"Red Staters"

[PowerManDL]

What's with this one?

Am I really going to have to put up with several months of bitching about how the majority of the country must be stupid drooling idiots because they didn't think Kerry was "da man"?

I could understand the snobbish elitism a lot more if the loser of the election had actually been a candidate worth fighting over...but frankly I have a really hard time thinking the streets would instantly be paved in gold and all our problems would have evaporated just because "our guy" got in office.

So what's the deal here? Have people become so polarized and blinded by dogma that reality just doesn't sink in? I mean, it seems the Kerry supporters, the so-called "Blue Staters" have become the monster they claim to hate so much.

Discuss.

Civilly.

[galileo]

Shut up, red stater.

[PowerManDL]

You're a whore.

[TBone4Eva]

I'll wait and defer to Tryska on this one :D.

[TBone4Eva]

Seriously, I think it's a change in culture. The culture in the country has been on the liberal side for over 50 years and I think it is now swinging back to the conservative side. Obviuosly, there are people out there who will want to resist this change. The ground roots of this movement are of course growing in the more conservative areas of the country, i.e. the Red States.

[VasDeferens]

Bush supporters are dumb, idiots, Church go-ers, ignorant...blah blah blah. Guess it will end when Bush wins again in 2008.

It takes a d1ck to f**k puss1es and a$$h0les, otherwise puss1es turn into a$$holes.

[TBone4Eva]

Wow, that's so insightful. I hope you mean Jeb Bush wins in '08 since our current president can't run in '08.

[VasDeferens]

oops, any repub

[galileo]

You're a whore.


A whore for democrats. :hump:

[galileo]

Bush supporters are dumb, idiots, Church go-ers, ignorant...blah blah blah. Guess it will end when Bush wins again in 2008.

You proved the dumb, idiotic, and ignorant part.

Unless Tzar Bush decides to increase the max terms in office.

[Y2A]

"You know they have a saying in Tennessee... well, its in Texas, probably in Tennessee too. It goes, fool me once, shame... shame on... you? Fool me... cant get fooled agin!!" - G.W. Bush

I dont think its so much that democrats beleive that Kerry is a genius and would fix all of our problems, but rather than G.W. is a dumb redneck (see above quote). Just a guess. I voted Kerry but Im not all pissed off about the election, its over, so support your country. Or move to Canada, apparently...

[PizDoff]

Hahaha I love American politics for entertainment value.
Even this Canadian knows Bush can't get a third term. :)

[JiggaHertz]

Seriously, I think it's a change in culture. The culture in the country has been on the liberal side for over 50 years and I think it is now swinging back to the conservative side. Obviuosly, there are people out there who will want to resist this change. The ground roots of this movement are of course growing in the more conservative areas of the country, i.e. the Red States.

I tend to agree with that

[Rock]

Y2A, did bush really say that?

[Rock]

sounds more like somebody misqouted him, I refuse to believe he actually said that, come on, thats media make believe left spin propaganda, nobody, no politician EVER, is that dumb.

[PowerManDL]

God almighty...I knew there was a disparity, but seeing a county-by-county breakdown makes it even moreso.

In essence, only people in cities voted for Kerry, with a few exceptions.

That's pretty telling, I think.

As far as Bush's intelligence-- the guy sucks as a public speaker. This much is given. But why exactly is everyone so keen to assume he's an idiot because of that? Lord knows if people judged my intelligence based on how I speak in front of people, they wouldn't think too much of me either.

[TBone4Eva]

Yep, he said it Rock. You really have to see the video though because when he gets to the shame part he grabs the podium kind of hard, then he gets a bewildered look on his face as he's trying to figure out how the saying goes.

[Rock]

PowermanDL, yes, but I assume you would manage to say this correct, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, and by reading your posts, you come across as a very intelligent person, and I also assume that you would talk in that matter also, ofcourse with the verbal shortcurts and slang and all that, but still. That saying, is very simple, its not politics at an high level, anyone could easily trip in his own words, but seldom with such a simple saying.

[Y2A]

Y2A, did bush really say that?

They play it constantly on a local radio show here, he definately said that. They have a game show called "words of wisdom by president Bush" where they play a clip of him saying something, and people call in to translate it into making sense.

Wanna try one?
"I do beleive, in the soverininity of the States..."

Which word did he say wrong and what was it supposed to be? :D

Powerman,
Good point, Im not much for public speaking either. IMO however, thats a basic requirement of a president. He represents America, and when he sounds like an idiot, thats what others will think of us... (till we bomb them).

[Rock]

TBone4eva, and the video is not fumbled with?, allright, I give, but I still have a hard time believing he said that saying wrong, he seems like an intelligent guy, and Ive read he has a very high IQ.

[galileo]

As far as Bush's intelligence-- the guy sucks as a public speaker. This much is given. But why exactly is everyone so keen to assume he's an idiot because of that? Lord knows if people judged my intelligence based on how I speak in front of people, they wouldn't think too much of me either.

Are you a figurehead for the country? No. Does the job of one require eloquence? YES.

[galileo]

I tend to agree with that

That, plus the exit polls show a telling tale about people.

Cities and heavily populated regions, people care about intelligence, foreign policy, and the world as a whole.

Back woods redneck towns, people care about guns, "fags", killing "towel heads" , and God.

This year's major points of focus were ****ing asinine. As a country are we really that concerned with these things?

[TBone4Eva]

God almighty...I knew there was a disparity, but seeing a county-by-county breakdown makes it even moreso.

In essence, only people in cities voted for Kerry, with a few exceptions.

That's pretty telling, I think.

As far as Bush's intelligence-- the guy sucks as a public speaker. This much is given. But why exactly is everyone so keen to assume he's an idiot because of that? Lord knows if people judged my intelligence based on how I speak in front of people, they wouldn't think too much of me either.
Yeah, it makes sense though. Keeping things in the right perspective is important though. Most of this country is still rural and Bush won that hands down. It's also the least populated so a lot of those red counties don't represent a lot of people.

As far as Bush's intelligence, I don't think he is an idiot, but if you are going to be leader you should be able to communicate effectively to those you govern. I mean, all that time he spent in ivory league school it sounds like he didn't take one speech course while he was there sometimes.

[shootermcgavin7]

I live in a "Red" State. While in some rural areas, I'm sure the average Bush voter was someone who drove from their Baptist church in a pickup truck with a rebel flag sticker on the back, I find it intriguing that anyone would use that steriotype to blanket-cover the entire spectrum.

Many of them, such as myself (who would likely be considered a libertarian due to my economic views) were pleasantly surprised that Bush actually had the balls to talk about creating an "ownership society", something that has been unpopular in the past. Whether had actually has the balls to push this through would be another thing, however.

Some people agreed with his unpopular foreign policy (which would have changed little if Kerry would have been elected, anyway).


What I find hilarious is the graphic showing the IQ variances between "Red" and "Blue" states. While this really means nothing to start with (one could just as easily throw up a graphic with the relative felony rates), it means even less because:

1) IQ tests are basically mathematically based puzzles and analogies, which to me do not translate into being able to view leadership abilities, and

2) These "low IQ" voters were never complained about when they were voting for Democrats for the past 70 years. What I have seen is that the Democrats are now taking the stance that anyone who voted for a Republican is ignorant, whereas they had taken the stance that they were fighting for the "common man" for decades before.


That rant out of the way, I despise politics and doubt that things would be much different if Kerry were elected.

[JiggaHertz]

That, plus the exit polls show a telling tale about people.

Cities and heavily populated regions, people care about intelligence, foreign policy, and the world as a whole.

Back woods redneck towns, people care about guns, "fags", killing "towel heads" , and God.

This year's major points of focus were ****ing asinine. As a country are we really that concerned with these things?

That may be a fair assumption at the 2 extremes, but I have a hard time taking any of the exit polls seriously, especially after what we saw this past election.

[Y2A]

I mean, all that time he spent in ivory league school it sounds like he didn't take one speech course while he was there sometimes.

Ivory league? Is that you G.W? Just kidding man ;) :D

[PowerManDL]

While in some rural areas, I'm sure the average Bush voter was someone who drove from their Baptist church in a pickup truck with a rebel flag sticker on the back, I find it intriguing that anyone would use that steriotype to blanket-cover the entire spectrum.

And this is really my whole issue for creating the thread.

The Kerry camp, at least a lot of those most vocal about it, seem to be using this as their platform for why the country sucks, is going to be a fascist nightmare, etc etc.

All I'm suggesting here is that there's more than one reason that Bush pulled this off, and condemning over 50% of the country as "****ing morons" for voting that way is short-sighted, and in many ways it's that attitude which indicative of just *why* Kerry didn't win.

Just for the record, I don't support Bush any more than I did Kerry. I'm about as neutral as could be....I'm just trying to explore the other side of the mantra that's being tossed about in the post-election weeks.

[TBone4Eva]

TBone4eva, and the video is not fumbled with?, allright, I give, but I still have a hard time believing he said that saying wrong, he seems like an intelligent guy, and Ive read he has a very high IQ.Here you go Rock. A link to the video:
http://media.brainthink.com/video_temp/bushfool-low.mpeg

[TBone4Eva]

Ivory league? Is that you G.W? Just kidding man ;) :DDamn, I guess the fool me really can't be fooled again. :D

[galileo]

That may be a fair assumption at the 2 extremes, but I have a hard time taking any of the exit polls seriously, especially after what we saw this past election.

Yeah, strange how people trended one way then the electronic flawed polling machines that had 1100 accounted discrepencies (which meansthousands of votes) showed a different tale. 1100 discrepencies in any election is bull****. We're taking the voice away from the people with flawed, unaudited systems.

[JiggaHertz]

Yeah, strange how people trended one way then the electronic flawed polling machines that had 1100 accounted discrepencies (which meansthousands of votes) showed a different tale. 1100 discrepencies in any election is bull****. We're taking the voice away from the people with flawed, unaudited systems.

Oh yeah, I forgot the election was rigged.

[galileo]

Oh yeah, I forgot the election was rigged.

No one said rigged, but it sure as hell wasn't executed with voter interest in mind. Any company worth two ****s would've had these machines audited and the testing would've been extensive enough to completely eliminate problems such as were seen. I mean, how does a county with 600 people register 5000 votes? You think that's fair?

[Tryska]

In Cobb County GA, we are fighting a court battle to no longer have evolution taught in public schools without having creationism taught too.


i think this is a big part of "blue state" frustration.


or perhaps "blue people" frustration. i know it's a big part of mine.

i also don't think this is so much a fact that people are dogmatically in support of kerry, or think he would work magical wonders once he got into office, so much as stem the tide of insanity we're currently experiencing, with more to come.

Kyoto Protocol is another example. dubya says global warming and the greenhouse effect don't exist.


currently the US has 5% of the worlds population and is responsible for 25% of it's pollution. we are a rogue state when it comes to cleaning up after ourselves.

and the "ownership society"? it's bollox. it's a pretty name for all of us subsidizing publicly traded companies by investing in their success with our retirement money. I've been looking at my 401K statements lately....it's not working so well.

[PowerManDL]

In Cobb County GA, we are fighting a court battle to no longer have evolution taught in public schools without having creationism taught too.


i think this is a big part of "blue state" frustration.


or perhaps "blue people" frustration. i know it's a big part of mine.

i also don't think this is so much a fact that people are dogmatically in support of kerry, or think he would work magical wonders once he got into office, so much as stem the tide of insanity we're currently experiencing, with more to come.

I agree with you completely here, as I think you well know.

I just can't see how something as trivial as replacing one man would have any effect on it. The trend is well beyond the ability of any single administration to replace, and frankly at this point I think it's out of our hands.


Kyoto Protocol is another example. dubya says global warming and the greenhouse effect don't exist.


currently the US has 5% of the worlds population and is responsible for 25% of it's pollution. we are a rogue state when it comes to cleaning up after ourselves.

I'm honestly not convinced it does, and I don't agree with Kyoto myself. It was a lame-duck treaty designed for the "feel good" effect. I'm actually with Dubya on this one.


and the "ownership society"? it's bollox. it's a pretty name for all of us subsidizing publicly traded companies by investing in their success with our retirement money. I've been looking at my 401K statements lately....it's not working so well.

Long-term investing only works well over the....long-term. Personally I'd much rather have my retirement money in stocks and/or mutual funds than having it go to pay this generation's elderly.

[galileo]

Long-term investing only works well over the....long-term. Personally I'd much rather have my retirement money in stocks and/or mutual funds than having it go to pay this generation's elderly.

Do you know anyone who relies on this? What if it was your parents? Like any other socio-personal issue, it only matters when it hits home.

[PowerManDL]

Personally I do.....but I've had the foresight to invest ahead of time, as have my parents and grandparents.

Or are you asking about reliance on social security?

If so, that's my biggest beef with the system...it's made several generations of people that rely almost exclusively on a system that could never have worked in the first place.

If people were investing privately, even if it were gov't mandated accounts, we'd not have the issues with SS becoming insolvent, not to mention the pay outs would actually be a liveable source of income.

[Tryska]

what galileo said.


and as far as the Kyoto Protocol - the fact of the matter is, whether it's useless or not, it's a global initiative. rather than trashing it and telling the other nations to f*ck off, we would have been better suited, working with it, and changing it from the inside.

as it stands, we ignore it, and gleefully flout it, giving the impression that it just doesn't matter.


as for the one guy being able to change anything....sure, not much, but it takes one guy leading a nation to veto anything not in our best interests. Also that one guy is instrumental in repairing international relations.

and you can say working we don't need to work with anybody else, we're america, we're not beholden to the french blah blah blah whatever the conservative rhetoric is on international cooperation, and i'll tell ya you're wrong.


if you think the rest of the world really lets bullies go unchecked, i will refer you to Manhattan circa 9/11/2001.

[MixmasterNash]

Y'all do know that Bush supporters/red staters are QUANTIFIABLY more ignorant?

A group at UMD redently found that:
70% of Bush supporters think we have found evidence of a strong connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
1/3 believe WMDs were found in Iraq.
1/3 believe that a majority of the world supports our war in Iraq.

Screw values. They're secondary from being a total f**king moron.

So, we have the modern Republican party, which seems to be comprised of:
- Some wack job Christians.
- A lot more easily confused Christians.
- Some crazy Jews and gay and black people.
- A lot of libertarians/anti-tax people who just want to be left alone/hate government.
- Rich people.

I would say that the blue staters:
- Hate the wack jobs.
- Feel sorry for the rest of them voting against their own social and economic good.
- Don't understand these folks. (Maybe they're black, gay, Jews for Jesus?)
- Think these people are wrong, politically speaking.
- Are jealous of/hate these people for their capitalistic/criminal behavior.

[PowerManDL]

Nash, you do realize the irony of making that post in light of my original question in this thread, correct?

[galileo]

Personally I do.....but I've had the foresight to invest ahead of time, as have my parents and grandparents.

Or are you asking about reliance on social security?

If so, that's my biggest beef with the system...it's made several generations of people that rely almost exclusively on a system that could never have worked in the first place.

If people were investing privately, even if it were gov't mandated accounts, we'd not have the issues with SS becoming insolvent, not to mention the pay outs would actually be a liveable source of income.

I'm referring to reliance on social security. My parents were good American citizens, investing into America. My father was a hardworking (45 years in a steel mill) union laborer who expected two things when he retired at 62.5 - a pension from the mill and social security that he paid into.

With the strongest industry in the world (as touted at the time) bankrupt in almost every facet, he receives his monthly pension of $110. On top of that, losing out on some important medicare and social security benefits, they've been reduced to delivering newspapers to keep afloat. Approaching 75 years old, one should not be delivering newspapers.

Just like the 401k's of today, they were told the best method for saving for retirement. At the time, this was investing in America and their company.

What's the answer? It sure as **** isn't spending our SSI money for war. Yes, there is need for reform - but if it was that simple then it would've happened by now. A sunset period will need to be set and a lot of people will lose out on the money they paid into this dying system. Is it fair to anyone? Hell no, but I at least have an alternate means of handling my retirement so I don't have to work at Wal*Mart when I should be traveling and living the golden years of my life to the fullest.

[MixmasterNash]

Nash, you do realize the irony of making that post in light of my original question in this thread, correct?

WTf, you think I actually read stuff before I post? Hmmm... going back to look now

Edit:
Okay, my point was two fold:
1) This is how blue staters see red staters. Not necessarily my personal beliefs.
2) Red staters really are, uh, MORE dumb than blue staters, all arguments about values and beliefs aside. So, should the Dems try to convert/convince/flee from them?

But the larger point that I believe in is that the electoral college is a crock of poop. 70,000 voters in Ohio go a different way, and we've got a different President, so it's not as if there is any sort of overwhelming victory or loss either way.

[PowerManDL]

What's the answer? It sure as **** isn't spending our SSI money for war. Yes, there is need for reform - but if it was that simple then it would've happened by now. A sunset period will need to be set and a lot of people will lose out on the money they paid into this dying system. Is it fair to anyone? Hell no, but I at least have an alternate means of handling my retirement so I don't have to work at Wal*Mart when I should be traveling and living the golden years of my life to the fullest.

I agree with you completely....and frankly, I'm not even relying on 401k's to make my retirement. What I have set aside is all private investment, and the majority of it will remain so.

Personally I'd take the hit in the sunset period if it'd end up fixing things in the long term....I've never agreed with social security, and it's becoming more and more obvious why it was a bad idea in the first place.

[shootermcgavin7]

What happened to make some of the anti-Bush crowd, several of whom I had had intelligent debates with several times over the past few months, go completely off the deep end and post nothing but angry nonsensical rants?

[MixmasterNash]

What happened to make some of the anti-Bush crowd, several of whom I had had intelligent debates with several times over the past few months, go completely off the deep end and post nothing but angry nonsensical rants?

Uh, 'cause we're angry? Not Ann Coulter crazy bitch angry, but getting there.

[Gyno Rhino]

This "red state" and "blue state" nonsense goes to show one thing:

BOTH sides are fascist - period.

[MixmasterNash]

Anyway, as for retirement, I hope all the kids reading this are rocking some Roth IRAs with max contributions. With the magic of compounding interest, 2-3k+tax a year starting at age 25 will leave you with $1 million cash, tax free at retirement age. Of course, 30-40 years from now, $1 million dollars might just buy a nice South Korean car.

Edit:
Gyno, yes, we know you're happy being a pink and frilly stater.

[Tryska]

I'm referring to reliance on social security. My parents were good American citizens, investing into America. My father was a hardworking (45 years in a steel mill) union laborer who expected two things when he retired at 62.5 - a pension from the mill and social security that he paid into.

With the strongest industry in the world (as touted at the time) bankrupt in almost every facet, he receives his monthly pension of $110. On top of that, losing out on some important medicare and social security benefits, they've been reduced to delivering newspapers to keep afloat. Approaching 75 years old, one should not be delivering newspapers.

Just like the 401k's of today, they were told the best method for saving for retirement. At the time, this was investing in America and their company.

What's the answer? It sure as **** isn't spending our SSI money for war. Yes, there is need for reform - but if it was that simple then it would've happened by now. A sunset period will need to be set and a lot of people will lose out on the money they paid into this dying system. Is it fair to anyone? Hell no, but I at least have an alternate means of handling my retirement so I don't have to work at Wal*Mart when I should be traveling and living the golden years of my life to the fullest.


My folks are essentially in the same boat. Except that my dad was a highly paid professional who owned his own business. my folks set aside in IRAs, had the money market funds, had the stock market investments, were prepared.....

and then my dad got diagnosed with Parkinsons.

he had to stop working very early in his career. but he had a decent disability check coming in. so my folks kept investign that money too.

now they are on a limited income, that's got to last them, my mom is working as real estate broker, and actually looking at going to work at disney or wal-mart so she can get some extra money, and maybe god-willign some benefits (not at wal-mart tho). the money they have now, has slowly dwindled and they are on a tight budget. these medicare reforms have pushed my dad prescription bill up to 1200 a months.

if it weren't for social security, they prolly would be living hand to mouth within the next couple of years. my mom gets no social security and has no health insurance. for her to be covered it would cost 700 a month. that's money that needs to go to dad's prescriptions now.

[shootermcgavin7]

Of course, 30-40 years from now, $1 million dollars might just buy a nice South Korean car.



Yeah, because inflation has been obviously running rampant the last 15 years or so.

[galileo]

I agree with you completely....and frankly, I'm not even relying on 401k's to make my retirement. What I have set aside is all private investment, and the majority of it will remain so.

Personally I'd take the hit in the sunset period if it'd end up fixing things in the long term....I've never agreed with social security, and it's becoming more and more obvious why it was a bad idea in the first place.

401k is a large part of my retirement investment at the moment as it is flexible and allows me to pick fixed rates or higher-gain ventures.

I will diversify as I get older, since I am at a place in my life where money isn't exactly a plentiful enough to invest without my company's support. (They match 4% and drop profit sharing money into it each year, which is $6-10k).

[MixmasterNash]

Yeah, because inflation has been obviously running rampant the last 15 years or so.

I think it's safe to say that we'll see a period or two of high inflation over the next 40 years, don't you?

[PowerManDL]

This "red state" and "blue state" nonsense goes to show one thing:

BOTH sides are fascist - period.

Bingo.

Finally somebody gets it.

[HahnB]

Kerry appears to to fake the the public to have been elected. In one of his famous shotgun poses he was actuallly carrying a gun that he voted to ban.

[shootermcgavin7]

I think it's safe to say that we'll see a period or two of high inflation over the next 40 years, don't you?


Compared to now? Sure. Compared to the late 70s? That's very doubtful unless we somehow end up with a protectionist government.

[galileo]

Anyway, as for retirement, I hope all the kids reading this are rocking some Roth IRAs with max contributions. With the magic of compounding interest, 2-3k+tax a year starting at age 25 will leave you with $1 million cash, tax free at retirement age. Of course, 30-40 years from now, $1 million dollars might just buy a nice South Korean car.

Edit:
Gyno, yes, we know you're happy being a pink and frilly stater.


I did a simple Excel spreadsheet to show a 3% inflation per year and $1,000,000 will be closer to $2.35 million in 30 years and $3.2 million in 40 years. That would mean a $20,000 car would be roughly ~$63,000. Unless I'm totally off on my figures.

[Tryska]

Kerry appears to to fake the the public to have been elected. In one of his famous shotgun poses he was actuallly carrying a gun that he voted to ban.


he was hunting geese and pheasant with an assault rifle?


dammit, why did i ever vote for him.

[galileo]

Bingo.

Finally somebody gets it.

Oh, I get it too. That's why I voted all 3rd party for local government. I just have personal agendas that don't fall in line with Mr. Bush's.

[MixmasterNash]

I did a simple Excel spreadsheet to show a 3% inflation per year and $1,000,000 will be closer to $2.35 million in 30 years and $3.2 million in 40 years. That would mean a $20,000 car would be roughly ~$63,000. Unless I'm totally off on my figures.

Jesus H. Red State Christ. The car thing was a joke.

Edit:
Oh yeah, and <john goodman voice>NERD!</voice>

[Focused70]

Aren't there any purple states? :p

Look at it this way: Bush has only 22 months left to dominate political life in Washington before the midterm elections force him into lame duck status. (22 months because the current Congress is in lame duck status already and no significant work will occur in Washington until at least after the inauguration which takes place in late January 2005.)

Therefore, he will move swiftly, so at least the pain will be quick.

Have to look at the silver lining even if it's a little tarnished. ;)

Stash

[galileo]

Jesus H. Red State Christ. The car thing was a joke.

Edit:
Oh yeah, and <john goodman voice>NERD!</voice>

I was doing my best aka23 impression. :)

I also knew it was a joke, but I was interested in figuring that out anyhow, so I just figured I'd share my results. Dirty bastard.

[sublime99]

What can you do " a country boy can survive" LOL

[Blood&Iron]

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

[aka23]

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

http://www.sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
http://strangedoctrines.typepad.com/strange_doctrines/2004/05/iq_income_and_b.html

[ReturnedFire]

i just can't believe that "moral issues" was the most important factor for Bush's re-election. and when i say "moral issues" we're talking obviously about gays, abortion, and getting the country back to it's "christian roots"...

separation of church and state is in danger methinks...

[MixmasterNash]

i just can't believe that "moral issues" was the most important factor for Bush's re-election. and when i say "moral issues" we're talking obviously about gays, abortion, and getting the country back to it's "christian roots"... :bang:

As John Stewart said: "Dudes kissing."

[sublime99]

LMAO so what you guys are implying is that almost all of America has low IQ's more or less they are stupid and low income? LMAO what spin.

[anyone]

According to his website, he voted for Bush in 2000 and didn't this time...

By Eric Zorn
Chicago Tribune Blog
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ericzorn/chi-zornlog.story

Republican President Bush will enjoy a Republican Senate, a Republican House, Republican appointees in seven of the nine Supreme Court justice seats, 29 Republican governors and virtually 24/7 support from right-wing talk radio to help him realize those promises and confirm the beliefs of his supporters.

Credit and blame for what happens in this country and to this country in the upcoming years will belong to him and his party.

Speaking for myself, I'll be happy to apportion both and trust that they will accept it honestly.

They begged the electorate to give them responsibility. Well, they've got it:

Opportunity. Responsibility and that ol' devil Accountability.

No more blaming Dan Rather, Tom Daschle or the homosexual agenda when things go wrong.

No more bleating about what President Clinton did to the economy and a White House intern and didn't do to Osama bin Laden.

But winning an election does not demonstrate the superiority of your principles and programs; it's merely a chance to do so.

To the old saying that the only poll that matters is the poll taken inside the voting booth on election day, I'd add that the only vote that matters is the vote ultimately cast by history.

I have more doubts than hopes about what history will say about George W. Bush. So does about 48 percent of the electorate.

The doubts will inspire our vigilance. The hopes will get us through.

[estropes]

I love the bogus IQ argument!!!

When half the states on the list voted for Bill Clinton in the 90's you hear nothing about the so-called IQ argument.

When a republican gets into office people just make stuff up to defend the fact that there guy didn't get into office.

[Tryska]

And so it begins........
>
>
> President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to
> head up the Food and Drug administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
> Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two
> years, during which time its charter has lapsed. As a result, the Bush
> Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
> members.
>
> This position does not require Congressional approval. The FDA's
> Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on
> matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics,
>
> gynecology
>
> and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception,
> treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical
> procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.
>
> Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the
> mainstream of setback for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a
> practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to
> prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As
> Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends
> biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from
>
> Hager's
>
> practice.
>
> In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
> Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
> syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an
> editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A
> Christian Appraisal of Sexuality, Reproductive Technologies and the
> Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate
> assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.
> Hagar's mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in
> revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe
> and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the
> Christia! n Medical Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls
>
> upon
>
> the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's
> health.
>
> Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds
> rather than scientific merit would halt the development of mifepristone
> as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately
> affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine
> fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's
> syndrome.
>
> Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective
>
> drugs
>
> for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy.
> For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those
> undergoing treatment for cancer pregnancy can be a life-threatening
> condition.
>
> We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color
>
> his
>
> assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives!
>
> or
>
> to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using
> religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a
> dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this
> committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be held
> hostage by antiabortion politics.
>
> Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of
> science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women
> deserve no less.
>
> WHAT CAN YOU DO?
>
> 1. SEND THIS TO EVERY PERSON WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.
>
> 2. OPPOSE THE PLACEMENT OF THIS MAN BY CONTACTING THE WHITE HOUSE AND
> TELL THEM HE IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE ON ANY LEVEL.
>
> Please email President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov or call the
> White House at (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414 and say "I oppose the
> appointment of Dr. Hager to the FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory
> Committee. Mixing religion and medicine is unacceptable. Using the FDA
> to promote a political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens
> all women's health."

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/hager.htm
>

[Mystic Eric]

I thought Tryska's post might have been some sort of email sent without merit but I did some quick research and found that Tryska's post is indeed true:


A quiet battle is raging over the Bush Administration's plan to appoint a scantily credentialed doctor, whose writings include a book titled As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now, to head an influential Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel on women's health policy. Sources tell Time that the agency's choice for the advisory panel is Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman's Body, which puts "an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager's appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington's Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager did not return several calls for comment.

You can read the rest of it here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html


LOL all I have to say is 4 MORE YEARS!!!!! :clap: :thumbup:

[Tryska]

nope. that's why i posted the link to snopes at the bottom. ;-)


the ironic thing about this refusal to prescribe birth control is that many woman take birth control for health issues that have nothing to do with getting pregnant or not.


they take it for their skin, for PCOS, for endometriosis, fibroids.....

[sublime99]

LLLLLMMMMMAAAAAAOOOOOOO! LIBS you gotta love em!

[Mystic Eric]

LLLLLMMMMMAAAAAAOOOOOOO! LIBS you gotta love em!

I love it when people have nothing constructive to say and have no reason or facts to prove a point so they go about throwing labels around...

Tryska, who needs science when the power of god IS ON YOUR SIDE!!!!!

[Tryska]

what's so funny sublime?

[sublime99]

The usual crazy and spacy stuff you guys talk about like its going to end the world. You guys talk and act like the world is going to end and Bush will be the new hitler and we will control the rest of the world, but if john kerry was elected it would have been roses and violets and we would all have been skipping through fields of yellow flowers together and not have to work a day in our lives. LMAO 4 more years!

[estropes]

As a rightwinger let me just say that birth control will not be banned.

My guess is, it won't change from they way it is now.

I could only image the outrage by the masses if anyone tried to chage the laws on birth control. So I don't think that the Article Tryska posted is that big of a deal.

[Tryska]

sublime....nah. Bush could never be the new Hitler. Hitler was smarter. He can be the Head Puppet in Charge tho.


Estropes - are you not aware that for the past year or so more and more pharmacists, pharmacists techs, doctors and nurse practitioners have been refusing to fill or write prescriptions for birth control?

based solely on some sort of twisted moral acrobatics that see birth-control as baby-killing?

[Tryska]

incidentally, i think come June 2005, barring something totally unpredicted, a lot of y'all will be singing a whole new tune.

[Mystic Eric]

4 More Years!!!!

[MixmasterNash]

As a rightwinger let me just say that birth control will not be banned.

My guess is, it won't change from they way it is now.

I could only image the outrage by the masses if anyone tried to chage the laws on birth control. So I don't think that the Article Tryska posted is that big of a deal.

As a leftwinger let me just say that birth control has been banned for all overseas family aid supplied by the U.S. government. Because of this Christian moralist agenda, thousands, if not millions, of women and men have contracted STDs and the spread of AIDS has accelerated.

The Christian agenda is killing people in Africa, Thailand, South Asia and elsewhere around the world. Morals my shinny tinfoil hatted ass. You're murderers if you support that.

[estropes]

Wrong,

The belief that AIDs is not real is killing people in Africa. The refusal to wear Condoms in Africa is killing Africans. The believe that women should dry themselves...ie no lubrications, because dry sex is a perfence in Africa is leading to spreading AIDs in africa. I could go on and on with there wacked out social ideas, but I'll stop there. America has nothing...and I mean nothing to do with the spreading of AIDs in Africa. As for the other places you named, similar idea's lead to similar results.

As for the spreading of AIDs....THEY KNOW WHAT CAUSES IT NOW!!!!

As for doctors not perscribing birthcontrol, I find that very very hard to beleive. Please post some information.

[Tryska]

uhh...take a look at that email i sent you.


there's been countless stories in the news. NOT FOX - try one of the big 3.


otherwise find your own info. i'm sick and tired of spoon-feeding y'all. do your own damn research.


actually here's a good starting point.

http://www.cmdahome.org/index.cgi?CONTEXT=art&art=1183&cat=100040&BISKIT=1475585520

[Mystic Eric]

Wrong,

The belief that AIDs is not real is killing people in Africa. The refusal to wear Condoms in Africa is killing Africans. The believe that women should dry themselves...ie no lubrications, because dry sex is a perfence in Africa is leading to spreading AIDs in africa. I could go on and on with there wacked out social ideas, but I'll stop there. America has nothing...and I mean nothing to do with the spreading of AIDs in Africa. As for the other places you named, similar idea's lead to similar results.

As for the spreading of AIDs....THEY KNOW WHAT CAUSES IT NOW!!!!

As for doctors not perscribing birthcontrol, I find that very very hard to beleive. Please post some information.

It's spelled AIDS. AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. The "s" stands for a word, it's not meant to make "AID" plural.

Oh, and forget 4 more years, 12 MORE YEARS!!!

[Tryska]

ironically i just found this on my way to do some totally unrelated research:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill


jesus christ in 4 more years we're gonna wind up being some sort of wierd middle ages post-apocalyptic nightmare.

[shootermcgavin7]

Tryska,
before the elections we had some pretty intelligent debates, but it seems all you've been doing for the last week is ramble about how the world is going to end.

[MixmasterNash]

The belief that AIDs is not real is killing people in Africa. The refusal to wear Condoms in Africa is killing Africans. The believe that women should dry themselves...ie no lubrications, because dry sex is a perfence in Africa is leading to spreading AIDs in africa. I could go on and on with there wacked out social ideas, but I'll stop there. America has nothing...and I mean nothing to do with the spreading of AIDs in Africa. As for the other places you named, similar idea's lead to similar results..

Oh indeed, I agree that there are plenty of reasons for the spread of AIDS, especially those that you mentioned. But the failure of American aid programs to support birth control, condom distribution, etc. directly impacts the lives of millions of people. In Uganda, one of the few success stories in the fight against AIDS in the developing world, infection rates are low due to education, testing, and CONDOM DISTRIBUTION.

The Global Gag Rules/Mexico City rules prevent any education about abortion, which just so happens to affect most of the NGOs working in this field, who provide abortion information as one small aspect of their work. Contraception funding of all kinds is limited, even though we know that family planning reduced maternal mortality and raises standards of living.

This is fundamentally related to the power structure of the Republican party. All aspects of the social agenda is driven by very right wing evangelical Christians. The other factions of the Republican party, libertarians, corporations, etc. don't seem to care that much about these issues as they have no effect on their goals and ideology.

[Tryska]

Shooter, you didn't get that memo?



it is in fact going to end if the last week has been any indication of what's coming down the pike.

you can live in denial all you want, or you can do everything you can to wake people out of the stupor. i'm choosing the latter. i feel it's my american duty.

[sublime99]

Consider this a severe warning.

You always seem to be the main degenerator of these threads.


If you do it again, you will no longer be welcome to post on the site.

BE CIVIL.

[anyone]

Oh your an american i almost forgot, hell with all your anti american post's i figured you would live in another country.

I love how conservatives have made disagreeing with them 'anti-american.'

Go read your Bill of Rights.

[sublime99]

So from what i gather America causes aids in other countries because people in other counties refuse to take what advice and education we give them. Do i have that right? So if i was to take a sex education class and they told me to wear a condom and i din't then it would be their fault not mine. Hell if that is the case i can sue for millions.

[Gyno Rhino]

Stop, all of you, now. Or the thread is closed.

[Tryska]

no. the point is that the sex education classes aren't INCLUDING birth control advice.


what's going on in our country right now? this struggle between rational science and religious dogma? it's been playing out in our funding to other countries for the last 3 or 4 years.

[anyone]

So from what i gather America causes aids in other countries because people in other counties refuse to take what advice and education we give them. Do i have that right? So if i was to take a sex education class and they told me to wear a condom and i din't then it would be their fault not mine. Hell if that is the case i can sue for millions.

No, the point is that the restrictions put on AIDS funding to Africa by Bush won't even let the aid workers talk to the Africans about condoms or forms of birth control besides abstinence.

[sublime99]

They are lucky we are even GIVING them aid and support, if it was up to the dems/libs we wouldn't help anyone.

[Tryska]

They are lucky we are even GIVING them aid and support, if it was up to the dems/libs we wouldn't help anyone.

:omg: what?!

[Tryska]

wow. you're gonna have to explain that comment and how you arrive at it sublime. the one about dems/libs not helping anyone i mean.


i'm curious to your explanation now.

[sublime99]

Birth control should be a personal choice not a mandate of a sex education class, They can't talk about birth control because not everyone can use it. There are certain medical implications that don't allow certain people to use this as a method of protection. By allowing talk about Birth control would mean we i.e. the US would have to supply it that means more taxes out of my pocket to some thrid world person that i could care less about. The aid they recieve over their is more than i can stand for, we offer free medical, free sex education classes, free food and so on and so on. They are very lucky to have us over there helping.


No, the point is that the restrictions put on AIDS funding to Africa by Bush won't even let the aid workers talk to the Africans about condoms or forms of birth control besides abstinence.

Prove this

This thread is pointless and way off topic, Bush is in and all the dems will have to suck it up and be adults for four more years.

[Tryska]

that's all well and good that your worried about paying for birth control for other countries.


what i find is remarkable that you find it even ok to pay for any sort of medical treatment fo citizens of other countries, and can't give a rat's ass about medical care for those in your own.


but back to the more important point..please explain this "dems/libs wouldn't help anyone else" bit.

[Gyno Rhino]

but back to the more important point..please explain this "dems/libs wouldn't help anyone else" bit.

Actually, please don't.

There is no explanation for this nonsense. Sublime, I have PMed you about being a GOOD poster. See this crap you posted about "the dems/libs wouldn't help anyone" - see, that is a BAD post. It serves no purpose. You gave no examples, no backing statement, not even a denotion of a personal opinion - you simply blurted out nonsense, and all it does is anger people. STOP.

[Tryska]

alright glen, sorry. i'm backing up.

[sublime99]

Ok all i have to say is 4 more years! im done with this thread. Understood gyno will use as future reference, my apologies.

[Gyno Rhino]

alright glen, sorry. i'm backing up.

Well, now that Sublime has bowed out - I expect to see some good conversation points occurring in this thread now.

I don't like to close threads - but we ALL need to be on the lookout for degenerators. Just because someone comes in and posts some nonsense doesn't mean we can't all ignore it (sometimes it is hard, though).

So let's get back to talking about how much smarter I am than all of you.

[Tryska]

let's talk about that militia we were gonna start. now might be a good time.

[MixmasterNash]

Hmmm. Okay. I just spent 20 minutes explaining sniper rifles to some of the foreign grad students.

[sublime99]

:lurk:

[Brawl]

Here is what I know ... I shot about 800 rounds from my Mini colt AR-15 over the weekend . About 300 rounds from my Glock 17c ported . I'm ready for anything . Whether it's zombies or liberal gun grabbers ... come and get it .

Time to purchase a new weapon ... hmmmmmmm .

[MixmasterNash]

Here is what I know ... I shot about 800 rounds from my Mini colt AR-15 over the weekend . About 300 rounds from my Glock 17c ported . I'm ready for anything . Whether it's zombies or liberal gun grabbers ... come and get it .

Time to purchase a new weapon ... hmmmmmmm .

It sounds like you blew your entire load of ammunition. As for a third gun, I recommend an 12 gauge pump action. Yeah, pumping is much more useful than a two barrel. How about a large caliber rifle? You gun would totally be the biggest in the room. A revolver perhaps? When you cock it, that would be very intimidating.

[sublime99]

Brawl you should pick up a Taurus .45 really nice handgun, i have owned one for 3 years and i wouldn't trade it for anything. Mariner shotgun is nice for close encounters.

[Focused70]

From the New York Times today:


WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans are resigning in the first of a string of departures expected before President Bush is inaugurated for a second term.

Mr. Ashcroft's resignation will end one of the more controversial tenures in the attorney general's office in recent decades. Mr. Ashcroft presided over the Justice Department in a time of crisis and bitter debate over the balance between national security and individual liberty that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

To his admirers, Mr. Ashcroft was a tireless and incorruptible law enforcer determined to protect the country and unafraid of criticism from civil libertarians. To his critics, he has been willing to skirt the Constitution to fulfill his and President Bush's concept of national security.

The resignations were announced by the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, who said President Bush had accepted the decisions of both secretaries, The Associated Press said this afternoon.

"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved," Mr. Ashcroft wrote in a five-page, handwritten letter to Mr. Bush, The A.P. said.

"Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration," Mr. Ashcroft said. "I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons."

The departure of Mr. Ashcroft was not a big surprise since the attorney general, who is 62, had a severe gallstone ailment earlier this year and has had a sometimes bumpy relationship with the White House.

The most likely successors to Mr. Ashcroft are thought to be Larry Thompson, who served as the deputy attorney general until last year and would be in line to become the first black attorney general in history, and Marc Racicot, who played a key role in Mr. Bush's victory as chairman of his re-election campaign and was considered for the attorney general's job in 2000.

Also mentioned as candidates are James B. Comey Jr., who succeeded Mr. Thompson as deputy attorney general; Frank Keating, the former Oklahoma governor who was also considered for the job in 2000; John Danforth, the former Missouri senator; Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and federal prosecutor; and Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel and longtime adviser to Mr. Bush.

Mr. Ashcroft is a former governor and attorney general of Missouri. He was elected senator from Missouri in 1994 but was defeated in 2000. Shortly after his defeat, Mr. Bush named him as his attorney general, pleasing many conservatives but alarming critics who said Mr. Ashcroft had shown insensitivity to racial justice while holding public office in Missouri.

As attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft was officially responsible for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which came under heavy criticism while he was in office. In the spring of 2001, the disclosure that the F.B.I. had failed to turn over some documents to lawyers for Timothy McVeigh, as required, delayed the execution of the Oklahoma City bomber.

And on Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacked the United States, killing some 3,000 people. The F.B.I. was severely criticized afterward for not picking up clues that might have thwarted the terrorist plot. Then came the anti-terrorism law-enforcement tactics, including wider use of surveillance and scrutiny of immigrants and foreign visitors, that are still being debated.

The tension between civil rights and national safety that is still being felt is not uncommon to America in wartime, and it has been scrutinized by historians since the country's founding. Mr. Ashcroft's own legacy is likely to be debated for years.

Mr. Evans's profile at Commerce has been much lower. A former businessman in the oil and gas industry, he worked on Mr. Bush's campaigns for Texas governor in 1994 and 1998 and served as chairman of the 2000 presidential campaign.

Both Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Evans have been in the cabinet from the start of the administration. "While the promise of your second term shines bright, I have concluded with deep regret that it is time for me to return home," Mr. Evans wrote in his resignation letter, according to The A.P.

Click here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/10ashcroftcnd.html?hp&ex=1100062800&en=6f9653d9bea836b3&ei=5094&partner=homepage) to read the article.

Thus, the question now becomes, who are their replacements?

Stash

[shootermcgavin7]

Shooter, you didn't get that memo?



it is in fact going to end if the last week has been any indication of what's coming down the pike.

you can live in denial all you want, or you can do everything you can to wake people out of the stupor. i'm choosing the latter. i feel it's my american duty.


Tryska,

I guess I missed the memo, but I was certainly a swing voter (if that means I really didn't want to vote for either of them), and the sudden fear-mongering about the end of the world coming from one side of the political spectrum is certainly a turn off.

You call it "living in denial", but I honestly believe things will not be different whether Kerry or Bush had won.

You have talked with me enough to know that I'm not a political radical, and that I look at the facts before I come to a personal decision.

[Scott S]

I voted for Badnarik.

The Ashcroft resignation warmed my heart, but we're certainly not out of the woods yet.

[shootermcgavin7]

Thus, the question now becomes, who are their replacements?

Stash


Guilliani is rumored to be Ashcroft's replacement.

[MixmasterNash]

Guilliani is rumored to be Ashcroft's replacement.

Ah, that sounds good. Rudy "I didn't serve, but I'll blame the troops!" Gulliani is a favorite of mine. What a sad shill for the national GOP he became in the past year.

[shootermcgavin7]

Ah, that sounds good. Rudy "I didn't serve, but I'll blame the troops!" Gulliani is a favorite of mine. What a sad shill for the national GOP he became in the past year.

While I would consider his nomination a cheap political trick, I'm really curious as to your opposition, Mix.

[PowerManDL]

T, that FDA article is *exactly* the reason for the point I was making (in this thread or the other one, I forget) about the Federal government intruding too far into none of its business.

And nobody's dancing over Ashcroft's departure more than I am.

[Tryska]

:clap: yay! crime and terror no longer exist! we don't need an attorney general anymore, because ashcroft took care of everything.


shooter - i understand what you are saying, however, i don't think it's unfounded hysteria. you are looking at you, and your lifestyle right now, this week. the thing is tho, these changes are slow and creeping. The fact that they are creeping at all concerns me. And it makes me wonder what will happen within the next 4 years, because frnakly speaking, with the emperor considering himself on a "mandate" and enforcing the will of the people, things are going to get rammed through, faster, and with little regard.

and the way i look at it, as a female, my reproductive freedom is being slowly buyt surely dismantled. it may not come with an overturning of roe v wade tomorrow, but it's creeping through.

maybe you have the luxury of not being alarmed, as a woman i can't say the same.

dl - i understand what you are saying....and i agree this is reaching too far into the lives of ordinary humans, however - a baseline of taking care of "the least of these" is for some people a moral imperative. and that comes in the form of social security, welfare (whatever it's iteration - i feel it still needs some more reform), medicare and medicaid, unemployment insurance, overtime pay, WIC, foodstamps etc. Many people believe in providing a safety net. It's not to be taken advatnage of and sure it can use some reform, but understand that many people do want these things to be in place.

[PowerManDL]

dl - i understand what you are saying....and i agree this is reaching too far into the lives of ordinary humans, however - a baseline of taking care of "the least of these" is for some people a moral imperative. and that comes in the form of social security, welfare (whatever it's iteration - i feel it still needs some more reform), medicare and medicaid, unemployment insurance, overtime pay, WIC, foodstamps etc. Many people believe in providing a safety net. It's not to be taken advatnage of and sure it can use some reform, but understand that many people do want these things to be in place.

The problem is that it's a slippery slope.

If it's ok for them to support you with social security/welfare/free health care, why is it a leap of imagination that they should protect us from dangerous drugs, nudity on the airwaves, and so forth?

Where's the line to be drawn?

[Tryska]

that i have no idea.

[galileo]

The problem is that it's a slippery slope.

If it's ok for them to support you with social security/welfare/free health care, why is it a leap of imagination that they should protect us from dangerous drugs, nudity on the airwaves, and so forth?

Where's the line to be drawn?

Maybe people require support, not protection? (in the sense of moral values, personal choices)

[Tryska]

hmm...that's a good way of putting it gal.

[PowerManDL]

Yes, but again...that's getting into dangerous waters because they love the hell out of loopholes.

Protection and support sound different to us, but could easily be lawyer-talked into meaning the same thing.

[Tryska]

and essentially it's up to us, to keep them from lawyer-talking their way out of it.

but in any case, we can't hodl them accountable when over half of us seem to think whatever they do is fine.


interesting discussion of taxation on Air America raido right now if you get it, btw.

[PowerManDL]

Don't assume that a vote for Bush equates support for big government.

Certainly it may for some of those with agendas (ie the wacko Christian movement), but by and far I don't believe most of those supporting Bush see it that way.

[Tryska]

what did they see it as?

i mean it's not like he doesn't have a 4-year record of not just big but HUGE beuraucracy to back up that presumption.


that's what i'd like to know. for all those people that claim they didn't vote for a Big Government Evangelical Corporate agenda, but voted for it anyway, what the heck did they think they were voting for?

[MixmasterNash]

Don't assume that a vote for Bush equates support for big government.

Certainly it may for some of those with agendas (ie the wacko Christian movement), but by and far I don't believe most of those supporting Bush see it that way.

A vote for Bush is tacit support for big government at a minimum. If people don't know it, then they are simply prima facie evidence for the case that Republicans are ignorant or dumb.

What's interesting about this is that even the anti-big-government folks recognize and support this. Grover Norquist's starve the beast theory is the leading government reduction plan within the Republican establishment.

A conventional fiscal conservative, such as McCain or Chafee, must accept that they are voting for big government as well. McCain, for example, accepts this because he thinks the war on terror far overrides fiscal priorities.

[galileo]

I voted for Mayor Goldie Wilson. Progress is his middle name!

[PowerManDL]

A vote for Bush is tacit support for big government at a minimum. If people don't know it, then they are simply prima facie evidence for the case that Republicans are ignorant or dumb.

What's interesting about this is that even the anti-big-government folks recognize and support this. Grover Norquist's starve the beast theory is the leading government reduction plan within the Republican establishment.

A conventional fiscal conservative, such as McCain or Chafee, must accept that they are voting for big government as well. McCain, for example, accepts this because he thinks the war on terror far overrides fiscal priorities.

In your viewpoint. Not everyone necessarily sees it that way.

[Tryska]

so Matt - what did they see it as?

Because whatever they saw it as, it doesn't negate the facts they actually voted for. Big government, and Intrusive government.

[not_big_enuf]

Bush is a complete idiot. Every business he ever touched turned to crap, he was a crap student, flubbed his military responsibilties and hosed our country the last four year and will continue to do so.

Want some good George Dumbya quotes? These are ALL true quotes... none are made up.

http://supak.com/bush.htm

[MixmasterNash]

In your viewpoint. Not everyone necessarily sees it that way.

Of course, they can see a vote for Bush as a crack monkey eating a vase of pink flowers if they want. However, that might be a more correct interpretaton than the ridiculous notion that Bush will restrain government spending.

I mean, what will it take? A full 8 years of Bush blowing out the budget? I'm sure people will still be saying stuff like "He's a fiscal conservative!" even after that. Those people are also known as morons.

[Tryska]

NEWS FLASH:

"The Republican National Committee announced today that the Republican Party is changing its emblem from an elephant to a condom.

The committee chairman explained that the condom more clearly reflects the party's stance today, because a condom accepts inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually getting screwed."

[MixmasterNash]

Also just in, from The Onion, of course:

Liberals Return to Sodomy, Welfare Fraud
BERKELEY, CA—No longer occupied by the 2004 election, liberals across the country have returned to the activities they enjoy most: anal sex and cheating the welfare system. "I've been so busy canvassing for the Democratic Party, I haven't had a single moment for suckling at the government's teat or no-holds-barred ass ramming," said Jason Carvelli, an unemployed pro-hemp activist. "Now, my friends and I can finally get back to warming our hands over burning American flags and turning kids gay." Carvelli added that his "number-one priority" is undermining the efforts of freedom-loving patriots everywhere.

[Tryska]

*lmao*

that's pretty funny.

[Chubrock]

Bush is a complete idiot. Every business he ever touched turned to crap, he was a crap student, flubbed his military responsibilties and hosed our country the last four year and will continue to do so.

Want some good George Dumbya quotes? These are ALL true quotes... none are made up.

http://supak.com/bush.htm



Here buddy, before you say he flubbed his military responsibilities, take a look at some of these figures http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx Granted this website leans to the "right" all these figures are part of his military record, which is completely open for all to view. If you bother reading the article you'll see that he in fact went above and beyond his duty in the Air National Guard.

[Tryska]

umm...who cares?



the guy still hasn't fought in any wars, nor has anyone in his cabinet, save colin powell, who no one listens to. maybe if they did iraq wouldn't be such a continued mess.

[Chubrock]

Tryska, all I was doing was stating the facts. You always seem to imply that people always ignore the facts and only focus on what they want to believe in. You are doing the exact same thing now with the comment you just made. The guy (sorry if you aren't a guy) stated that Bush flubbed his military responsibilities, when in actuality, he went above and beyond what was asked of him. You seem to think that just because he wasn't involved in any major combat, that he didn't do much of anything. How do you explain that to the men and women that have served this country but never seen major combat themselves? Do you think that they are ignorant because of this fact?

[Tryska]

again...who cares? it's irrelevant to the situation at hand, save for the fact that he and most of his cabinet have no idea how to run a war.



and to answer your question, do you think it's fair to the thousands of people who served and died in Vietnam that a draft dodger, and someone who served in the champagne unit and was able to take time off to go campaigning, as opposed to dodging bullets, should now be sending those Veterans kids into a war that suffers from the same fundamental flaw as Vietnam did? Namely NO Exit Strategy? AND No Coalition?



Dubya's grand-daddy said during Vietnam that we should think twice about this war we are in, in which we have no support from our allies, and most of the world has turned agaisnt us.


I'm paraphrasing, but if you need the exact quote, i'll be happy to provide it tomorrow.

[Chubrock]

I guess now that the election is over and Bush is still in office, it doesn't really carry all that much relevance. The only thing is, I heard a lot of people during the campaigns talk about his record with the National Guard as a bad thing, and then the above poster made that statement, so I figured I'd clear things up some. THAT'S why it is relevant. Since they have no idea how to run a war, what would you do differently in Iraq that they aren't doing now?

[Tryska]

You know why? because the republican spin machine managed to take a decorate vets record and trash it all to hell. just liek they did to mccain, and just like they did to max cleland.


that's the only reason his record came up - to show the hypocrisy.

[Tryska]

oh and there's one thing i would have done differently.

never gotten embroiled in the damn thing in the first place.

but hey, that's just me.

[Chubrock]

Your last comment I actually agree with (never going in the first place) but because Isolationism doesn't work, we've sometimes gotta do the unpopular thing. I actually think now that we are there, Bush and Company is finally starting to handle things pretty well (not perfect, just pretty well). Seems like the Marines, Soldiers and other military on the ground are finally getting the okay to whoop some terrorist ass. Stay safe guys.

[Rock]

I am just wondering about this, are the iraqi forces fighting now for "their" iraq against what they see as usa occupying them, terrorists or freedom fighters.

[Spartan936]

Bush: "Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me."—May 27, 2004

ROFLMAO hahahahahahaha!!!!


Bush is adorable. He really is a pleasant guy. I can see why slightly over half the country voted for him. These voters didn't research any of his destructive policies (taxes, war, international relations, church & state...), they weren't affected by the debates between him and Kerry, no. The majority of voters in the US cast their ballots based on simplistic stereotypes, such as:
A. Bush is evil and Kerry isn't Bush, or
B. Bush is at least solid (and Jesus lovin'!) while Kerry can't decide on anything.

Only when I looked long and hard did I find actual debate on real issues. I found it in the most obscure places, places where few Americans would venture. Ahhh... crap I'm ranting and I'm tired. In sum, the media and money in elections are bad; they over-simplify everything, offer no real choices, and dumb Americans down.

And who knows, maybe the red states voted republican becuase they aren't city folk, and are less informed than the "blue city dwellers". lol. Yeah, that was an unoriginal cheap shot. OK i'd better stop before I say something stoopid.

[RichLockyer]

Lord knows if people judged my intelligence based on how I speak in front of people, they wouldn't think too much of me either.
Nahh.... it's not how you speak, it's that Space Invaders avatar :)

[RichLockyer]

TBone4eva, and the video is not fumbled with?, allright, I give, but I still have a hard time believing he said that saying wrong, he seems like an intelligent guy, and Ive read he has a very high IQ.
Given many other "Bushisms", it would not surprise me at all.
There have been rumors for a long time that GW is borderline dyslexic. This is certainly not a rip on his intelligence... quite the contrary, ADD and true dyslexia frequently accompany extremely high intelligence. This can really show through in public speaking, especially when unscripted.

[Chubrock]

Do you think the man who came back from Vietnam, bashed all of the soldiers he served with, whose comments caused the torture of American POWs, who has STILL not apologized to the men he hurt, should be leading our armed services? You're saying that he dodged the war because he joined a National Guard unit. Do you not feel that the men and women serving in the National Guard are doing their part? Tell that to my cousin who is in Iraq right now fighting along side the men and women you seem to think are "real" soldiers.

[Spartacus]

Do you think the man who came back from Vietnam, bashed all of the soldiers he served with, whose comments caused the torture of American POWs, who has STILL not apologized to the men he hurt, should be leading our armed services? You're saying that he dodged the war because he joined a National Guard unit. Do you not feel that the men and women serving in the National Guard are doing their part? Tell that to my cousin who is in Iraq right now fighting along side the men and women you seem to think are "real" soldiers.

maybe you should avoid debunked vendetta propaganda.

and the national guard of the vientnam era was an actual reserve, not a de facto active combat army, unlike today.

oh, and social security privitization is ******ed.

edit: retahrd is censored? lol.

[Spartacus]

Compared to now? Sure. Compared to the late 70s? That's very doubtful unless we somehow end up with a protectionist government.

or instead of worrying about an idea democrats discarded years ago, we could consider the high probability that the bush deficits continues on its current course and causes the dollar to decline further, which if doesn't happen gradually could lead to an ugly argnetinian style meltdown?

[Spartacus]

I agree with you completely here, as I think you well know.

I just can't see how something as trivial as replacing one man would have any effect on it. The trend is well beyond the ability of any single administration to replace, and frankly at this point I think it's out of our hands.

well since the "culture war" was a conservative/corporate funded movement to shift populist anger away from economic issues to symbolic (ie not going to hurt the rich's pocketbooks) wedge issues reducing their power and bush's bully pulpit would be a good start. the liberals need to do a better job of articulating a positive agenda though.[/quote]


I'm honestly not convinced it does, and I don't agree with Kyoto myself. It was a lame-duck treaty designed for the "feel good" effect. I'm actually with Dubya on this one.

kyoto was at best a bandaid on a bullethole, but doubting the reality of human-caused global climate change stopped being plausable at least five years ago.


Long-term investing only works well over the....long-term. Personally I'd much rather have my retirement money in stocks and/or mutual funds than having it go to pay this generation's elderly.

this misses the point that there are a number of people in society that can't work, becuase of disablilty, old age, etc. in the past socity hoped they had responsible kids to support them, or else they starved. today "their responsible kids" has been aggegated into the payroll tax.

one way or another you have to give some of what society produces to these people. either through the financial fiction of "ownership of equity" "sold to young people" or through government fiat. some of the manufactured butter (or guns) ends up the these people's hands, and social security just ensures that there is a minimus standard of living.

ideally as a maturing society we would have run surplusses (reduce consumption to create future liabilities we can cash in) against "younger" (ie nations with higher birth rates or those industrializing (and thus with higher capital needs), such as in teh past japan or the asian newly industrialized countries, or presently china). we didn't do that, and what chance we have left is currently being squandered in the worst of ways, thanks in large part (again) to bush's deficits.

oh, and there is no ss "crisis." somewhere far in the future the trust fund will be gone. that just means we will be back to pay as you go financing without additional "money in the bank". the medicare is the problem, and only because of general medical cost inflation.

[shootermcgavin7]

or instead of worrying about an idea democrats discarded years ago, we could consider the high probability that the bush deficits continues on its current course and causes the dollar to decline further, which if doesn't happen gradually could lead to an ugly argnetinian style meltdown?


Except that a sliding US dollar hurts the economies of other nations and helps domestic businesses.

Remember, we are a net importer.

[shootermcgavin7]

oh, and there is no ss "crisis." somewhere far in the future the trust fund will be gone. that just means we will be back to pay as you go financing without additional "money in the bank". the medicare is the problem, and only because of general medical cost inflation.


1) There is no "trust fund". It is a bookkeeping trick that disappears when the government's financial statements are consolidated.

2) The entire reason that Congress set up the current system in the early 1980s was because a "pay as you go" system would mean that SS Taxes would be something like 15-20% in 2008.

[Songsangnim]

maybe you should avoid debunked vendetta propaganda.

.


This is not debunked vendetta propaganda.


1. Yes Kerry served in Vietnam, but only after his application to avoid the draft was turned down. So in other words he didn't go willingly, but tried his best to get out of it.

2. He served four months

3. Of the wounds he received, NONE were serious, and at least two were reportedly self-inflicted.

4. After he came back, he blasted the war as unjust and immoral. So he should be applauding Bush for not serving in such a war.


5. A number of his recollections have been proved to be false. He personally recanted at least two of them (a) where he was on Christmas Eve in Vietnam. (b) what he said about the troops after he came back from the war.

[Tryska]

Do you think the man who came back from Vietnam, bashed all of the soldiers he served with, whose comments caused the torture of American POWs, who has STILL not apologized to the men he hurt, should be leading our armed services? You're saying that he dodged the war because he joined a National Guard unit. Do you not feel that the men and women serving in the National Guard are doing their part? Tell that to my cousin who is in Iraq right now fighting along side the men and women you seem to think are "real" soldiers.


yeah, you need to do your own research on kerry and vietnam, and not take your cues from the Swift Boat Veterans.


kerry came back from vietnam, he came back anti-war. He wanted our people out, and he told of the atrocities that occurred.

these things are true. My Lai is a perfect example. we were atrocious. Mccain was a POW whilst Kerry was speakign out agaisnt the war. He said he was not tortured due to any of Kerry's actions.

He and kerry then went on to get any further POWs out of Vietnam and normalize relations.


in 2 seperate campaigns, these men were both vilified for their service, totally trashed, by some guy who never went to war.

These are our nations heros. and the most unheroic of them all trashed them and y'all think he's a good man.

i don't understand that.


Incidentally - the Air National Guard during Vietnam was a place where rich men stowed their draft age kids, so they wouldn't have to be in harm's way.


Colin Powell said as much in his book.

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."

--Colin Powell, My American Journey, p. 148


The National Guard today is not the same as the National Guard of yesteryear. So don't take a diss at bush as a diss at your cousin. If anythign yu're cousins gotten screwed by this guy too, because he was never supposed to be in Iraq on back to back rotations.

[Rock]

my god Tryska, that is a powerfull post, how can anyone just turn their back to your post.

[Tryska]

thanks Rock.

but you know the deal - i've been saying the same stuff around here, since jsut after 9/11 and no one ever pays any attention. *lol*


doesn't mean i'll stop saying it tho.

[MixmasterNash]

The entire Swift Boat Vets issue is at least useful in providing us a litmus test for people's susceptibility to proaganda. Anyone who repeats their ridiculous lies, we immediately know that they can't be bothered to learn the facts. This is clearly correlated with all aspects of Bush's reelection.

[Tryska]

Personally - i thinkt he swifties would have been the first guys in line for the chance at acts of atrocity.

i think the reason they are bitter is because they got called out.

[MixmasterNash]

Just think of it as a "Red" flag. Ha ha. I crack me up.

[Spartacus]

Except that a sliding US dollar hurts the economies of other nations and helps domestic businesses.

Remember, we are a net importer.

in a small correction, yes.

in a currency crisis, its overwhelmed by other effects.

[sublime99]

Tryska, all I was doing was stating the facts. You always seem to imply that people always ignore the facts and only focus on what they want to believe in. You are doing the exact same thing now with the comment you just made. The guy (sorry if you aren't a guy) stated that Bush flubbed his military responsibilities, when in actuality, he went above and beyond what was asked of him. You seem to think that just because he wasn't involved in any major combat, that he didn't do much of anything. How do you explain that to the men and women that have served this country but never seen major combat themselves? Do you think that they are ignorant because of this fact?


My thoughts exactly

You cannot compare this to Vietnam, one of the big differences is that we were fighting against the spread fo communism and the vietnamese for the most part did not want anything to do with lberating their country of communism. In Iraq even as i type there are Iraqi soldiers fighting side by side with US troops to liberate their country, It doesn't matter what we say. We are there, and will be tehre for the long haul no pmatter how much you protest it the most you could do is not bad mouth the troops in a trivial manner. Essentially what your saying is that if you were military and never saw combat you are worthless or less of a soldier. So you think just because someone served but never saw combat they don't matter?

About the coalition, how do you keep saying we have no coalition or other countires behind us? We don't have UN approval but that does not mean we don't have other counties participating in this war. Just because France and Germany decided against it and stopped a unified UN to fight together does not mean we don't have other participating counties invloved. We could boycott both of them for all i care and i am sure the majority of the country would agree.

As far as an exit strategy wtf? Bush has said it many times, when the people of Iraq are liberated and have a goverment in place. What do you want a step by step map, it won't happen. Besides we are just getting started and the dems/libs are so anxious they can't even wait until Jan. to see what happens with the elections in Iraq. This is not a short term thing, we must secure or put a goverment in place that is sturdy then talk about an exit strategy.

[sublime99]

As far as back to back rotations in the guard or in any armed force that is a myth brought up by people all the time. I will tell you first hand that there is no limit to how long you stay, yes they must give you relief after a maximum of between 18-24 months but that releif can be as little as a 2 week leave in a safe zone on U.S. soil ie. germany etc etc.. How would you know what the regs are on military combat tours?

[Tryska]

no. what i'm saying is if you were never in Active Combat yourself, you're not fit to decide on the war plans for someone else. not without help from someone who's done this stuff before.

But when you receive yet disregard the help and advice of people who actually have done this sort of thing before, thinking your way is better? you're really really not worthy of the title Commander in Cheif. Because you bring disgrace to it.



here's a note on those iraqi troops - many of them - those who weren't killed by their own as turncoats, have taken the training we've given them, taken the weapons we've given them, and the great new camo - and have switched sides in the middle of battle.

I saw that on the news jsut the other day, coming out of one of our own soldiers mouthes.


And again, on this damn coalition - we are shouldering 90% of the burden for this war. THe only other countries that are participating with troops are UK And AUS the others are making nominal donations, offers of monekys and support in name only. Except Poland. i forgot Poland. Shortly after that 1st debate, Poland decided they would be pullign their troops out in January - so another one bites the dust. THe last time we went to war with iraq - we shouldered 5% of the burden (both financially and troops-wise).



And using you're language, especially we can definitely compare this war to Vietnam. Except this time we are "fighting the spread of terrorism" and the iraqis for the most part want us the hell out and don't really want anything to do with spreading Freedom and Democracy.

[Tryska]

As far as back to back rotations in the guard or in any armed force that is a myth brought up by people all the time. I will tell you first hand that there is no limit to how long you stay, yes they must give you relief after a maximum of between 18-24 months but that releif can be as little as a 2 week leave in a safe zone on U.S. soil ie. germany etc etc.. How would you know what the regs are on military combat tours?


so you're saying troops aren't getting prepared to ship home, and then finding out they're being sent back out?



you sure on that? because there's a bunch of families right here in Georgia who would call you a damn liar.

[sublime99]

Are you or them familiar with military law, and how deployment works? I would do some research for you but i will let you do it yourself. If you sign up for the armed forces, and are deployed it's no one fault but your own. I signed the dotted line and got deployed, but you didn't hear me whining and complaing nor my family when i was supposed to come home and didn't for another 4. 5 months. You forget the fact that alot of single soldiers with no kids or family of their own re-up and volenteer to serve in place of someone who does have a family and wants to go home.

Who ever said that active combat and military service are a requirment to be commander and chief? It's not a requirment and never will be, the joob of the president is not to be a active combat expert, that is why he has a panel of experts to advise him. I would beg to differ on the Iraqi's wanting us out to leave the to tyrannts/terrorist who would kill them as soon as we left.

About soldier preparing to ship home getting sent back out is nothing new, it happens all the time and will continue to happen. It is all part of being in the military and what you signed up for.

You can check out some links with pics sent by a US soldier serving in Iraq and these will probably never be seen on CNN.

http://www.pbase.com/kburch/the_picture_from_iraq_you_wont_see_in_the_news

Copy and paste sorry guys

[Chubrock]

Great website Sublime. Thanks for the heads up on that. By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what branch of the service were you in?

Even though the majority of veterans I know and have talked to think Kerry committed "acts of treason" after returning from Vietnam, the only reason I brought it was up because you (Tryska) stated that because Bush has never been in a major conflict that he shouldn't be POTUS. Like sublime said, having been in major combat is NOT a prerequisite for being the POTUS, it never has. That's why they have the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the top military advisors from all branches of the service. THESE men are the ones with the knowledge and expertise that counsel President Bush on what should be done.

[shootermcgavin7]

in a small correction, yes.

in a currency crisis, its overwhelmed by other effects.


The only reason the G7 got together in the late 1980s to "fix" (artifically prop up the value of the dollar) was because the US imports such massive amounts from other nations that it was hurting their economy.

[shootermcgavin7]

And again, on this damn coalition - we are shouldering 90% of the burden for this war. THe only other countries that are participating with troops are UK And AUS the others are making nominal donations, offers of monekys and support in name only. Except Poland. i forgot Poland. Shortly after that 1st debate, Poland decided they would be pullign their troops out in January - so another one bites the dust. THe last time we went to war with iraq - we shouldered 5% of the burden (both financially and troops-wise).



I asked this in another thread, Tryska, but do you consider the Korean war a "coalition"?

[sublime99]

Great website Sublime. Thanks for the heads up on that. By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what branch of the service were you in?
Don't mind at all Army

[Chubrock]

Good deal buddy. My dad was a Navy doctor with the Marine Corps. We were stationed at Camp Lejune for two years and the Naval Base in Charleston for a year. He's in the reserves now though.

[Spartacus]

The only reason the G7 got together in the late 1980s to "fix" (artifically prop up the value of the dollar) was because the US imports such massive amounts from other nations that it was hurting their economy.

true and irrelevant. export sectors will be better off with a cheap dollar, as will import-competing sectors. but it still is the biggest inflation risk, not protectionism.

[Songsangnim]

This is not debunked vendetta propaganda.


1. Yes Kerry served in Vietnam, but only after his application to avoid the draft was turned down. So in other words he didn't go willingly, but tried his best to get out of it.

2. He served four months

3. Of the wounds he received, NONE were serious, and at least two were reportedly self-inflicted.

4. After he came back, he blasted the war as unjust and immoral. So he should be applauding Bush for not serving in such a war.


5. A number of his recollections have been proved to be false. He personally recanted at least two of them (a) where he was on Christmas Eve in Vietnam. (b) what he said about the troops after he came back from the war.


This are not Swift Boat lies or any other type of lies. These are proven facts on record.

[tryingtobebig]

I think for most people the issues didn't really matter. To the average person, Bush is a better guy and Kerry is a flip-flopper. Bush has faith and Kerry is a flip-flopper. I almost believe that if you had put Kerry in Bush's body and put Bush in Kerry's body, then the Kerry in Bush body would win. (Meaning would have all the same stances as Kerry but appealed to the "cowboy culture")

[shootermcgavin7]

true and irrelevant. export sectors will be better off with a cheap dollar, as will import-competing sectors. but it still is the biggest inflation risk, not protectionism.


I never said that it was protectionism. It is a natural market reaction attempting to equalize the massive amounts of foreign goods that we import.

A weak dollar could possible cause an uptick in inflation; but given that we import such huge amounts from Asia (China's currency is pegged to the US Dollar), and given overall trends in inflation over the past 15 years or so, I would say that noticable inflation isn't very likely.

A move away from EU goods because of the strong Euro is actually why they're so worried at the moment. The EU economy as a whole is still struggling to come out of a recession and unemployment is beginning to get slightly worse again. A major drop in exports to the US is the last thing that they need.

And my original point was hardly irrelevant. My point is that other nations export so much to the US that they can't afford a weak dollar.

[Tryska]

no. what i'm saying is if you were never in Active Combat yourself, you're not fit to decide on the war plans for someone else. not without help from someone who's done this stuff before.

But when you receive yet disregard the help and advice of people who actually have done this sort of thing before, thinking your way is better? you're really really not worthy of the title Commander in Cheif. Because you bring disgrace to it.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Who ever said that active combat and military service are a requirment to be commander and chief? It's not a requirment and never will be, the joob of the president is not to be a active combat expert, that is why he has a panel of experts to advise him.




(Tryska) stated that because Bush has never been in a major conflict that he shouldn't be POTUS. Like sublime said, having been in major combat is NOT a prerequisite for being the POTUS, it never has. That's why they have the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the top military advisors from all branches of the service. THESE men are the ones with the knowledge and expertise that counsel President Bush on what should be done.



y'all need to work on reading comprehension.

[Tryska]

I asked this in another thread, Tryska, but do you consider the Korean war a "coalition"?

the Korean War itself was a CF - My grandfather actually fought in that one, in the Indian Army. WWII as well.

But yes, i consider it a coalition, and obviously - even tho it was a CF, it isn't reviled globally, like Vietnam or now Iraq.


this is the point of coalitions. 1 to share the burden, 2 to share the responsibility. When other countries back you, or go in with you, no one can talk smack, because everyone was in on it. it gives you "political capital" as it were. This is why using UN coalitions is a good thing. It becomes a group effort, you form allies, you have a global network. The "Rogue State" is that nation against which all a y'all fight.


When you decide,that since the UN doesn't back you, you're gonna go in anyway...YOU become the "Rogue State" and immediately wind up on the radar as the nation that needs to have an eye kept on them.

I think many overlook the EQ (emotional quotient) required in statesmanship.

[shootermcgavin7]

the Korean War itself was a CF - My grandfather actually fought in that one, in the Indian Army. WWII as well.

But yes, i consider it a coalition, and obviously - even tho it was a CF, it isn't reviled globally, like Vietnam or now Iraq.


this is the point of coalitions. 1 to share the burden, 2 to share the responsibility. When other countries back you, or go in with you, no one can talk smack, because everyone was in on it. it gives you "political capital" as it were. This is why using UN coalitions is a good thing. It becomes a group effort, you form allies, you have a global network. The "Rogue State" is that nation against which all a y'all fight.


When you decide,that since the UN doesn't back you, you're gonna go in anyway...YOU become the "Rogue State" and immediately wind up on the radar as the nation that needs to have an eye kept on them.





You care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of the foreign "coalition" in the Korean war was made up of US forces?

Oh, and the National Guard troops were some of the first ones called up and sent to Korea in 1950. I had noticed that you made the claim earlier that the National Guard was never meant to fight in foreign wars.

It is also intriguing that you want to argue that the Korean war was a UN war (which it only was because of a technicality, the US called a vote before the Soviet ambassador could arrive to Veto it), but that you ignore the fact that Saddam was in noncompliance with UN resolutions that had been passed.

[Tryska]

i'm sorry but i'm not followign your logic, shooter.


yes saddam was in noncompliance with UN resolutions.

all the more reason that we should have followed the UN procedure for implementing the war. because technically the only people who would rightfully have beef with saddam would be the UN.


As for Korea, i'm not well-versed enough in it to know percentages. if you know the info, by all means, please share.

As for the National Guard, i stand by my statement. The National Guard are considered Reserve and Reinforcements.


Now if you reinforcements are the front line in your latest war, what does it say about the state of your troops? to me it says you're running on empty.

[shootermcgavin7]

i'm sorry but i'm not followign your logic, shooter.


yes saddam was in noncompliance with UN resolutions.

all the more reason that we should have followed the UN procedure for implementing the war. because technically the only people who would rightfully have beef with saddam would be the UN.

As for Korea, i'm not well-versed enough in it to know percentages. if you know the info, by all means, please share.


Do you think we would have still fought in Korea if the Soviet ambassador would have arrived in time to Veto the motion? If so, then the evil US would not have been fighting a "UN war" in 1950. It is a more similar situation than you are leading yourself to believe.


Korean War (peak foreign troop numbers, by country):
United States: 348,000
Great Britain: 14,198
Canada: 6,146
Turkey: 5,455
Australia: 2,282
Philippines: 1,496
New Zealand: 1,389
Thailand: 1,294
Ethiopia: 1,271
Greece: 1,263
France: 1,119
Colombia: 1,068
Belgium/Luxembourg: 944
South Africa: 826
Netherlands: 819
Total: 16 nations; 387,570 combat troops

Iraq War (foreign coalition troop numbers, by country, as of July 2004)
United States: 126,500
Great Britain: 8,300
Italy: 3,120
Poland: 2,400
Ukraine: 1,650
Netherlands: 1,400
Australia: 850
Romania: 800
Japan: 600
South Korea: 600
Denmark: 520
Bulgaria: 485
Thailand: 450
El Salvador: 380
Hungary: 300
Singapore: 200
Norway: 155
Azerbaijan: 150
Georgia: 150
Mongolia: 140
Latvia: 120
Portugal: 110
Czech Republic: 110
Lithuania: 105
Slovakia: 105
Albania: 70
New Zealand: 60
Tonga: 45
Estonia: 40
Kazakhstan: 30
Macedonia: 30
Moldova: 10
Total: 32 nations; 149,985 combat troops

I think the US troops now number about 130,000, but does the general trend look familiar between the two conflicts? Yet you consider one a "coalition" and the other "not a coalition". Very interesting.



As for the National Guard, i stand by my statement. The National Guard are considered Reserve and Reinforcements.

Now if you reinforcements are the front line in your latest war, what does it say about the state of your troops? to me it says you're running on empty.


They were the front line in 1950, so it isn't a new phenomenom.

[Paul Stagg]

my god Tryska, that is a powerfull post, how can anyone just turn their back to your post.

Easy.

She ignores that if we believe everything Kerry said, he is an admitted war criminal.

[Chubrock]

I saw what you wrote, but in EVERY war, there's going to be advisors that have varying opinions. Not every person is programmed to think the same thing. Back in WW2 there was a wide variety of opinions on whether or not to drop the bomb, but the POTUS had to make a choice based on the situations at hand. It seems that from your post, that you feel EVERY military advisor that Bush talked to completely disagrees with the plans unfolding as we speak. I just don't feel that's true at all.

[Praetorian]

Norway does not have any troops in iraq anymore. the engineering battalion that we sent was pulled out a while ago, due to a large opposition to the war. The only reason that we sent troops down there was due to the fact that Bush threatened Norway with economic sanctions.

It's not a 'coalition' when the US threatens sovereign countries into joining this wrongful war. And yeah, the funny thing is how Bush ****s up in Afganistan and then shifts military and political focus to iraq, so that Norway has to step in as lead nation and try to sort things out.

[Tryska]

gee thanks for the potshot paul.


he's a self-admitted war criminal yes. i never denied or ignored that.


but do i respect a guy who can acknowledge he was up to no good and tried to change it more than soemone who can't acknowledge it and thinks someone tryin to effect change is a benedict arnold, you bet.

[Tryska]

shooter, be that as it may - one major difference between the 2:


1 was sanctioned by the world (regardless of whether the USSR showed up or not - they didn't it ceases to be relevant) by way of the UN, the other wasn't.

[Chubrock]

The only thing with that is, that you (sorry if it wasn't) made the comment that the US shouldn't be shouldering so much of the burden, but in actuality, there's really no difference between the percentages of troop involvement in the Korean or Iraq Wars.

[Tryska]

yeah and Korea was a cluster-f*ck that still isn't sorted out either.

any other parallells y'all wanna draw?

[Gyno Rhino]

shooter, be that as it may - one major difference between the 2:


1 was sanctioned by the world (regardless of whether the USSR showed up or not - they didn't it ceases to be relevant) by way of the UN, the other wasn't.
Just as a side note, here... I absolutely HATE this "modern" idea that we need the entire world behind us to in order to move forward.

This is NOT a global government - making one would be absolutely HORRIFIC. Let's not continue down the road of globalization, PLEASE.

[shootermcgavin7]

shooter, be that as it may - one major difference between the 2:


1 was sanctioned by the world (regardless of whether the USSR showed up or not - they didn't it ceases to be relevant) by way of the UN, the other wasn't.


So now I'll use the argument that people against the Iraq war have used:

A "global coalition", in your view, is 16 nations, 90% of which is comprised of US troops?

[shootermcgavin7]

yeah and Korea was a cluster-f*ck that still isn't sorted out either.

any other parallells y'all wanna draw?


We still have troops in Germany and Japan, too. What is your point?

[Tryska]

Just as a side note, here... I absolutely HATE this "modern" idea that we need the entire world behind us to in order to move forward.

This is NOT a global government - making one would be absolutely HORRIFIC. Let's not continue down the road of globalization, PLEASE.


i dunno glen, i tend to follow the idea of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer.


shooter, your argument's gotten illogical. i'm not sure what bases in countries we've conquered decisively along with the rest of the world, has to do with the clusterf*ck that is the DMZ in Korea, whom we're still at war with btw.

[shootermcgavin7]

shooter, your argument's gotten illogical.



Actually, Tryska, I'm still waiting for you to justify the Korean "coalition", which I feel I very logically compared to the Iraq coalition.

I find it hypocritical when even though the US comprised almost all of the forces, you think that because of a technicality in a UN vote that they're completely different scenarios.

I feel that I laid this argument out very well, and whether you agree with it or not is one thing, but it certainly isn't illogical.

[Tryska]

You can call it hypocritical if you want, but perception is everything.


pre-emptive war, with a coalition of the "willing" for the most part, compared to a UN-led war, including big name countries.

Here's a good article on whoa nd what are actually part of the coalition of the willing:

http://www.crikey.com.au/politics/2003/03/21-coalitionlist.html


but if you can't understand the value of UN support, versus a pre-emptive doctirne, we're at a standstill, because there's fundamental difference in our viewpoints.

[MixmasterNash]

Easy.

She ignores that if we believe everything Kerry said, he is an admitted war criminal.

Jesus people, he is a self admitted war criminal. He still admits it. He is sorry for tarring his fellow soldiers with such harsh language and doesn't believe that most of them have any culpability, but there is no doubt that many war crimes were committed in Vietnam. Zero doubt. Soldiers, en masse, comitted war crimes, making them, technically, war criminals.

Culpability is the real issue: the individual soldiers are only partially responsible for actions in free fire zones; the leadership carries significantly more guilt and responsibility for the war crimes that occured.

[PowerManDL]

And so the blind polarization continues.

It's good that the entire point of this thread goes unnoticed while the magnates on each side continue to sightlessly march on with their agendas.

[Tryska]

i'm actually disappointed that Paul's drank the kool-aid. he was one of the few people, that i always thought knew how to cut through the media BS, regardless of what his own opinion was.

but for you to fall in along partisan lines with the same partisan arguments, Paul, damn. what's up?

[Tryska]

And so the blind polarization continues.

It's good that the entire point of this thread goes unnoticed while the magnates on each side continue to sightlessly march on with their agendas.



yes. the war is wrong.

and i live in a red state, and i still believe the war is wrong.

and oh yeah, the war is wrong, and we shouldn't be there, but we are, so now how the hell do we get out of this wrong war?

ps did i mention this war is wrong and no amount of rationalizing it is gonna make it right?


okay then.

*marches on*

[sublime99]

Well we could have just ignored it (Iraq/Terrorism) like we did the German invasion, and just supplied materials to others to fight until it was to late and had way more than 1000 + dead soldiers. Or we could have waited for another attack on our soil ie. embassies, navy ships, trade towers, pretty much everything the Clinton administration did. Or we could be in the current situation we are in and launched a pre emptive to make sure we get them on the run and keep them on the run.

[Tryska]

the flip side: there are many many other countries out there, whose people believe we're the new Germany precisely because of this pre-emptive doctrine.

we were fine with war in afghanistan, it was logical, and well deserved, and we had the world's support. The war on iraq - mmm...not so much.

Now you can believe that we've got the best weapons, we've got the strongest military, and the fact that theres oceans between us and everyone else, which i do, however.


Pride goeth before the Fall.


if we keep messing around on the path we're one, we're going to wind up on the receiving end, and it's not just gonna be a bunch of islamic suicide bombers.

[MixmasterNash]

(Iraq/Terrorism)

How does the Kool-Aid taste?

[MixmasterNash]

Well we could have just ignored it (Iraq/Terrorism) like we did the German invasion, and just supplied materials to others to fight until it was to late and had way more than 1000 + dead soldiers.

Hey, we could also just supply the material straight to the Nazis like Prescott Bush did. But hey, he only worked with the Nazis until 1942... er, wait, weren't we at war with them by then?

[shootermcgavin7]

but if you can't understand the value of UN support, versus a pre-emptive doctirne, we're at a standstill, because there's fundamental difference in our viewpoints.


I agree that we have a fundamental difference, but when 60% of the Security council is fighting against 40% of the UN Security council, I can't realistically call it "UN support". I guess the difference in viewpoints is that you can.

[PowerManDL]

i'm actually disappointed that Paul's drank the kool-aid. he was one of the few people, that i always thought knew how to cut through the media BS, regardless of what his own opinion was.

but for you to fall in along partisan lines with the same partisan arguments, Paul, damn. what's up?

T, to be honest, I can say the exact same thing about you right now.

[shootermcgavin7]

we were fine with war in afghanistan, it was logical, and well deserved, and we had the world's support. The war on iraq - mmm...not so much.



We were invaded by Afghanistan? Wow, I must be really out of the loop.....

Edit: We were also never invaded by:
North Korea in the 1950s
Germany in the 1940s
Italy in the 1940s
Mexico in the 1900s

[Tryska]

as you wish, matt.

unfortunately, i don't have any media to really back me up. and be an echo chamber for my ideas.


all of i got is me and google, and what i know to be right.


so if that makes me a partisan hack, because i keep ringing the alarm, then so be it.


i've been considered crazy before, and been proven right, years down the line. this is no different.


i'll still keep ringing the bell tho.

as it stands these is no democratic party any longer. until they figure out what they are going to do, i'm goign to keep focusing on waking people up to the reality of what's going on here.

[Tryska]

We were invaded by Afghanistan? Wow, I must be really out of the loop.....

Edit: We were also never invaded by:
North Korea in the 1950s
Germany in the 1940s
Italy in the 1940s
Mexico in the 1900s


what are you talking about?

[shootermcgavin7]

what are you talking about?

You made the point that:

1) Pre-emptive war is wrong

and

2) The war in Afghanistan is right





So I'm just saying that since we were invaded by the nation of Afghanistan, I must be out of the loop because I didn't realize that.

[MixmasterNash]

what are you talking about?

His logic is:
We done got attacked by Japan, and so we attacked their ally Germany too.
Similarly, we go attacked by al Qaeda, so we attacked their ally, the Taliban, too.
Finally, Saddam gave money to Hamas to blow up Israelis, who uh, oh crap, that chain of logic breaks down.

Moral equivalence!!! Moral equivalence!!! Moral equivalence!!!

And so, we've killed about 50,000 Iraqis to ensure that Saddam doesn't give more money to Hamas.

[Tryska]

Afghanistan, and the taliban regime were supporting and harboring Osama Bin Laden, perpetrator of the largest attack on American soil.

or do you know something I don't know about Afghanistan?

if so, i'd like to hear it?

[Tryska]

His logic is:
We done got attacked by Japan, and so we attacked their ally Germany too.
Similarly, we go attacked by al Qaeda, so we attacked their ally, the Taliban, too.
Finally, Saddam gave money to Hamas to blow up Israelis, who uh, oh crap, that chain of logic breaks down.

Moral equivalence!!! Moral equivalence!!! Moral equivalence!!!

And so, we've killed about 50,000 Iraqis to ensure that Saddam doesn't give more money to Hamas.


I'm still not getting it. *lol*

[shootermcgavin7]

Afghanistan, and the taliban regime were supporting and harboring Osama Bin Laden, perpetrator of the largest attack on American soil.

or do you know something I don't know about Afghanistan?

if so, i'd like to hear it?


And do you know what percentage of the country that the Taliban controlled? Or that the US government supported the Taliban from their arrival on the scene around 1993ish until around 2000?

Afghanistan is really almost 4 distinct countries rolled into one, there really is no "Afghan people". I am saying that we were not attacked by an Afghan military.

If you want to enter into the grey area of attacking regions that are "harboring terrorists", which it appears you support, then I guess I'm completely missing where you're coming from with the anti-preemptive strike argument.

[shootermcgavin7]

His logic is:
We done got attacked by Japan, and so we attacked their ally Germany too.
Similarly, we go attacked by al Qaeda, so we attacked their ally, the Taliban, too.
Finally, Saddam gave money to Hamas to blow up Israelis, who uh, oh crap, that chain of logic breaks down.

Moral equivalence!!! Moral equivalence!!! Moral equivalence!!!

And so, we've killed about 50,000 Iraqis to ensure that Saddam doesn't give more money to Hamas.



Actually, Mix, while you're way off, I really dont' need you to tell me what my argument is.

Thanks though.

[Tryska]

And do you know what percentage of the country that the Taliban controlled?

~~~nope.



Or that the US government supported the Taliban from their arrival on the scene around 1993ish until around 2000?

~~~yup. we gave al quaeda their start too, in the 70s.


Afghanistan is really almost 4 distinct countries rolled into one, there really is no "Afghan people". I am saying that we were not attacked by an Afghan military.

~~~agreed.


If you want to enter into the grey area of attacking regions that are "harboring terrorists", which it appears you support, then I guess I'm completely missing where you're coming from with the anti-preemptive strike argument.


~~~if it were me - i wouldn't be waging wars against terrorism, because terrorist groups are not tangible nation-states, however, being that i'm not leader of the free world to be able to make these decisions - i do not have a problem attacking a regime that harbors and funds the very man that took repsonsibility for an attack on our soil. I also don't consider that pre-emptive. i consider it an after-the-fact attack.

[shootermcgavin7]

~~~if it were me - i wouldn't be waging wars against terrorism, because terrorist groups are not tangible nation-states, however, being that i'm not leader of the free world to be able to make these decisions - i do not have a problem attacking a regime that harbors and funds the very man that took repsonsibility for an attack on our soil. I also don't consider that pre-emptive. i consider it an after-the-fact attack.


Ok, as long as I see where you're coming from. I do feel that you're walking a very fine line on what you consider to be a justified attack and unjustified attack; it was displayed in your Korean war argument as well.

[Tryska]

Well - i don't really see Korea as justified (back then) as well, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident that sparked the Vietnam war either.


My point is this - in a post WWII era, it behooves us to engage in wars (wether i agree with them or not) with the sanctioned support of the UN. As leader of the Free World.

imo, it's best to lead by example, and if we're not doing that, we leave the door wide open to other countries to follow suit, causing us, at the very least, to have to deal with PITA problems that could be avoided, and at the very worst, open ourselves up to be vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes form someone else's coalition of the willing.


And why the UN? because it's our check and balance on a global level. it's how we get our "mandate", if you will.

[shootermcgavin7]

Well - i don't really see Korea as justified (back then) as well, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident that sparked the Vietnam war either.


My point is this - in a post WWII era, it behooves us to engage in wars (wether i agree with them or not) with the sanctioned support of the UN. As leader of the Free World.

imo, it's best to lead by example, and if we're not doing that, we leave the door wide open to other countries to follow suit, causing us, at the very least, to have to deal with PITA problems that could be avoided, and at the very worst, open ourselves up to be vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes form someone else's coalition of the willing.



While it is a completely different debate on whether or not the Korean War was justified (I obviously think that it was), the fact remains is that the world is not going to agree on everything. While I'm not a flag-waving nutjob, I don't really trust my security on an agency that has been notorious over the past 50 years for not really solving much of anything.

You do, and I guess that's a major difference between us.

Edit: And if the UN is a check on US power, then why the hell do we and Japan pretty much foot the bill for it?

[Tryska]

yeah it is.


and i will also agree with you that the UN is useless for the most part.

But it's a way of ruling the world by committee and mitigating the consequences.

but that's my inherent leadership view in any case.


as for us and japan - footing the bill - i don't know. hell didn't we foot the bill for japan in general a few years ago? i didn't say it was perfect. but the UN is a good political tool to have, imo.

[Chubrock]

I agree, that it would be beneficial to go into a war with a even coalition, but that simply isn't a possibility 100% of the time. You (Tryska) also said that at you felt that at the time, the Korean War wasn't justified, but through that phrasing, I'm guessing that now you do feel as though it was justified. Am I right on that one? Isn't it possible, that years down the line, the Iraq War may be seen as justified? I'm not asking you if you feel it's right right now, because I already know your answer on that one, lol but isn't it possible that down the line something could happen where people (you included) would begin to see the war as justified?

[shootermcgavin7]

i didn't say it was perfect. but the UN is a good political tool to have, imo.


Political tool, yes, I agree.

Enforcing those political decisions is where the UN tends to struggle.

[Tryska]

well my feelign that the Korean War wasn't justified is based on the concept of free will and the cold war and stuff that is basically ideology. as i said we're still at war in Korea, so in hindsight - still not such a good idea.

But - the rest of the world went along with it (soviets not included), so it was made "legitimate", if you get what i'ms aying.

all of this stuff is morally ambiguous, and hazy ethically, but that's hte nature of politics and statesmanship.


As for seeing the Iraq war as justified, sure people could think that down the line. We can be made to think anything the powers that be want us to think. It's how they got so much support for the iraq war in the first place.

But for me? The only way i could see a pre-emptive unilateral strike as justified is if we had a direct video uplink that could somehow be verified of some leader with his finger on the big red nuke button aimed at anyone in the world.

[Tryska]

Political tool, yes, I agree.

Enforcing those political decisions is where the UN tends to struggle.


i agree here as well, altho i don't know if that's because of warring interests, or no willingness to pony up the dough or what.

[Chubrock]

We could debate the reasons we went into this war all day long, but do you not feel that the systematic torture of humans in Iraq is a good enough reason to rid the world of a POS dictator? Granted the only people he was hurting were his own, but isn't every human life worth the same?

[Tryska]

sure, but in that case, we get down to being fair:


do we feel this same treatment should be used in Darfur? North Korea? China? where do the pre-emptive strikes based on human rights violations end?

[shootermcgavin7]

well my feelign that the Korean War wasn't justified is based on the concept of free will and the cold war and stuff that is basically ideology. as i said we're still at war in Korea, so in hindsight - still not such a good idea.

But - the rest of the world went along with it (soviets not included), so it was made "legitimate", if you get what i'ms aying.




So, I'll again come back to: Are you saying that 16 nations is the "rest of the world"?



do we feel this same treatment should be used in Darfur? North Korea? China? where do the pre-emptive strikes based on human rights violations end?

And we should definitely be in Sudan. Maybe we can prevent it from becoming another Rwanda, although we've screwed around long enough that it might be too late.

[Chubrock]

How many millions of people have been murdered in those other countries?

That's a good point, though I wonder if it has to do with ability. I mean we are tech. still in opposition against North Korea. Invading China is def. out of the question considering they have a standing army of close to 2 million if I'm not mistaken. Iraq isn't the only place we've gone in order to help people against human rights violations. We've been to Mogadishu, Haiti and other places very similar.

[Paul Stagg]

How many millions of people have been murdered in those other countries?

That's a good point, though I wonder if it has to do with ability. I mean we are tech. still in opposition against North Korea. Invading China is def. out of the question considering they have a standing army of close to 2 million if I'm not mistaken. Iraq isn't the only place we've gone in order to help people against human rights violations. We've been to Mogadishu, Haiti and other places very similar.

And all of them were wrong.

Our military force exists to protect the US (and by extension in some cases, it's allies). Not to remove dictators from power.

If we are going to change that, we have some places to get busy. You think the military is stretched thin now...

But our current policy is that we use the 'evil dictator' excuse when invading also makes political sense. Which is not a good policy, in my opinion.

[Chubrock]

I don't think all of them were wrong. We can't sit idley(sp?) while thousand and thousand of innocent men and women are killed and tortured. For one, that isn't morally right. If we allow these dictators the satisfaction and confidence that they can do this, then they only become stronger and stronger. Just because Germany didn't directly attack us (until we became involved in the War), do you think we should have just sat by while Hitler and his extermination crews killed MILLIONS of Jewish people? We have to try and keep in check these crazed dictators whose whole goal is to systematically kill off innocent people. If we allow these creatures to build confidence and as well as a following, pretty soon we are dealing with something much more difficult than first thought possible.

[Paul Stagg]

Hitler planned to take over the world. Our entry into WWII wasn't about the Jews being persecuted.

[Chubrock]

So you're saying that if Hitler had just stayed over there around Germany, that the slaughter of millions of Jewish people wouldn't have been a good reason for us to strike him down? I don't understand the philosophy of that.

[Tryska]

we most likely wouldn't have gotten involved. think about when we did - it was after he'd already occupied several countries, and was about to march on France (i think - i don't recall all the details)

[Songsangnim]

i dunno glen, i tend to follow the idea of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer.


shooter, your argument's gotten illogical. i'm not sure what bases in countries we've conquered decisively along with the rest of the world, has to do with the clusterf*ck that is the DMZ in Korea, whom we're still at war with btw.


No, we are not at war with the DMZ. Do you mean North Korea?

[Songsangnim]

I don't think all of them were wrong. We can't sit idley(sp?) while thousand and thousand of innocent men and women are killed and tortured. For one, that isn't morally right. If we allow these dictators the satisfaction and confidence that they can do this, then they only become stronger and stronger. Just because Germany didn't directly attack us (until we became involved in the War), do you think we should have just sat by while Hitler and his extermination crews killed MILLIONS of Jewish people? We have to try and keep in check these crazed dictators whose whole goal is to systematically kill off innocent people. If we allow these creatures to build confidence and as well as a following, pretty soon we are dealing with something much more difficult than first thought possible.


The U.S became involved with the war because Japan attacked it first. Since Germany was Japan's ally it also became the enemy. But it had nothing to do with the slaughter of the Jewish people.

[Chubrock]

I know the reasons behind our involvement in the war. The reasoning behind what I said was that I was asking if it hadn't been for Japan bombing us, and Germany taking over different countries, should the US have just say idly by while the Jews were systematically destroyed. I believe regardless of whether or not they (Germany or Japan) attacked us, we would have had to step in and end the mass murdering going on within and surrounding Germany.

[Manveet]

So you're saying that if Hitler had just stayed over there around Germany, that the slaughter of millions of Jewish people wouldn't have been a good reason for us to strike him down? I don't understand the philosophy of that.

Well, I don't think the U.S. really knew what was happening in Europe in regards to the jews, gypsies etc.. I could be wrong, but I think it wasn't until the U.S. began their invasion of Europe, did the realise the extent of the situation.

[Spartacus]

us involvement in europe had a lot more to do with fear of a cold war with the reich than concern for jew gypsies and gays.

[Tryska]

No, we are not at war with the DMZ. Do you mean North Korea?


ae you trying to pick on my grammar or something?

DMZ stands for De-Militarized Zone.

[Spartacus]

kyoto was at best a bandaid on a bullethole, but doubting the reality of human-caused global climate change stopped being plausable at least five years ago.


just read this today:


In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.


BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

looks like i was at least 5 years off

[-sin-]

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.

[mrelwooddowd]

i can find 7 people to prove any point i want, then 3 to disagree, and get my 70% easily, and no one knows how i did it..even on a larger scale..polls are garbage..90% of polls are done with extreme prejudice and agenda in mind

[mrelwooddowd]

yes that was for you, mixmaster

[Spartacus]

yeah but my poll was bigger than yours.

[MixmasterNash]

yes that was for you, mixmaster

That's very sweet of you, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

:dj: