John Kerry, why him? Share with me

Yes, perhaps, though most successful leaders have a very rigid routine, and are very habitual. Personally, I would've done things differently, but I don't feel that remaining calm and reading to the children for a few minutes was completely ridiculous, or an issue really worth voting on.


In what earlier addresses did Bush say they didn't have weapons? Anyway, I've already told you what made him change his mind: people like the head of the CIA, George Tenet, insisting that they were there, despite BUSH's skepticisim.

I'm sorry that your family will be a part of the conflict, but I don't think it's at all accurate to say it's for "absolutely nothing." We've got one less brutal dictator in the world, and we're establishing just the second Democracy in the Middle East. Far from being nothing, this could be an incredible achivement, if it works out.


You say "probably," but you're clearly guessing, at this point. And yes, he grew up with powerful associations; but associations are not like money. Associations are not in an of themselves success. You still have to make good on those connections somehow.

Hell, I know some pretty wealthy and/or influential people. But I'm not rich. Knowing these people gives me more opportunities, and more options, but it doesn't hand anything to me other than a chance to make the most of them.


By all accounts, Dwight Eisenhower was a very poor public speaker. Was he a "stupid person," too?

To be blunt, I think "Bush is stupid," much like "Bush lied," is said out of emotion and anger. As I mentioned in my last post, he scored a 1200 on his SATs. He was, by all accounts, an excellent pilot, and I believe he was the first imcumbent Governor of Texas to retain his seat in 25 years. Frankly, I think the idea of him being stupid is pretty silly.


There's really no way to know. In my opinion, the name only gets you noticed. You can still screw that kind of advantage up; like Dubya's brother Neil, whose life is more or less a wreck.

But ultimately, it's irrelevant. It's just part of a case to hate him on a personal level (he's rich, he's stupid, he was born into fame), rather than a case against his actual policies. Just look at John McCain: similar policies, but almost universally loved across the political spectrum. Why? Because distaste for Bush is often personal, rather than political.

Yes, no President works every hour of the day. We can only guess as to how many actual hours Bush is putting in. What's your point? The film doesn't count those hours because there's no way to do so. The point is that Moore's basic claim -- that Bush ignored a big, obvious, incoming threat because he was busy messing around -- doesn't have any evidence to support it.


Feel free to go looking for the quote. I believe what you'll find is claims that they had weapons, and had sought nuclear weapons.


Which "important figures" said they didn't have them? And even if some did, how does that make it a "lie" when Bush chooses to believe the wrong people? Still doesn't add up.

Let's face it, the whole "Bush lied" business is pretty lazy. Some people feel misled, and they want a quick, easy way to blame someone for it. So rather than acknowledge that our entire intelligence system has been flawed for some time, rather than acknowledge that the belief in WMDs was something almost the entire government, and several foreign governments, believed in, they'd rather turn their brains off and yell "Bush lied!" even though it makes almost no sense in context with the rest of the facts.


There was another poster around here who said the same kind of thing. I'd ask him the same question I'm about to ask you: can you even name all 43 Presidents? If not, how can you state with any degree of confidence (you're saying it's "without a doubt") that Bush is the lowest of them?


Yale doesn't make you smart, agreed, but it does pretty much mean you're not a bona fide idiot. Bush also scored a 1200 on his SATs. That's significantly above average.

There's just no way an idiot has this kind of success academically, then in business, and then in politics.


I'm disappointed in some of his actions, absolutely.

By this reasoning - if Bush is responsible for 9/11... then that would make Clinton responsible for:

1) The World Trade Center bombing on November 23, 1993 in New York.
2) The US Military barracks bombing on November 13, 1995 in Saudi Arabia
3) The Khobal Towers bombings on June 26, 1996 in Saudi Arabia.
4) The US Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on August 7, 1998.
5) The USS Cole bombing on October 12, 2000 in Aden, Yemen.

With the exception of the first bombing listed, all these attacks took place on foreign soil/water… but that doesn't make them any less of an attack against America…. And all the bombings were carried out by either Islamic extremist with ties to al Qaeda or al Qaeda operatives… and we all should know by now who their boss is…

What Bush knew was that Saddam Hussein had already paid North Korea 10 million dollars for Nodong missile technology… a direct violation of the UN Cease fire agreements Saddam signed following the Gulf War… which actually was enough to justify the removal of Saddam… and not the first time he had broken UN resolutions.

But as far as I am concerned, America had been at war with Iraq for 12 years prior to May of 2003... and it amazes me that people seem to conveniently forget the US and UK had troops committed to keep Saddam contained and had to periodically bomb Iraq during that time.

I wish your family members well… my brother just got back from Iraq… and I still have cousins stationed there and several scheduled to leave in less then a month…

__________________

Alright, he had claims coming from both sides.

I'm not guessing. I said "probably" because I know it is a very important factor, I just don't know how it ranks exactly. That's why on college applications they ask for your family history. (Trust me, I had to fill out 6 of these about 2 years ago) Plus it's not a secret that having connections gets you ahead of the game.


No. I wasn't around for Eisenhower, so I can't compare the two. All I know is that I can laugh at some of Bush's speeches.

Ummm... 1200 on the SAT isn't that great. It's above average, yes, but only slightly. I got a 1300 on my SAT and I was highly disappointed. If you look at the statistics of Ivy League schools (including Yale) the mean score is a 1450. I know this, again, from my experience at applying to colleges just a few years ago.

I don't know. I just know I don't want someone like him to continue running our country.

__________________
"I'd give up forever to touch you."

I'm only 19 so I barely remember any of these attacks. I cannot confirm or deny if Clinton is responsible. But I still blame Bush in part for what happened on 9/11.



I didn't know that. Still I think to "continue" the war was unnecessary.



Thank you very much for you kind words. I'm glad your brother is back and I hope for good luck for your cousins.

I'll respond later to everything else you replied to me about. But just have to say I've got you beat here. I placed 2nd in a national competition involving knowledge on the presidents, I can name them all in order and tell you which of them had beards and which didn't. I can also tell you who their wives were, and everything that happened in their term that was of significance, I know things about presidents that would make some people sick. Therefore, I am absolutely confident that my knowledge of this country's past presidents is absolutely unparralled on this message board, I think. For gods sakes I can even tell you what each president ate on the last day of their life (slight exageration, but not far from the truth)...

Anyways, thats why I am so confident that though bush is not the most hated (John tyler) he is certainly the lowest in terms of quality.

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

I have mentioned it before and I believe mostly in discussions regarding the media conglomerats and I have backed it up every single time. You, on the other hand, have never come up with a decent reply on why you support economic politics that create monopoly or oligopoly. And please... "Oposition to oppressive business regulation" and monopoly is not the same thing. Have I said that? No, I haven't.

The conservative politics that Bush stands for creates a form of monopoly that differs from communist monopoly by that it is a few coporation executives that owns the market instead of, in the case of communism, the Communist Party. Simple as that. Prove the opposite!

I don't know Edwards' politics that well yet, so feel free to educate me. Has he ever said that he is anti free trade? Can you give me a quote (not taken out of context) where he states anything that can't be taken as anything else but anti free trade? If I was an american politician I would like to improve the working environment for american workers as well. Is that what you call anti free trade? (about this I am not really debating since I don't know much about Edwards politics in detail...)

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I can't imagine what else you could be saying, then, because a slight reduction in business regulation is the only thing I can think of that Bush has done which can even vaguely qualify as supporting monopoly or oligopoly.


I cannot prove the opposite, because disproving your claim would require that I produce every statement Bush has ever made, and every policy he's ever supported. You're the one making the primary claim here; I think the burden of proof rests with you. Bush has been fairly consistent in favoring a more open market, something which is in direct opposition to creating monopolies. So how have you come the conclusion that that's what he supports?


No. To me, anti free-trade refers to people who want to either disallow or discourage companies from partaking in the global economy. I can't dig for an Edwards quote just now, but virtually EVERY speech he makes these days makes references to wanting to stop the "outsourcing of jobs overseas."

Hehe; well done. I stand corrected in my implication. This surprises me, though, because the vast majority of those who claim that Bush is the worst President ever also do so based on claims that lack historical perspective, which it would appear you have. They complain about economic numbers, for example, which are well above modern historical averages. Same with the war, which they treat as a second Vietnam, despite the fact that nowhere near as many soldiers have fallen in this conflict.

So, my question, then, is this: are your complaints against Bush somewhat different than these, or does your knowledge of past U.S. Presidents not include the kinds of things which would allow you to make value judgements between them?

My beef with Bush is his methods. The man has no concept of how to deal with rising terrorist in a proper manner. In my humble opinion, he has stretched the limits of the dignity of the Office of President. An example, had Theodore Roosevelt been president during 9/11, you bet your ass he would have gone into Afghanistan, and probably made a bigger deal about it as well. I am positive he would have even employed a much larger force, got the job done much quicker and much more efficient. This is irrelevant but Teddy would have probably been in Afghanistan, leading the troops as well. Anyways, after Afghanistan was over, I would bet my life Roosevelt would have setp up a quick goverment, and then gone back to the US. He would have skipped the whole Iraq idea, because he would have seen no reason to pursue that area.

The man was smart, and very heavy handed, much more so than Bush, but he was also just. This is one quality Bush lacks.

I was talking about Kerry and Edwards silly

The thing i find most discouraging about the Johns is this apparent desire to protect US jobs from outside competition. It's pretty untenable, i agree.

But all i've heard about their economics stance is the issue of job outsourcing. One hope i have is that their apparently genuine desire to re-engage with the international community (and to wield american influence more effectively) will translate into increased negotiation in international economics.

It'll be interesting to see how their economics platform pans out.

Erm, again, i was talking about the new two-some .

But i think you over-state Bush's free-trade credentials incidently.

Previously you've used his retraction of his own steel protectionism as an example of his increasing moves in that direction (yet it was the fundamentally flawed nature of the intervention, and the internal criticism from his own industries that it sparked, that probably affected that change. Though heaven knows the international community lambasted him for it as well).

He's overseen tax breaks for businesses that have forced the EU to apply major sanctions on the US. His admin's stance on carbon emissions means that other heavyweights of the industrialised world are imposing restrictions on themselves (with increasing endeavour/action), while the US does the equivilant of protectionism by doing next to nothing. The US government's material and legal/political assistance of technologies like GM also seem to be far broader in nature than that of any other nation (even in the face of market failures), which is again pretty unjustifiable in Free Trade terms.

Ok, all the industrialised/1st-world countries use Free Trade as an excuse to ensure markets for their exports (rather than following the ideal of allowing the best products to prosper), but the above examples outline why the US is distinguishing itself at this practice. This is made worse by the fact that, with the dollar-domination of world trade propping up your economy, you are in the best position to try and establish more progressive free-trade norms.

Rhetoric is inevitable, yes. But what is unjustifiable, and democratically damaging, is the apparent co-opting of the war-on-terror for political capital:

IE...

Scaremongering.

This whole terror-alert system is palpably absurd and its only real effect is to stir up more fear. Spot warnings to save lives, yes. Telling the involved targets, yes. Assigning a meaningless danger-level to everyone's lives, no. This system, and related approaches, do nothing but cultivate a climate of fear. And i see this as deliberate. The admin is trying to extend this whole "you're either with us or against us" 'choice' and are hoping a scared populace will run into their arms.

In the case of intel details, Messers Cheney and Rumsfeld have re-stated discredited intel as fact, and even been so bold as to deny previous statements (saying they'd never said there were stockpiles etc). Even tho i accept these two seem to be big proponents of the war in iraq, they're very influential in the admin, and this level of disengeniousness doesn't bode well.

Which leads me to...

Not the best chosen example Yods. Saying Iraq is connected to terrorism is not the same as the extended 'Iraq is a threat to the US and even related to 9/11' picture that was deliberately painted.

You can call that framing the issues. I'll call it painting a fictitious picture.

And even taking the first fact out of context immediately ignores whole relevant swathes of the geopolitical Middle-East mess (for starters, that Iraq was just trying to stay in with its more fundamentalist neighbours [like Saudi Arabia ] by funding Palestinian terrorists etc). It's the classic kind of obfuscational fact-smearing that this administration has perpetuated consistantly with reference to some truly grave issues.

And you call that an example of debate??

Surely you can come up with better examples of the Bush-admin actually debating issues? Can't you? Medicare? Tax cuts? Anything. Coz on the war they haven't debated squat as far as i can see. As the Cheney/Rumsfeld cases show, they've even tried to brazenly carry on asserting their version of events even when they've been comprehensively discredited. That's hardly debate.

These things combined are damaging to your democracy, and have been damaging to 'world democracy' too.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

He closely resembles the democratic donkey.

Perhaps it's their intent to save our money by combining the positions of democratic mascot and president of the united states.

Rather a doughty but democratic ass than a bull full of bombast. They don't just put their heads down and charge in. They pull things along steadily. They lead (by example hopefully )

EDIT: That's my last shaggy dog story for today.

Not bad there Golbaby, been polishing your rhymin skillz?

Whomever hooked up the cart to the ass is the leader...not the ass himself. I'm sure he'd rather be off sleeping in the pasture somewhere. I was sure I was in for an elephant joke.

Bill Hicks already slayed the Reagan beast (Or was it the Bush behemoth? I can't remember)

I'd rather be in a cart pulled by a determined donkey than one lead by a pissed-off bull.

(Ahh, rhyming rhetoric. Why hasn't this caught on eh?)

So that's it... you just lack a sense of adventure...

Erm...a travelling ass gains greater heights, the ox in furrows flounders.

That's my haiku answer to you

Isnt that a reason why we have generals and high ranking army officials in the government so a president can do HIS job and not run the United States from half way across the world?

__________________
Just back from my Alaskan cruise.
Highlights - art auctions at amazing prices, got my Divine Comedy original edition for the cost of the frame. All you can eat steak, lobster, shrimp, ribs... hmmmmm
Low points - Seen it all before not living too far from Alaska

I clearly recall saying "this is irrelevant" before making my "Roosevelt would have actually been there" comment. I didn't and don't really expect Bush to actually be in Iraq, and I don't think less of him because he isn't.

I'm sorry but I have to say something here. ::clears throat from laugh:: You think Edward's is "a nice guy"... That's why you're voting for him? Because he's "a nice guy". I don't think it says anywhere the Vice President has to be a nice guy and what does that have to do with him governing the country? Please people, if you're gonna vote for somebody for President really know why the hell you're voting for him and not just to stuff the ballot box.

__________________
"You need people like me..."