamant Kerry wanted to go into Iraq? Does no one remember how supportive kerry was and how he criticized Howard Dean for not wanting to go to war and even accused him of being an indecisive/unfit leader because he was against invading iraq?
OOOooh please... secrecy, half-truths would have applied to many administrations in the past. Especially the Clinton Administration. Overstretching the military? well we never would have had that problem had the clinton adminstration not cut so much of the military budget and size. People actually got laidoff from the military 1 year before their 20 year retirment, units as a whole were decommissioned, bases all over the nation was closed. Why dont you look at the cause before analyzing the effects.
You are right, I should tell you when you are wrong. By choosing Kerry in an attempt to grasp that faint glimmer of hope will only drive our country deeper into instability, weakening numerous aspects which has made us the most powerful nation in the world. Our experience of peace in our homeland are not due to the alliances we have made, infact its the alliances that we have made that has driven us into some of the most devastating wars in history. I am not against forming alliances but it is when we put other nation's interest above ours or for political correctness, thats the real undermining factor for our so called "extremely fragile democracy".
I do not believe that neither candidates were secretly plotting to bring this nation's democracy to an end, infact I think that both candidates had their own plans for which they thought would better this nation. Through all the layers of lies, propaganda, secrets, false promises on both sides (more on the democratic side than republican), the only true way you can decide which candidate is by looking at their track records and their current campagin methods. I would have voted for a good democratic candidate as easily as for a republican candidate, I am not bias to neither party. I want what is best for this nation as would all other citizens. Over the past few months I have listened to both sides, did my own research from different internet sources instead of depending on the mainstream media. I have came to the conclusion that Kerry was unfit to be a leader. His voting records clearly defined him as another Clinton type who would have continued to cut our military, and our intelligence and begin to rely on our alliances/UN. His technique against terrorist attacks would be throw a few bombs in their way and call it a day. Edwards I think was the worst mistake that the Democrats made during this election..thinking that he would have gotten more favorable votes due to his "charming good looks" his ability to twist fiction into fact. But they underestimated the American population...that we were able to see through the mask of inexperience (4 years in the senate/never sponsored any bills/did diddly squat for the state of north carolina/one of the worst attendance in the senate)and dishonesty. Dont believe me? go ask why the majority of people in NC didn't even vote for him...thats right he didn't even win his own state..how embarrassing. Of course these aren't even the only issues which drove me to voting for Bush. Scare tactics for minorities, siding with the dishonest trash of this society IE Michael Mooreshit who downplayed terrorism..implying that Bush planned 9/11....traveling the country scaring college kids into voting for Kerry saying that if Bush won there'll be a draft (still no solid evidence)..he took things wayyy out of context in his "anything but documentry" video, which he made millions. On multiple visits to universities, when students asked him real issues and questions he would ignore them and in one instance he told security guards that he saw a gun underneath the kid's shirt. Its when I saw his lieing *** sitting next to Jimmy Carter in the Democratic National Convention, thats when I said to myself, how can i trust Kerry and Edwards when they do not condemn the lies that Mooreshit has put out..instead they invite him to sit next to Jimmy Carter in the Democratic National Convention, obviously by doing so they condone his actions. There are many other events throughout this election which showed how schemeing,dishonest,and untrusthworthy the democratic party has become, which inturn helped to finalize my decision.
So I end this by saying:
With Bush, at least there is hope.
That is certainly true in some aspects, and sadly I must agree with you.
I must agree with you... in the fact that the main stream media is not reporting the full story. The media has been extremely selective in the news it chooses to report. The "facts" that you see on the main stream media can no longer be considered facts, since they are only part of the story. And if anything the media has been more on the far left side than it have been in supporting Bush ( I will give a few examples in the following paragraphs). Thats the beauty of democracy, you as a sole individual have the right to filter out what you hear and decide for yourself which side is right, or would you rather let other people tell you who is right or wrong?
Likewise I sat horrified during election night watching the exit polls leaning towards Kerry.
Why be mystified? I agree that Bush administration is not without its faults, and honestly I might have voted for the Democrats this year had they chosen more "trustworthy" candidates. But the truth remains that when you look at the track record of Kerry and Edwards, they are not the most trustworthy bunch, certainly not more trustworthy than the Bush Administration. Thats why they not only won the electoral votes but also the popular vote. Because the American population are also horrified... horrified by kerry and edward's weak record, by the dishonest techniques they used to sway people's votes, by the false conspiracies they created and spread out by their henchman "mainstream media".
I am truly relieved to see that the American population was able to see through the viel of lies, swish swosh agendas/speeches.
So.. you are saying there are no special interest groups in the democratic party?....HAHAHA
But do elaborate on the Halliburton contract. I would very much like to hear your insite on this subject, rather than just pointing fingers at company names.
Its too bad that its the democrats that believe in expanding the federal government, raising taxes, letting people become more dependant on the "government".
ummm any proof? Wheres the facts?
Heres some news that might suprise you...the democrats of all the people are focusing on these "outer images". Do you honestly believe that the democrats didn't choose kerry and edwards for their outer appearances, their exceptional speech memorization skills, kerry's botoxed up, powder covered face? Dont forget these parties both hired independent research companies to go out and select citizens for brain scans. Thats right you heard it "brain scans", they would play different political ads, to these volunteer individuals, while they are hooked up to computers with sensors all over their body. These research companies would find out what issues make people react to, which specific words make people tick, even if they dont know it. Notice how Kerry used the word "mess" over hundreds of times, applying it on anything and everything that has to do with Bush. These days when it comes to politician, you have to sell yourself inorder to win. This is a different world, people made fun of Bush saying he was dumb or stupid just because his speeches weren't smooth and well memorized like Kerry's or Gore's, when Bush's test scores are much higher than Kerry or Gore. If our past presidents were to run for office now days they would have never won. Former Presidents like Lincoln who was infamous for having a screeching high voice, or Jefferson who was notorious for studdering throughout his speeches, or Washington who always fumbled with his words.
Government conspiracy is always there, and always will be there, no matter who takes office. Until the day when the government collapses and the doors swings wide open, there will always be secrets, doubts, and mistrust.
I would much rather that our military was stronger and more powerful than any other country. I fear the day when this country becomes overwhelmed by political correctness, and people's unwilliness to stand up for this nation for the sake and interest of another nation. This world is not a peaceful.. tree hugging bunny kissing world. If we let our guards down US will just be another chapter in the history book like many nations in the past IE (Roman empire).
First Gay marriage and guns are real issues. Religion? have you not been watching the speeches and debates? The only time Bush mentions anything about his beliefs are when the press or the debate mediator asks questions regarding their beliefs.
As for Guns its the democrats that has been repeatly raising these issues.
I admit that Bush people alike played on people's emotions, but that was based off of real issues, not made up issues like the Democrats like to put out to scare people IE: Black voter suppression (pamplets showing blacks being sprayed with water hoses at election polls), draft (still no proof there will be one), 911 conspiracy (that it was part of Bush's master plan to conquer the world!!/michael Mooreshit type).
Does no one remember how adamant Kerry wanted to go into Iraq? Does no one remember how supportive kerry was and how he criticized Howard Dean for not wanting to go to war and even accused him of being an indecisive/unfit leader because he was against invading iraq?
OOOooh please... secrecy, half-truths would have applied to many administrations in the past. Especially the Clinton Administration. Overstretching the military? well we never would have had that problem had the clinton adminstration not cut so much of the military budget and size. People actually got laidoff from the military 1 year before their 20 year retirment, units as a whole were decommissioned, bases all over the nation was closed. Why dont you look at the cause before analyzing the effects.
You are right, I should tell you when you are wrong. By choosing Kerry in an attempt to grasp that faint glimmer of hope will only drive our country deeper into instability, weakening numerous aspects which has made us the most powerful nation in the world. Our experience of peace in our homeland are not due to the alliances we have made, infact its the alliances that we have made that has driven us into some of the most devastating wars in history. I am not against forming alliances but it is when we put other nation's interest above ours or for political correctness, thats the real undermining factor for our so called "extremely fragile democracy".
I do not believe that neither candidates were secretly plotting to bring this nation's democracy to an end, infact I think that both candidates had their own plans for which they thought would better this nation. Through all the layers of lies, propaganda, secrets, false promises on both sides (more on the democratic side than republican), the only true way you can decide which candidate is by looking at their track records and their current campagin methods. I would have voted for a good democratic candidate as easily as for a republican candidate, I am not bias to neither party. I want what is best for this nation as would all other citizens. Over the past few months I have listened to both sides, did my own research from different internet sources instead of depending on the mainstream media. I have came to the conclusion that Kerry was unfit to be a leader. His voting records clearly defined him as another Clinton type who would have continued to cut our military, and our intelligence and begin to rely on our alliances/UN. His technique against terrorist attacks would be throw a few bombs in their way and call it a day. Edwards I think was the worst mistake that the Democrats made during this election..thinking that he would have gotten more favorable votes due to his "charming good looks" his ability to twist fiction into fact. But they underestimated the American population...that we were able to see through the mask of inexperience (4 years in the senate/never sponsored any bills/did diddly squat for the state of north carolina/one of the worst attendance in the senate)and dishonesty. Dont believe me? go ask why the majority of people in NC didn't even vote for him...thats right he didn't even win his own state..how embarrassing. Of course these aren't even the only issues which drove me to voting for Bush. Scare tactics for minorities, siding with the dishonest trash of this society IE Michael Mooreshit who downplayed terrorism..implying that Bush planned 9/11....traveling the country scaring college kids into voting for Kerry saying that if Bush won there'll be a draft (still no solid evidence)..he took things wayyy out of context in his "anything but documentry" video, which he made millions. On multiple visits to universities, when students asked him real issues and questions he would ignore them and in one instance he told security guards that he saw a gun underneath the kid's shirt. Its when I saw his lieing *** sitting next to Jimmy Carter in the Democratic National Convention, thats when I said to myself, how can i trust Kerry and Edwards when they do not condemn the lies that Mooreshit has put out..instead they invite him to sit next to Jimmy Carter in the Democratic National Convention, obviously by doing so they condone his actions. There are many other events throughout this election which showed how schemeing,dishonest,and untrusthworthy the democratic party has become, which inturn helped to finalize my decision.
So I end this by saying:
With Bush, at least there is hope.
Jaygee
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Spidy 182---thanks for honestly dicussing things. Who knew there would be a civil political chat in a hair loss site of all places?
"I must agree with you... in the fact that the main stream media is not reporting the full story. The media has been extremely selective in the news it chooses to report. The "facts" that you see on the main stream media can no longer be considered facts, since they are only part of the story. And if anything the media has been more on the far left side than it have been in supporting Bush ( I will give a few examples in the following paragraphs). Thats the beauty of democracy, you as a sole individual have the right to filter out what you hear and decide for yourself which side is right, or would you rather let other people tell you who is right or wrong?"
There is no denying that most people in the mainstream media are left-leaning, but this does not account for their full makeup. Much as you probably hate Al Franken, I think he was quite correct when he said that the media has a "petty liberal bias" on social issues. On overarching political issues, however, the really big questions, they are mostly quiet and suscribe to the "don't make waves" mentality. Even before I read that I thought that the social issues bias was indeed "petty". It's meaningless surface banter. They can chatter all they want and it makes no difference.
"Likewise I sat horrified during election night watching the exit polls leaning towards Kerry.
Why be mystified? I agree that Bush administration is not without its faults, and honestly I might have voted for the Democrats this year had they chosen more "trustworthy" candidates. But the truth remains that when you look at the track record of Kerry and Edwards, they are not the most trustworthy bunch, certainly not more trustworthy than the Bush Administration. Thats why they not only won the electoral votes but also the popular vote. Because the American population are also horrified... horrified by kerry and edward's weak record, by the dishonest techniques they used to sway people's votes, by the false conspiracies they created and spread out by their henchman "mainstream media".
I am truly relieved to see that the American population was able to see through the viel of lies, swish swosh agendas/speeches."
I was never terribly thrilled with Kerry, and especially not Edwards. But then few people were. Ann Coulter was actually right when she said that, had Dean been the one, it would have been "a more honest race.
Quote:
While corporations and big business have had our leaders wrapped around their fingers for decades now, the problems are now only intensifying. I am appalled that Republican voters don't, at the very least, view the Halliburton contract in Iraq with suspicion.
"So.. you are saying there are no special interest groups in the democratic party?....HAHAHA"
Of course not. Why d'ya think Ralph Nader has any sway with disgruntled Democrats? That's one of the very reasons.
"But do elaborate on the Halliburton contract. I would very much like to hear your insite on this subject, rather than just pointing fingers at company names."
Why were they given a no-bid contract in Iraq? They may be highly qualified, but let them in the straight way. And the company is under consideration for being investigated by the FBI, since a big slice of the funding given to them for reconstruction is now unaccounted for. Now it does seem bizarre to think that a ragtag bunch of crooked CEOs would be bold enough to actually pocket the money. Granted. But then why can't anyone explain where the money went? And anyway, why Halliburton? Again, they are highly qualified, but people would be less suspicious if (a. they had to go through the same process as other potential reconstruction bidders before being let in, and (b. were it not Dick Cheney's former company. It is hard not to look at it as a conflict of interest. Cheney is not profiting from the venture, but the whole thing smacks of favoritism.
Quote:
I do not know the exact quote, but Orwell once said, basically, "If the government says there is democracy, and the people believe there is democracy, then there is democracy."
"Its too bad that its the democrats that believe in expanding the federal government, raising taxes, letting people become more dependant on the "government"."
Well, that just cuts right down to the fundamental difference between the parties. I certainly am not cut out to know what the ideal degree of government in our lives would be. From what I've heard of both arguments (big vs. small government), I can understand both. However, I can't understand the conservative idea that big business will be healthier to the community if left to itself. Deregulation is what basically led to the California energy problem. And if you take an eye off of those with a lot of power, someone will inevitably come along and abuse the power. And thus screw everyone below them.
The idea of "big government" is that they would keep a million serious abuses from occuring. Of course, due to corruption, it frequently doesn't work, but I suscribe to the idea nonetheless.
But what did that argument have to do with the Orwell quote?
Quote:
This is the most secretive, exclusive, stubborn, hawkish, impersonal administration that ever led the U.S. in the modern age. Nearly everything they have done has been shrouded in secrecy. Outsiders are not let in.
"ummm any proof? Wheres the facts?"
Various articles in the New York Times have spoken of White House and Washington insiders, ususually aides, staffers, and press, who attest to the tightly closed nature of this cabinet. And it's pretty widely known now that Colin Powell, due to his frequent dissent, was often left out of the process. I suppose you wouldn't be inclined to take anything in the New York Times seriously. It's true that the paper has disgraced itself with that little episode last year, but what I've read in the mag merely echoes what Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have said. And don't smear Clarke. The way the administration tried to paint him in begrudging, revenge-driven colors was absurd. He wasn't fired. He quit!
From the very beginning, even before 9/11, Washington people were surprised at the exlusiveness of the new leaders. They weren't used to it, particularly not the press, who reportedly had to ask pre-cleared questions on numerous occasions.
(Times, Newsweek, Time----"liberal media?" Guilty as charged, yes. Keep in mind, though, that the accusations of being closed off are coming from both sides. The media just chooses to report it.)
Quote:
Bush's homespun, cheerful good-ol'-boy image is the mask this administration disguises itself with. If the nominal president were Dick Cheney, they would have a much tougher sell.
"Do you honestly believe that the democrats didn't choose kerry and edwards for their outer appearances, their exceptional speech memorization skills, kerry's botoxed up, powder covered face?"
They sure did. For instance, we'll probably never have a bald president again. No one is happy about the focus on appearance. I, for one, would vote for the sinister, snarling Dick Cheney for president if I didn't fundamentally distust the man.
"Dont forget these parties both hired independent research companies to go out and select citizens for brain scans. Thats right you heard it "brain scans", they would play different political ads, to these volunteer individuals, while they are hooked up to computers with sensors all over their body. These research companies would find out what issues make people react to, which specific words make people tick, even if they dont know it. Notice how Kerry used the word "mess" over hundreds of times, applying it on anything and everything that has to do with Bush. These days when it comes to politician, you have to sell yourself inorder to win. This is a different world, people made fun of Bush saying he was dumb or stupid just because his speeches weren't smooth and well memorized like Kerry's or Gore's, when Bush's test scores are much higher than Kerry or Gore."
These sleazy tricks are an indication of how low the public has sunk in both the politicians' estimation, and in its own. Election years are times when, every four years, we choose to allow ourselves to be spoken to like two-year-old children. No, retarted two-year-old children. After listening to both conventions this summer, I could feel my brain cells dying slowly and painfully.
"If our past presidents were to run for office now days they would have never won. Former Presidents like Lincoln who was infamous for having a screeching high voice, or Jefferson who was notorious for studdering throughout his speeches, or Washington who always fumbled with his words."
They sure wouldn't have. (Can't back it up, but I read that Lincoln grew his beard upon the suggestion of a 12-year-old girl who thought it would make him look better. He went for it and his face became a historical icon.)
About Bush's higher test scores: I believe there is a strong difference between being smart and being intelligent. You can be both, but it is possible to be one and not the other. I could go on about this one, but I only will if you want me to, since I know it sounds odd. But I'll say that you can be intelligent, but not particularly smart. And by indication, President Bush may be rather smart, but I have a hard time believing he is intelligent. I will elaborate if you wish.
Quote:
Lest I sound like an X-Files conspiracy theorist type, I only point to, as I have in the past, Project for the New Amercan Century. Google, along with "Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, 1992, 1997, and 2000." Any few of those in combination. This openly imperialist plan has been out in the open for years, yet no one is questioning the true motives of these people.
Republicans often say "so where are all these people who the Patriot Act has hurt? They probably don't even exist." They exist, all right. Wait until you are tapped for some activity or library book that at one time would have been innocuous. Certainly they are not watching everybody all the time, but we are much closer to approaching that than we ever have been.
"Government conspiracy is always there, and always will be there, no matter who takes office. Until the day when the government collapses and the doors swings wide open, there will always be secrets, doubts, and mistrust."
(deep sigh) Sadly yes. But the implications of what we've seen this group trying to do scare me a lot more than something like Nixon's Watergate. Some plans are simply bigger than others. If PNAC is in fact what it appears to be, they are talking about changing the very definition of America and the international community.
Quote:
People seem to value the US being "strong" above everything else. What does strong mean to you? Militarily powerful? That's what it means to the administration. What about being just? What about compassionate? What about cooperative? The government makes moderate stabs at appearing to be these things, and sometimes genuinely does so (like when we went into Liberia last summer), but it's clear that they are far more interested in taking advantage of the dead Cold War to become an imperialist power.
"I would much rather that our military was stronger and more powerful than any other country. I fear the day when this country becomes overwhelmed by political correctness, and people's unwilliness to stand up for this nation for the sake and interest of another nation. This world is not a peaceful.. tree hugging bunny kissing world. If we let our guards down US will just be another chapter in the history book like many nations in the past IE (Roman empire)."
Jeez, not political correctness! Don't confuse that blight with honest justice and long-term concern. The world is not peaceful, but setting a peaceful example for posterity is just as important as defending ourselves. Think of martial arts. The idea behind learning it is that you'll never have to use it. PC has crippled our national dialogue, but you can't let that obscure the idea that peace is the ultimate goal, not mere "triumph".
"First Gay marriage and guns are real issues."
Guns is too deep an argument for here, but how is "the family" threatened by gay marriage? Most people who oppose it suscribe to the idea that their kids will "go gay". They refuse to believe it isn't a "lifestyle choice". There is more involved here, but 99% of the anti-gay arguments I've heard boil down to basically fear. Besides, no matter how you slice it, gays are in the freakin' MINORITY. How will that belittle the nuclear family?
"Religion? have you not been watching the speeches and debates? The only time Bush mentions anything about his beliefs are when the press or the debate mediator asks questions regarding their beliefs."
If Bush is not so open about his faith, why do so many evangelical Christian voters love him so much? Some are on record as proclaiming that he is doing God's work, or that Jesus speaks through him. Such a mass number of people have never felt this way about another Republican, only Bush. If he does not always say it himself (and he certainly has in the past), he allows the rhetoric to flourish around him, and in support of him.
"I admit that Bush people alike played on people's emotions, but that was based off of real issues, not made up issues like the Democrats like to put out to scare people IE: Black voter suppression (pamplets showing blacks being sprayed with water hoses at election polls)."
When was it ever conclusively proven that it was a "made-up" issue? If nothing unusual happened, why did so many people speak up right away?
However, the infantile tactic of showing the water hoses does nothing for your cause and makes you look ridiculous. No argument there.
And Michael Moore never said that Bush plotted 9/11. Going that far is not called for on anyone's part. Not even the most anti-Bush nut could justify that accusation. EXPLOITING it, however....
Quote:
Does no one remember just how determined our leaders were to go to war? Does no one remember how thousands of people were predicting EXACTLY the situation that has now unfolded---insurgencies and destabilization? Does no one, above all remember that Bush himself said that the whole Iraq mission would take mere months? He denies he said it, but I clearly remember.
"Does no one remember how adamant Kerry wanted to go into Iraq? Does no one remember how supportive kerry was and how he criticized Howard Dean for not wanting to go to war and even accused him of being an indecisive/unfit leader because he was against invading iraq?"
Another reason no one was thrilled with Kerry. However, I will NEVER believe that Congress was shown everything the administration and the CIA had. I will never believe that. The inner circle was privy to God-knows-what, and I firmly believe they hid what they did not want anyone else to know.
Quote:
Secrecy, half-truths, simplistic emotional baiting, very suspicious motives, hawkish histories, absolutely no compromising, oil industry ties, Saudi oil ties, questionable military decisions, responsibility evasion, prisoner abuse, secret measures for detainees, dodging of the Geneva Conventions, belittling the already troubled UN, overstretching the military, cutting taxes during a war, reluctance to build a 9/11 commission, barely cooperating with it, the president's inability to testify without Cheney, unanswered questions about the events of 9/11, the disparity of Bush and Cheney's stories...I could go on.
"OOOooh please... secrecy, half-truths would have applied to many administrations in the past. Especially the Clinton Administration."
Sure, but you have to weight one half-truth against another. What stands out to you as Clinton's most egregious and destructive half-truths? Was it ever proven that Clinton got campaign cash for giving the Chinese nuke secrets? Maybe it was, I don't know. Tell me about his worst sins. And please don't mention "Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman." Monicagate is too ridiculous to talk about.
"Overstretching the military? well we never would have had that problem had the clinton adminstration not cut so much of the military budget and size. People actually got laidoff from the military 1 year before their 20 year retirment, units as a whole were decommissioned, bases all over the nation was closed. Why dont you look at the cause before analyzing the effects."
All true, no doubt. Stupidly jumping the gun before world conditions were right for such a downsizing.
Most everything in your final paragraph was hard to argue with, save for our disagreement about the candidates themselves. I take Michael Moore with more than few grains of salt, I might add.
You do concede that neither side was free of deceit and phony rhetoric. Where we can't agree is that I think the Kerry campaign is just crookedness-as-usual, whereas I can't help but think that the Bush agenda is more than that.
"I must agree with you... in the fact that the main stream media is not reporting the full story. The media has been extremely selective in the news it chooses to report. The "facts" that you see on the main stream media can no longer be considered facts, since they are only part of the story. And if anything the media has been more on the far left side than it have been in supporting Bush ( I will give a few examples in the following paragraphs). Thats the beauty of democracy, you as a sole individual have the right to filter out what you hear and decide for yourself which side is right, or would you rather let other people tell you who is right or wrong?"
There is no denying that most people in the mainstream media are left-leaning, but this does not account for their full makeup. Much as you probably hate Al Franken, I think he was quite correct when he said that the media has a "petty liberal bias" on social issues. On overarching political issues, however, the really big questions, they are mostly quiet and suscribe to the "don't make waves" mentality. Even before I read that I thought that the social issues bias was indeed "petty". It's meaningless surface banter. They can chatter all they want and it makes no difference.
"Likewise I sat horrified during election night watching the exit polls leaning towards Kerry.
Why be mystified? I agree that Bush administration is not without its faults, and honestly I might have voted for the Democrats this year had they chosen more "trustworthy" candidates. But the truth remains that when you look at the track record of Kerry and Edwards, they are not the most trustworthy bunch, certainly not more trustworthy than the Bush Administration. Thats why they not only won the electoral votes but also the popular vote. Because the American population are also horrified... horrified by kerry and edward's weak record, by the dishonest techniques they used to sway people's votes, by the false conspiracies they created and spread out by their henchman "mainstream media".
I am truly relieved to see that the American population was able to see through the viel of lies, swish swosh agendas/speeches."
I was never terribly thrilled with Kerry, and especially not Edwards. But then few people were. Ann Coulter was actually right when she said that, had Dean been the one, it would have been "a more honest race.
Quote:
While corporations and big business have had our leaders wrapped around their fingers for decades now, the problems are now only intensifying. I am appalled that Republican voters don't, at the very least, view the Halliburton contract in Iraq with suspicion.
"So.. you are saying there are no special interest groups in the democratic party?....HAHAHA"
Of course not. Why d'ya think Ralph Nader has any sway with disgruntled Democrats? That's one of the very reasons.
"But do elaborate on the Halliburton contract. I would very much like to hear your insite on this subject, rather than just pointing fingers at company names."
Why were they given a no-bid contract in Iraq? They may be highly qualified, but let them in the straight way. And the company is under consideration for being investigated by the FBI, since a big slice of the funding given to them for reconstruction is now unaccounted for. Now it does seem bizarre to think that a ragtag bunch of crooked CEOs would be bold enough to actually pocket the money. Granted. But then why can't anyone explain where the money went? And anyway, why Halliburton? Again, they are highly qualified, but people would be less suspicious if (a. they had to go through the same process as other potential reconstruction bidders before being let in, and (b. were it not Dick Cheney's former company. It is hard not to look at it as a conflict of interest. Cheney is not profiting from the venture, but the whole thing smacks of favoritism.
Quote:
I do not know the exact quote, but Orwell once said, basically, "If the government says there is democracy, and the people believe there is democracy, then there is democracy."
"Its too bad that its the democrats that believe in expanding the federal government, raising taxes, letting people become more dependant on the "government"."
Well, that just cuts right down to the fundamental difference between the parties. I certainly am not cut out to know what the ideal degree of government in our lives would be. From what I've heard of both arguments (big vs. small government), I can understand both. However, I can't understand the conservative idea that big business will be healthier to the community if left to itself. Deregulation is what basically led to the California energy problem. And if you take an eye off of those with a lot of power, someone will inevitably come along and abuse the power. And thus screw everyone below them.
The idea of "big government" is that they would keep a million serious abuses from occuring. Of course, due to corruption, it frequently doesn't work, but I suscribe to the idea nonetheless.
But what did that argument have to do with the Orwell quote?
Quote:
This is the most secretive, exclusive, stubborn, hawkish, impersonal administration that ever led the U.S. in the modern age. Nearly everything they have done has been shrouded in secrecy. Outsiders are not let in.
"ummm any proof? Wheres the facts?"
Various articles in the New York Times have spoken of White House and Washington insiders, ususually aides, staffers, and press, who attest to the tightly closed nature of this cabinet. And it's pretty widely known now that Colin Powell, due to his frequent dissent, was often left out of the process. I suppose you wouldn't be inclined to take anything in the New York Times seriously. It's true that the paper has disgraced itself with that little episode last year, but what I've read in the mag merely echoes what Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have said. And don't smear Clarke. The way the administration tried to paint him in begrudging, revenge-driven colors was absurd. He wasn't fired. He quit!
From the very beginning, even before 9/11, Washington people were surprised at the exlusiveness of the new leaders. They weren't used to it, particularly not the press, who reportedly had to ask pre-cleared questions on numerous occasions.
(Times, Newsweek, Time----"liberal media?" Guilty as charged, yes. Keep in mind, though, that the accusations of being closed off are coming from both sides. The media just chooses to report it.)
Quote:
Bush's homespun, cheerful good-ol'-boy image is the mask this administration disguises itself with. If the nominal president were Dick Cheney, they would have a much tougher sell.
"Do you honestly believe that the democrats didn't choose kerry and edwards for their outer appearances, their exceptional speech memorization skills, kerry's botoxed up, powder covered face?"
They sure did. For instance, we'll probably never have a bald president again. No one is happy about the focus on appearance. I, for one, would vote for the sinister, snarling Dick Cheney for president if I didn't fundamentally distust the man.
"Dont forget these parties both hired independent research companies to go out and select citizens for brain scans. Thats right you heard it "brain scans", they would play different political ads, to these volunteer individuals, while they are hooked up to computers with sensors all over their body. These research companies would find out what issues make people react to, which specific words make people tick, even if they dont know it. Notice how Kerry used the word "mess" over hundreds of times, applying it on anything and everything that has to do with Bush. These days when it comes to politician, you have to sell yourself inorder to win. This is a different world, people made fun of Bush saying he was dumb or stupid just because his speeches weren't smooth and well memorized like Kerry's or Gore's, when Bush's test scores are much higher than Kerry or Gore."
These sleazy tricks are an indication of how low the public has sunk in both the politicians' estimation, and in its own. Election years are times when, every four years, we choose to allow ourselves to be spoken to like two-year-old children. No, retarted two-year-old children. After listening to both conventions this summer, I could feel my brain cells dying slowly and painfully.
"If our past presidents were to run for office now days they would have never won. Former Presidents like Lincoln who was infamous for having a screeching high voice, or Jefferson who was notorious for studdering throughout his speeches, or Washington who always fumbled with his words."
They sure wouldn't have. (Can't back it up, but I read that Lincoln grew his beard upon the suggestion of a 12-year-old girl who thought it would make him look better. He went for it and his face became a historical icon.)
About Bush's higher test scores: I believe there is a strong difference between being smart and being intelligent. You can be both, but it is possible to be one and not the other. I could go on about this one, but I only will if you want me to, since I know it sounds odd. But I'll say that you can be intelligent, but not particularly smart. And by indication, President Bush may be rather smart, but I have a hard time believing he is intelligent. I will elaborate if you wish.
Quote:
Lest I sound like an X-Files conspiracy theorist type, I only point to, as I have in the past, Project for the New Amercan Century. Google, along with "Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, 1992, 1997, and 2000." Any few of those in combination. This openly imperialist plan has been out in the open for years, yet no one is questioning the true motives of these people.
Republicans often say "so where are all these people who the Patriot Act has hurt? They probably don't even exist." They exist, all right. Wait until you are tapped for some activity or library book that at one time would have been innocuous. Certainly they are not watching everybody all the time, but we are much closer to approaching that than we ever have been.
"Government conspiracy is always there, and always will be there, no matter who takes office. Until the day when the government collapses and the doors swings wide open, there will always be secrets, doubts, and mistrust."
(deep sigh) Sadly yes. But the implications of what we've seen this group trying to do scare me a lot more than something like Nixon's Watergate. Some plans are simply bigger than others. If PNAC is in fact what it appears to be, they are talking about changing the very definition of America and the international community.
Quote:
People seem to value the US being "strong" above everything else. What does strong mean to you? Militarily powerful? That's what it means to the administration. What about being just? What about compassionate? What about cooperative? The government makes moderate stabs at appearing to be these things, and sometimes genuinely does so (like when we went into Liberia last summer), but it's clear that they are far more interested in taking advantage of the dead Cold War to become an imperialist power.
"I would much rather that our military was stronger and more powerful than any other country. I fear the day when this country becomes overwhelmed by political correctness, and people's unwilliness to stand up for this nation for the sake and interest of another nation. This world is not a peaceful.. tree hugging bunny kissing world. If we let our guards down US will just be another chapter in the history book like many nations in the past IE (Roman empire)."
Jeez, not political correctness! Don't confuse that blight with honest justice and long-term concern. The world is not peaceful, but setting a peaceful example for posterity is just as important as defending ourselves. Think of martial arts. The idea behind learning it is that you'll never have to use it. PC has crippled our national dialogue, but you can't let that obscure the idea that peace is the ultimate goal, not mere "triumph".
"First Gay marriage and guns are real issues."
Guns is too deep an argument for here, but how is "the family" threatened by gay marriage? Most people who oppose it suscribe to the idea that their kids will "go gay". They refuse to believe it isn't a "lifestyle choice". There is more involved here, but 99% of the anti-gay arguments I've heard boil down to basically fear. Besides, no matter how you slice it, gays are in the freakin' MINORITY. How will that belittle the nuclear family?
"Religion? have you not been watching the speeches and debates? The only time Bush mentions anything about his beliefs are when the press or the debate mediator asks questions regarding their beliefs."
If Bush is not so open about his faith, why do so many evangelical Christian voters love him so much? Some are on record as proclaiming that he is doing God's work, or that Jesus speaks through him. Such a mass number of people have never felt this way about another Republican, only Bush. If he does not always say it himself (and he certainly has in the past), he allows the rhetoric to flourish around him, and in support of him.
"I admit that Bush people alike played on people's emotions, but that was based off of real issues, not made up issues like the Democrats like to put out to scare people IE: Black voter suppression (pamplets showing blacks being sprayed with water hoses at election polls)."
When was it ever conclusively proven that it was a "made-up" issue? If nothing unusual happened, why did so many people speak up right away?
However, the infantile tactic of showing the water hoses does nothing for your cause and makes you look ridiculous. No argument there.
And Michael Moore never said that Bush plotted 9/11. Going that far is not called for on anyone's part. Not even the most anti-Bush nut could justify that accusation. EXPLOITING it, however....
Quote:
Does no one remember just how determined our leaders were to go to war? Does no one remember how thousands of people were predicting EXACTLY the situation that has now unfolded---insurgencies and destabilization? Does no one, above all remember that Bush himself said that the whole Iraq mission would take mere months? He denies he said it, but I clearly remember.
"Does no one remember how adamant Kerry wanted to go into Iraq? Does no one remember how supportive kerry was and how he criticized Howard Dean for not wanting to go to war and even accused him of being an indecisive/unfit leader because he was against invading iraq?"
Another reason no one was thrilled with Kerry. However, I will NEVER believe that Congress was shown everything the administration and the CIA had. I will never believe that. The inner circle was privy to God-knows-what, and I firmly believe they hid what they did not want anyone else to know.
Quote:
Secrecy, half-truths, simplistic emotional baiting, very suspicious motives, hawkish histories, absolutely no compromising, oil industry ties, Saudi oil ties, questionable military decisions, responsibility evasion, prisoner abuse, secret measures for detainees, dodging of the Geneva Conventions, belittling the already troubled UN, overstretching the military, cutting taxes during a war, reluctance to build a 9/11 commission, barely cooperating with it, the president's inability to testify without Cheney, unanswered questions about the events of 9/11, the disparity of Bush and Cheney's stories...I could go on.
"OOOooh please... secrecy, half-truths would have applied to many administrations in the past. Especially the Clinton Administration."
Sure, but you have to weight one half-truth against another. What stands out to you as Clinton's most egregious and destructive half-truths? Was it ever proven that Clinton got campaign cash for giving the Chinese nuke secrets? Maybe it was, I don't know. Tell me about his worst sins. And please don't mention "Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman." Monicagate is too ridiculous to talk about.
"Overstretching the military? well we never would have had that problem had the clinton adminstration not cut so much of the military budget and size. People actually got laidoff from the military 1 year before their 20 year retirment, units as a whole were decommissioned, bases all over the nation was closed. Why dont you look at the cause before analyzing the effects."
All true, no doubt. Stupidly jumping the gun before world conditions were right for such a downsizing.
Most everything in your final paragraph was hard to argue with, save for our disagreement about the candidates themselves. I take Michael Moore with more than few grains of salt, I might add.
You do concede that neither side was free of deceit and phony rhetoric. Where we can't agree is that I think the Kerry campaign is just crookedness-as-usual, whereas I can't help but think that the Bush agenda is more than that.