Well then people ought to take a teaspoon or two of Condi's latest doublespeak:Originally Posted by Holmes
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10
/03/rice.bush.kerry/index.html
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
Well then people ought to take a teaspoon or two of Condi's latest doublespeak:Originally Posted by Holmes
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10
/03/rice.bush.kerry/index.html
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
"The proceeding statement is true.
The preceding statement was false." Damn, she's good.
Eagerly awaiting Edwards Vs. Satan...
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
Has anyone else noticed that
Dick Cheney's face makes an absolutely great cartoon character?
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I'm not sure whether I love best Condi saying that even though A.Q. Khan lives in a villa, immune fromOriginally Posted by Holmes
prosecution, he has been "brought to justice"; or, that the aluminum tubes could only have been for nuclear
missles, even though she is admitting there was always debate about them, which she knew she wasn't fully up to
speed with... Or maybe it's, "I don't understand 'proving to the world that you (took unilateral, preemptive
military action) for legitimate reasons,'" Yeah baby! Why should we have to show to anyone that our
military actions are legitimate, even in hindsight? We are the U.S. of mutha fucking A! You gotta
love the carefree dom/sub message this is sending to our bitches; I mean ahem, the rest of the world. I feel
totally comfortable with her representing my country in this way, don't you?! How could presenting ourselves
bluntly as a dangerous, loose cannon answerable to nobody possibly compromise our long term security and
standing in the world?? What a diplomat! I feel totally safe with her and W steering the boat! Four
more years! So much for that. Time for a snooze.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 10-05-2004 at 03:33 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I read an opinion piece ("The
Nation"?) that suggested Bush was trying to tell the American people that the job's too hard for him and he needs
our help (voting him out of office) in order to enjoy a long vacaction.
Here's the theme
song:
http://citypages.com/blogmedia/amadzine/hardwork.mp3
Give truth a chance.
Well it is hard work.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
and lets not forget Cheney
telling everyone to go to FactCheck.com which is saying to vote Bush out.
So is W way favored tonight or
what? I unfortunately have a gig so I'll be missing it. I'm counting on you guys (and/or ladies) to school me.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Jeez, did nobody see the
debate? It was on the TV during my gig, but I couldn't hear it. News reports are saying tie. Interestingly, flash
polls from CNN news and MSN suggested a large Kerry victory, though you have to take those with a grain of salt
(maybe people who read the news like Kerry ). CNN makes it so you have to put adware or whatever on your computer
to watch their videos.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Debate Friday Night October
9, 2004
Kerry B-
Bush D-
ELK
I watched it but had a "j"
beforehand and have nothing much to say. I couldn't tell who had won but most of the polls seem to favor Kerry
from slightly to overwhemingly.
I had to work. I saw the
beginning, Bush was kicking ass when they were going over Iraq.
"He'll have a summit and what's he gonna say to
these leaders. 'Join us in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time?'"
Saw a little bit when they
were finally discussing things like health care and economy. Looked pretty balanced then, they were both doing
good.
I think there was a genius in the crowd. The guy who said "Mr. Kerry, would be able to look in the camera
right now, and pledge that you will not raise taxes on families that earn less than $100,000."
It's like that
guy was making a contingency plan if Bush loses, so that the republicans already have a 2008 commercial if Kerry
wins.
I think I caused some posts to
be deleted recently, sorry for that. My post was only trying to be sarcastically funny in response to what was
obvious humor on some other posters part.
Good to hear from a
Republican. I'm glad that's all the "ass kicking" was. Bush's approach of sticking to his "guns" (on the Iraq
invasion/WMD, Iraq/Al-Queda) despite his poor aim is obviously not working, since something like 15 countries have
left his "coalition of the willing," and most of the rest are tiny countries responding to strong handed pressure to
declare allegiance. He is so desperate for allies he wants to count Iraq itself in the coalition of countries that
invaded/is helping to rebuild Iraq. Almost no one around the world believes Bush, or thinks the war was right. On
the contrary, world leaders mostly all agree with Kerry; take for granted the war was wrong; will find him to be a
breath of fresh air; and are way more likely to cooperate with Kerry acknowledging the truth with a pragmatic task
focus on honorable goals; than with someone still doggedly lying to their faces about the war and their foreign
policy in general. Bush imagines that the secret to it is sticking to repetitive, disinformative propaganda; and
believes people are gullible enough to fall for it. That is not the America I want to be associated with.
I do
agree the question from the audience was clever. It's smart for Republicans to keep the focus on tax cuts, since
tax cuts for the rich are the only thing Bush has done "for" (to) the economy in four years (The completely
insignificant tax cut I got, for example, was at best grain of sand on a beach of economic disasters -- like
somebody buying beers and dinner.). Otherwise it's been complete devastation on his watch.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I didn’t watch but I read the
transcripts.
Bush seems a bit more informed this time around. Kerry’s “I’ve got a plan” is getting old.
(I checked his website and, if he does have a plan, he’s keeping it to himself. All I see is a handful of objectives
and a whole lot of Bush critique.)
With regards to Iraq, the idea of Europe helping us out because
Kerry holds a summit is wishful thinking. The occupation’s already a failed enterprise and the future of Iraq will
be decided by whichever insurgent forces come out on top. The only question is how much damage will Bush or Kerry
leave behind. All the tough talk from the Bush camp leaves me thinking that he won’t leave until the entire region
is destabilized beyond repair. The fact that Kerry at least wants to talk gives me some hope that Iran and Syria
won’t be drawn into the quagmire.
With regards to National Security... Lots of wishful thinking from
both candidates. The terrorists are going to attack when they’re going to attack, and if they don’t already have a
dirty bomb maybe God really is on our side after all. It took the US 50 years of failed Middle East policies to get
us to this point, and it’s going to take just about as long before we can see real security. Neither candidate is on
the right track.
On the economy... Both candidates correctly identify small business as the major
source of new jobs. Kerry is offering tax breaks that (if they pass) will ease some of the burden on small employers
but won’t really put a dent on job losses. The basis of job flight is capital flight, and neither candidate is going
to stand in the way of that.
Kerry says he’s going to cut the deficit and I believe he’s going to try his
hardest, because there’s lots of pressure from international financial institutions. (And Kerry is to Big Finance
what Bush is to Big Oil.) Bush says there’s no way without raising taxes, but there is a way: cut social spending.
I’ll bet this is the way Kerry’s going to go.
On the environment... Kerry says Bush has one of the worst
records in modern times. Which is almost an understatement. Bush has staffed the agencies supposed to protect our
environment with corporate reps bent on plundering it.
Unfortunately Kerry simply doesn’t have much of an
environmental record. (He seems to mostly just stay out of the conflict.) He’s gotten the Sierra Club’s endorsement,
but they’re just a bunch of toothless bureaucrats and knee-jerk Democrats IMO.
I’m suspicious of his talk
to make us energy independent. Does that mean he’s going to drill more wells in Alaska? Is he going to go through
with the Bush plan to open up more than 80,000 coal methane wells in the Powder river Basin of Montana and
Wyoming?
Kerry’s been very silent on some of the most catastrophic initiatives around. Plus his chief Energy
consultant, Ralph Cavanagh, is the guy that sold Enron’s takeover of Portland General Electric to Oregon greens.
(“Can you trust Enron?” Cavanagh said. “On stewardship issues and public benefit issues I’ve dealt with this company
for a decade, often in the most contentious circumstances, and the answer is, yes.”)
I’m glad to
see Kerry brought up the issue of nuclear nonproliferation once again. This is the one issue IMO where Kerry’s
rhetoric matches his record and there’s a clear difference between him and Bush. On the one hand you have a
reasonable (albeit opportunistic) man who joins most of the world’s leaders in a reasonable plan for a much safer
future. On the other hand you have a man that hears voices from God and doesn’t care what the rest of the world has
to say.
So for me this election boils down to, “Whose finger would I rather have on the Rapture button?”
Give truth a chance.
I think that Kerry should bring up nuclear policies whenever possible. After all, how smart doOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
you look when your opponent can't even pronounce it correctly (Homer Simpson: "Nucular. It's pronounced
'nucular'.").
AKA, your always a breath of
fresh air in these discussions. Thanks for your even handed and well thought out comments.
Saturday morning
my 17 year old daughter was visiting me. While we were chatting she brought up her concern that if Bush is
re-elected there would be a draft. She and many of her friends are (rightfully) concerned. Her and I spent a little
time researching it as an exercise in critical thinking. Her conclusions were that:
A: No matter who becomes
president, if we stay in Iraq, the draft must be started.
B: Neither candidate has offered any realistic path out
of the quagmire in Iraq.
C: Talk of a draft came originally from the Kerry camp but is reputed to be a republican
goal:
D: To enforce the belief that there would be a draft, the democrats initiated legislation to authorize one.
The conversation ended with her complaining about dirty politics and asking why people would trust or vote for
either party when both were such obvious liars. I tried to explain that many people felt they had to vote for the
lessor of two evils because they wanted to vote for somebody they felt might win. My explanation was probably pretty
weak because I don't believe that way and may account for her opinion that it was an idiotic way to do things.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Idiotic? It's good to see
that after your exercise in "independent", critical thinking your daughter came out believing everything you
believe! I knew you'd like AKA's post, as it did sound quite Bel-ian! Choices in life are often about the
lesser of two "evils" (though there are certainly positives to making good choices, and though it is simplistic to
just label them both "evil" and stop there.). Refusing to choose either won't ever change that historic fact about
the world, and therefore it's illogical to believe that choosing a lesser evil necessarily perpetuates the problem
as you assert. Bel, you are essentially a conservative without a party. It sucks to be you right now, but that's
why you hate Kerry, and say you'll never vote for a Democrat. You indicate you are a died-in-the-wool
anti-Democrat. So in your case I agree you shouldn't vote. Otherwise I'd be afraid you'd go for Bush. For
everyone else, please get out and vote!
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I stand by the belief that politicians must lie or they will lose.Originally Posted by belgareth
I cite the most recent
admission by Bush that we may never win the war on terrorism (as obvious as it is to me, freedom brings potential to
harm...we have the right to bear arms, therefore we have the opportunity to use them on others in a harmful
manner...you can't prevent every derranged individual from doing something really bad). This was an honest
statement. This is true. You can't completely stop people who randomly decide to strap a bomb to their chest and
blow themselves up taking whoever with them. You can't prevent that 100% of the time. You do the best you can...but
what did Kerry say right after that? Something along the lines of, "Oh, we can win the war on terror! Vote for me
and we will defeat our enemies!" Then what happened? Bush retracted his previous statement. Something along the
lines of, "I retract my statement. We can win. We're going to win." What the hell? What happened? Honesty =
Losing.
Voters don't want to hear the truth, they want to hear good things. The minute Bush admits his fault is
the minute he loses. I hate to say that, but it's true. People vote based on how he presents himself. No matter how
you look at it, you have to admit that the man has never backed down on anything. That's why Republicans push the
"wishy-washy" stigma on Kerry. That's what Bush has going for him. He gives that up, and it's all over.
On a
brighter note, maybe Bush'll be honest in his next term since he won't have anything to lose...nah...
Regarding Iraq...
We're screwed. We really are. No matter what happens, we're getting the blame for this
one. A crappy government in place? It's the US's fault! Evil military force overthrows government? It's the US's
fault!
On that note, we're never moving out. Maybe we should just declare Iraq the 51st state... *sigh* At
least that would justify a draft...to protect our new territory! *rolls eyes*
You both misunderstand and
under-estimate me Doc. Hate of somebody for something as petty as political beliefs is not something I can do. Nor
is it uncomfortable to be me, I rather like it. You can bring hatred into this if you like but don't assign your
limitations to me.
You make me laugh frequently with your desire to pigeon hole people. Other's consider me a
democrat without a party, I see it as both sides injecting their own bias in a futile effort to classify something
they don't understand. AKA's post was wonderfully even handed and well thought out, even you should be able to
admit that.
What I did for my daughter was take her to Kerry's and Bush's web sites. Then I had her read the
Congresional Record. Once she had spent the time to do that, I asked for her conclusions. The answers were her's,
not mine. The only bias I let into the conversation was what I mentioned. You should really learn not to jump to
conclusions and be insulting when you don't know WTF you are talking about!
As for your comment about me not
voting, that was beneath you, or at least I hope it was.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I meantOriginally Posted by belgareth
"hate" in a colloquial way, not literally; so I'm sorry for the ambiguity of word choice. As for insulting, I've
heard a lot of unfair "stuff" from you without calling you "idiotic", cursing, or even replying to it for that
matter. You've at least lost your sense of humor today. Regarding pigeon-holing, you apparently did that to
yourself with your own words (as well as your mostly conservative track record here, though you worry about the
environment and know the war was wrong). I was trying to reflect back what I've seen over time, at least in your
role here. I don't care about classifying you, though. If you summarize yourself, and it seems consistent with what
you have said here, I'll be happy to think of it in those terms instead from now on. I of course don't know what
goes on inside your head, or your home. That does sound like a fair exercise, although if I met randomly any young
woman who talked that way, I'd first think it was your daughter .
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 10-10-2004 at 12:45 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I don't characterize myself or others because itOriginally Posted by DrSmellThis
is never accurate, is often offensive and is IMO lazy thinking. Each of us is an individual and deserves respect of
their individualism. Your statement above demonstrates that you really can't put a label on me and my beliefs.
Being negative about the democratic party does not make me conservative. It is a reflection of what I have learned
observing the democratic party in action. Over all, democratic policies are a greater burden on society than other
beliefs.
Just so You'll understand, over the years I have dealt with politices the same as religion while
teaching my children. We have attended a number of different churches, each for several months and not just
christian. I don't give them opinions only information. They have to make up their own minds. The same methods are
used in politics, they have as little information as possible about my opinions so they have the opportunity to form
their own. In other words, I try to teach, not convert or convince.
It may be my fault that you caught the edge
of my temper today, being a bit hung over. Though I would expect somebody of your caliber and training who knows how
I feel about and deal with my kids to have better sense than go there. I would like to know where I said you were
idiotic. I was quoting a general statement my daughter made and you chose to take it personally and as if I said it.
That's your problem, not mine.
Without trying to insult you, you are very biased in your opinions and would do
well to learn to be more open minded. We all suffer from that and I am no exception. But the importance of clear
thinking in this political environment is far greater than most.
The last comment here is regarding your
suggestion that I shouldn't vote because I might vote for Bush. As a Democrat that comes across as pure hypocrisy.
I disagree with you therefore I am wrong and should not be allowed to vote? Maybe you didn't mean it that way but
that's how I read it. Thoughts and statements like that are exactly what you rail against in the republicans. Do
you expect me to take your belief in democracy seriously when you make statements of that nature?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I was just ribbing you about
your kid, but will try not to "kid" you on the weekends early in the day from now on. Sorry about that. I know you
encourage responsibility and independence in them. And I was of course not unilaterally suggesting you not vote, but
was reflecting back your own statements about voting for nobody. Lastly, I am open minded, but am task focused on
getting Bush out of office right now for a much better alternative. Regardless of your beliefs, you have
tended to fight tooth and nail against this project right before an election (though you often call a spade a
spade on anti-government issues in general) and have therefore gotten appropriate responses. It is not suprising you
don't see open-mindedness right now, since no information has come out that should change the task (e.g., AKA's
observations). At this moment I'm emphasizing some aspects of my beliefs for the battle and am deemphasizing other
aspects. Yesterday you lauded my long-stated goals of achieving democracy, and today you suddenly don't take those
goals seriously? Whatever.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 10-10-2004 at 02:13 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Hangovers are pretty rare for
me, about once every 20 years. Last night my girlfriend threw a birthday party for me that was a little out of the
ordinary and I suffered for it this morning.
My comment was that I was not going to vote for either of the major
candidates. I never said or meant to imply that I would not vote. I have not missed an election since I was about
21.
This is where our opinions differ. I see no logic in supporting somebody that has greater than an even
chance of being just more of the same old thing. Historically democrats have been just as crooked and just as bad on
the environment and just as great of war-mongers as the republicans. You disliked Bush before he ever took office
and your opinion hasn't changed. I'll give you points for being consistant There is nothing you have said that
outweighs historical precedence or Kerry's record or his participation in groups like CFR. Do like I do, instead of
listening to the news, mainstream or alternative, look at his voting record, read the congressional record and
compare it to what he says. He is still a typical politician and does not deserve my vote.
I've pointed out
several times that much of this country disagrees with you. You even tried to write it off as they were lacking in
knowledge which is, in my opinion, both unfair and glossing over of reality. Personally, I believe that Kerry is
going to win. And personally I believe that in four years we are going to be back to the same old worthless choices
and the same old debate abolut which party is the lesser of two evils. Your "logic" is getting us nowhere!
The
only bright spot is the record number of people registering to vote. I hope many are the disenchanted who are
disgusted with the whole stinking system.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I for one would not be able to look
a 17 year old in the eye and say, “Don’t worry, kid. Kerry will veto any draft legislation that crosses his desk.”
Give truth a chance.
Meanwhile, on a lighter
note:
"Debate incident leads to injury
The Herald-Sun
Oct 1, 2004 : 5:57 pm ET
CARRBORO
-- After watching the presidential debate Thursday night, two UNC students ended up slapping each other while
fighting over who Jesus would vote for in the election.
According to a police report, the concept of "turning
the other cheek" came up, and James Robert Austin, 19, of 1305 Granville Towers West in Chapel Hill, slapped Robert
Brooks Rollins, 22, of 104 Brewer Lane in Carrboro, on the cheek at Rollins' house.
After that, Rollins
slapped Austin, and Austin landed on the concrete patio, possibly striking his head, according to the report.
Rollins called for an ambulance, which took Austin to UNC Hospitals to be examined.
"
http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-528375.html
Give truth a chance.
The question is...
Why do
we need a draft???
Show me where having 1,000,000 untrained individuals at your disposal is going to solve
anything in the current situation!
Nor would I. She didn't think so either. Perceptive kid!Originally Posted by a.k.a.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Cannon fodder.Originally Posted by Pancho1188
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks