skikvt, you're breaking my heart.

Telos-

You need to take away the reasons people resort to terrorism. Prejudice, hatred, poverty, ignorance.
You know... all the things the GOP depends on for votes.

So, I'm voting for Bush simply because I'm a poor ignorant bigot. Yeah, makes a lotta sense. That's a good tactic to use to make people see your point of view. Insult the hell out of them. What an asshole. Sorry, a pussy. You're only a inch and a half away from being an asshole.

By that same logic, we shouldn't have fought Nazism. We should have just taken away the reasons people resorted to Nazism. Jews, blacks, gays... you know all the people Democrats depend on for votes.

2004-10-18 09:07:44 PM whoa_mamma

No. The point is that the goal shouldn't be "to get to a point to where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance" because that's where we were on 9/10/2001.

So like I said, you would rather we live in fear and terror indefinitely. Either terrorism is the focus of our lives, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

You can never ever ever treat terrorism like a nuisance.

I can't treat a random asteroid strike like a nuisance either, but that doesn't mean I should focus my life on the chance that one might happen.

It is not the same as organized crime or prostitution. Those don't start wars, alright?

Hey, Greece once launched a thousand ships to Troy because some guys wife went and cheated on him. War starts for weird reasons someitmes.

He probably meant that we need to do the things necessary where orninary citizens don't have to worry about it.

Is there any reason why ordinary citizens should?

Heck, is there anything that ordinary citizens could even do about it?

Fighting the war on terror is like fighting a war on the triple lutz--it can't be won because it's something people do, not an actual target. Once you nail one terrorist, especially in a violent end without due process of law, 3 more line up to fill in. I'm not saying we shouldn't go after people who commit terror, but that we do have to have a more complex view of the causes of terrorism if we are ever to be successful in reducing it around the world.

Just felt like putting out fire with gasoline.

Either terrorism is the focus of our lives, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

But it has been spun (Yes, I will admit it. Sorry, this is politics; words have consequences) in a way that suggests Kerry will back off of an aggressive approach to fighting terrorists. It doesn't have to be the focus of our lives, or ALL our lives, but it should be the focus of the government. After all, its #1 duty is to protect us. Ordinary citizens need to be involved because politicians listen to voters. If we forget about terrorism being a problem, we will start voting for leaders who don't consider it to be a priority. The thing about Kerry's nuisance quote is that it indicates that it won't be a priority when it is at a nuisance level, and that's what allowed us to get complacent and drop our guard leading up to 9/11. Bush is the proactive terror warrior. Kerry is the reactive terror warrior. Take your pick.

BTW, either "it is or isn't" sure sounds like a black and white statement.

2004-10-18 10:47:22 PM whoa_mamma

Afghanistan was responsible? I thought bin Laden was.


Look, if you're trying to show that Bush started two unjust wars, then fine. That helps me, not you.



You anti-Bush people (esp. Kerry) have very limited short-term memories. That, or you make shiat up beacause it sounds good and supports your agenda. There's an entire book devoted to Saddam's connections with terrorism: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp


There's an entire book about Bush's lies too, yet you seem to believe everything he says.


Either this very credible journalist (Steven Hayes) is wrong, or you, the UN members being bribed by Saddam and all the other peaceniks dancing in the streets are wrong. My money is on Hayes. Kerry said he would still authorize the war! He didn't have any evidence?! Is he a farking moron, or what?


He had evidence of WMDs. Faulty evidence provided by the Bush administration.

I find it interesting that the basis for half of that article is a guy in Saddam's secret police sharing a similar name with a known terrorist.

Isn't that how they disenfranchised so many voters in Florida last election? Hrm...



Let them deliberate??? Why do you have so much faith in a corrupt organization? Have you heard of the oil-for-food program? And ultimatums? Res. 1441 told Saddam to comply or the UN would authorize force. He knew the UN would never go ahead with it because he was bribing them. That's why we went ahead without their authorization.


Ok. If you say so.

It isn't as if the US's hands are clean on this one either.


Yeah, he is a former Baathist. I only said that because a lot of the people he's connected with could change his mind, or kill him. We needed a strong leader, though. he fit the bill. Doesn't give Kerry a reason to call him a puppet.

No, him acting like a puppet gives Kerry reason to call him a puppet. Him being a member of the Baath party is just reason to be afraid...



Wow, you stumped me there. How ever will I reel back from that one? Bush knows better than to put a big "I'm just a US puppet" bullseye on the chest on a country's leader.

But he doesn't know enough to avoid saying "you're with us or against us," or to avoid saying "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base."


And my point is that we had flimsy evidence to remove the Taliban because they allowed al Qeada to operate there. Hell, WE allowed al Qeada to operate here.


Like I said, you're not helping yourself by implying Bush ran two unjust wars instead of one.


He may not look like one, but for all intents and purposes, Saddam was a terrorist. Get that through your thick skull! You just want to wait for the smoking gun. 100% conclusive proof. By that standard, we'd never be able to bring anyone to justice, and we'd get another 9/11.


I know you guys aren't big on Civil Liberties, but we have a concept in this country called "innocent until proven guilty."

There are bigger dangers than Saddam now, and there were then. We ignored them to go after Iraq.

Hell, we're a bigger smoking gun than Iraq was. We're currently developing WMD (nuclear bunker busting missile) and have recently attacked two countries, plus we have supported terrorists in the past by your own admission.


So, I'm voting for Bush simply because I'm a poor ignorant bigot. Yeah, makes a lotta sense. That's a good tactic to use to make people see your point of view. Insult the hell out of them. What an asshole. Sorry, a pussy. You're only a inch and a half away from being an asshole.

I wasn't talking specifically about you now, was I? The fact that you think I was must mean I hit a sore spot.

I doubt you're all of those though. I'd bet everything I own that you are at least one of them.

YOu _have_ to be at least ignorant, because we all are ignorant of many of the activities this administration (or any administration) has taken. The GOP is counting on that ignorance to get people to vote for them.

They are ALSO appealing to fundamentalists as their primary campaign tactic. Fundamentalists are a hotbed of hatred and bigotry. Remember, Bush will stop those nasty gays from getting married!

IT's simple, either it's good or bad. Nothing in between.



By that same logic, we shouldn't have fought Nazism. We should have just taken away the reasons people resorted to Nazism. Jews, blacks, gays... you know all the people Democrats depend on for votes.



You'll note that there are still Nazis in the world.

Looks like we only succeeded in taking away their most powerful members through violence.

Of course, another powerful Nazi leader could come along and motivate them at any time...

2004-10-18 11:03:36 PM schrodinger

2004-10-18 09:07:44 PM whoa_mamma

You can never ever ever treat terrorism like a nuisance.

I can't treat a random asteroid strike like a nuisance either, but that doesn't mean I should focus my life on the chance that one might happen.

Right, I would like my goverment to focus on Terrorism so that I don't have to. That's their job, but John Kerry obviously understand that. He's an ignorant fool.

whoa_mamma please to read my tlaloc post. You'll see many of your points addressed. I'm sorry to hear about your falling out with the real world. You might also glance at my earlier message to you.

2004-10-18 12:33:33 AM JacksBlack

I got kicked out of a concert for singing along too loud.
I got kicked out a movie theater for having sex in the back row.
I got kicked out of a bar for being drunk.
I got kicked out of somebody's house for making a rude comment.
None of the above actually happened. My point? The orqanizers of a private event can ask anyone, anytime to leave the premises for any reason. Or no reason at all. If they refuse to leave, the police will remove them.

Wrong, douchebag, when you are a public official giving a public speech (fairgrounds are PUBLIC property) and you employ police officers for crowd control it becomes STATE ACTION. Meaning you can't discriminate based on viewpoint, the Supreme Court has ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Get a clue and come back when you've pulled your head out of your asshole.

Very worried about my friends to the south. Freedom and liberty are almost always lost one tiny and imperceptible piece at a time.

2004-10-19 12:06:18 AM Dr._Love

That was a very long post, and mostly well written and thought out too. Good work. :)

Too bad most people won't read it because of the length... heh.

You did, Telos, and I appreciate it. I just hope Tlaloc glances at this thread when he gets back.

Now if I could only somehow get a paying gig as a writer, then I might feel useful.

whoa_mamma: Rice and Powell will be scapegoats. Watch.

TO ALL YOU CONSERVATIVE BUSH SUPPORTERS, AND EVERYONE WHO SAYS KERRY IS A FLIP FLOPPER... I SUBMIT FOR YOUR DENIAL... BUSH... THE FLIP FLOPPER

Dear Mr. Bush,

Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet
have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking:

1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was
sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting
with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in
the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed
thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy
with the results because The Donald R. went back to have another
chummy hang-out with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four
months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and
loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of
weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your
dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the
Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and
anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.

1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad
and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like
Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its
rightful dictators.

1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and
Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would
support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When
the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its
mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred
by Saddam.

1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others,
as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open
letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam
Hussein.

2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years
later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when
asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to
using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright
pacifist:



2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took
office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and
your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the
cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about
Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:

2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months
later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no
interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq
and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under
imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our
way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something
to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke
international law and invaded Iraq.

2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were
found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade,
coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this
war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis
democracy!

2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in
costume, no less!

2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion
a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over
a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos
where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of
there.

Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again?

I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both
on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A
huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and
the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop
to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop.

And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call
the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken
only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and
the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast
majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed
you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country
where they can believe their president.

That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support
the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country
down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls
on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our
dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your
men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off.

We can't take another minute of it.

?

/didn't rtfa

Anyone else fascinated by the electoral situation? At this point, it's close as hell, but most states have swung one way or another.

Looks like a Kerry win boils down to a handful of states. If he can sweep the northeast and midwest (not including IN), he can take it. Without florida.

Most of those areas Gore took and Kerry is comfortably leading in polls. As I see it, the keys are Penn, Ohio and Wisconsin. Polls have been mixed but Kerry has had a slight edge in all three. Here's a scary thought - if Kerry takes maine and Iowa, penn and ohio, bush takes WI and the rest fall into line with current polling, we'd have a tie. And congress would pick the president (giving it to bush). I guess it's their turn since the supremes got to last time...

If I were running Kerry's campaign, I'd forget about Nevada, NM, AZ, and probably even write off florida, only making a token effort there.

It kills me when people on either side say their guy will win easily, this will be a total nailbiter.

Looking at the numbers on realclearpolitics, Bush is still leading (barely). But looking at individual states, Kerry currently has the electoral edge (barely). Can you imagine another split between the popular and electoral vote, especially one tilting the other way?

As I have said with W, if either candidate wins on points but loses the popular vote, they should concede if they truly believe in democracy.

...if bush is elected the draft will return.

That's a 100% certainty. Bush WILL bring back the draft, and that's a fact.

ALL troops interviewed say they need drastically more troops. Without exception. That's practically all they're saying in interviews. So there WILL be a draft if Bush wins, I absolutely positively guarantee you. It's a DONE DEAL.

Okay, maybe not.

Maybe Bush will do nothing, and continue to watch our soldiers scream in agony as they lie in a distant street, discovering the horror and pain of losing an arm, eyes, and some internal organs, flopping around crying and hemorrhaging- while Bush supporters chant "Four More Years" and jerk off to Fox News.

Nice to have someone else screaming and bleeding in your place to make you "feel good," huh Bush lovers? Sick, sick, amoral excuses for human beings.

It's time to get the hell out of there, end of story. Then we can look at putting Bush and Cheney on trial for mass murder.

Disagree? Then get your ass over there and STFU.

^^^^i hope you get drafted

damn i'm trigger happy. thought i read "kerry will bring back the draft". ok you sir that was a good post.

"As I have said with W, if either candidate wins on points but loses the popular vote, they should concede if they truly believe in democracy."

We already know what Bush did, there's no question he would do it again. And do you think Kerry would just hand away the presidency four years after Bush didn't?

I agree that the EC is screwy. But you can't fault either candidate for going along with the system. Like it or not, the EC IS democracy.

I'd love to see it get changed, but I'd love to see some changes that help make third parties viable as well.

2004-10-19 09:24:52 AM evlisevlis
It kills me when people on either side say their guy will win easily, this will be a total nailbiter.

I think it is possible for Kerry to win in a landslide. Unfortunately I'm afraid it will either be that or he'll lose.

I think it might be Kerry in a landslide because there are a lot of people who will be voting for the very first time because they dislike how Bush has acted so much. I'm one of them.

If there are a lot of us, as I suspect, then Kerry wins. If there are not... it probably means mostly the same people who voted last election, and they voted Bush in. Supposedly...

Call me a pessimist. There are supposedly many newly registered voters this year. But it seems like there's similar talk every four years, and the results don't look any different.

If either side has a landslide on the way, wouldn't poll results start to show that? Even if mostly the same people vote as last time, only a tiny fraction of a percent need to change their mind to change the result.

Actually, the poll numbers are based on people who have voted in the past. Generally speaking, newly registered voters don't show up in the polls.

Double Elvis:
"We already know what Bush did, there's no question he would do it again. And do you think Kerry would just hand away the presidency four years after Bush didn't?

I agree that the EC is screwy. But you can't fault either candidate for going along with the system. Like it or not, the EC IS democracy.

I'd love to see it get changed, but I'd love to see some changes that help make third parties viable as well."

I'm not arguing that point, my point is simply that you cannot do what Bush has done; claim to be this champion of democracy if your election was undemocratic. I'm a republican in the non-party sense; I believe that there are and should be rights and laws that supersede majority voting. But I'm not claiming that democracy, straight democracy, is awesomeness essential.

"Generally speaking, newly registered voters don't show up in the polls."

True. But generally speaking, they don't show up in significant numbers on election day either.

"my point is simply that you cannot do what Bush has done; claim to be this champion of democracy if your election was undemocratic."

Well, you can claim whatever you want, bush has illustrated that. Whether or not people believe your claim is up to them. Presidents always claim a mandate from the public, regardless of how small their margin of victory.

But if Bush's election was "undemocratic" it was because of the numerous reasons that people were disenfranchised, not because he didn't carry the popular vote.

Democracy in this country is defined by the electoral vote. Losing the popular vote but winning via the EC isn't "undemocratic", it's what the founders intended. An indirect democracy.

"I'm a republican in the non-party sense; I believe that there are and should be rights and laws that supersede majority voting. But I'm not claiming that democracy, straight democracy, is awesomeness essential."

Not sure what you mean by this.

Yes, it WAS a nuisance! No one had to deal with it until Bush chose to ignore the memos sent to him, stop denying that or blaming it on Clinton!! We all KNOW he ignored those warnings, it's in the 9/11 report!! Your arguments about nuisance are null and void!

Plus, believe it or not, some people are able to live without checking the terrorism alert level first thing in the morning! There are other problems in America, that actually occur WITHIN the borders of the country! Aren't you tired of being scared by the people who are supposed to protect you, but seem more scared and unsure what to do than you are?? They can't take care of social security, health care, the economy, or the environment, but they know how to drop bombs.

megatraum:
^^^^i hope you get drafted

I'm too old. But your willingness to let others die in your place is duly noted. Obviously a Bush supporter.