Could Bush lose in November?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Could Bush actually lose the the next presidential election?

I'm not crazy about Bush as a person and he seems to me like the puppet of a Reagan-Bush Sr era agenda, but he is a known quantity right now. With the threats both abroad and domestic do I want an unknown at the helm? Am I correct in thinking that uncertainty and fear will cause voters to go for the stable and familiar candidate?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Could Bush actually lose the the next presidential election?

I'm not crazy about Bush as a person and he seems to me like the puppet of a Reagan-Bush Sr era agenda, but he is a known quantity right now. With the threats both abroad and domestic do I want an unknown at the helm? Am I correct in thinking that uncertainty and fear will cause voters to go for the stable and familiar candidate?

I don't think he's anybody's puppet, just a member of the club.

In any case, of course he can be beaten. But first the Democrats will have to stop acting like a suicide cult.

[Bottle or the Gun]

'Member of the club' is a fitting definition.

A guy at work here is actually outraged to the point of being speechless that anyone would want any person other than Bush. I personally just don't trust Bush, but will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

[geni]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
A guy at work here is actually outraged to the point of being speechless that anyone would want any person other than Bush. I personally just don't trust Bush, but will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

On the basis that Bush has a proven track record of failing to protect US citersens from planes crashing into biulding is this really a relevent point.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?
Did Bush ?

Bush certainly made people want to fly planes into buildings.

Would Kerry make America appear more tolerant and less dictatorial to the rest of the world or not? I don’t know ?

[headscratcher4]

Could Bush actually lose the the next presidential election?

Absolutely...he's done it before.

Favorite new bumpersticker: Re-defeat Bush. :)

[Bottle or the Gun]

Bush and his Administration are not to blame for pre-911 failures. It was part of a poorly maintained system that was absolutely glacial in its decision making process and thatw as politically compromised from way back. The entire country operated under the premise that if nothing happened, then everything is all right. If you want to lay blame, go back to the Reagan-era when Ollie North said Bin Laden was the greatest threat America faced. Or when Clinton was handed Bin laden and did nothing. Or the 1930's when the US started financing coups in the mid-east.

The Bush Administration will be repsonsible for any post-911 failures. And I'm not talking about more planes in buildings, that is a generality. If someone really wanted to do something to attack the US then there is really no way to stop it. But Bush should do his best. Stop 100 threats, but maybe 1 one will get through. Willl Kerry do better?

[DaChew]

Absolutely.
I don't support JK and will probably vote for Bush but he could be defeated. His dad was easily as popular as he is and was but that didn't keep him from being defeated. The difference is that Bill Clinton defeated GHWB outright. Bush had everything going for him and allowed Clinton (a master politician if ever there was one) to hand him his ass. I don't see that in Kerry though. We'll see.

[Tmy]

Geez is Bush to blame FOR ANYTHING!!??

I think he will get beat. What has he done thats so great? Pick an issue.

THe anybody but bush crowd is growing........Ya down with A.B.B...........ya you know me!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Absolutely...he's done it before.

Favorite new bumpersticker: Re-defeat Bush. :)

That's why I wish Al would have run:
"Re-elect Gore in '04"

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Bush and his Administration are not to blame for pre-911 failures. It was part of a poorly maintained system that was absolutely glacial in its decision making process and thatw as politically compromised from way back. The entire country operated under the premise that if nothing happened, then everything is all right. If you want to lay blame, go back to the Reagan-era when Ollie North said Bin Laden was the greatest threat America faced. Or when Clinton was handed Bin laden and did nothing. Or the 1930's when the US started financing coups in the mid-east.

The Bush Administration will be repsonsible for any post-911 failures. And I'm not talking about more planes in buildings, that is a generality. If someone really wanted to do something to attack the US then there is really no way to stop it. But Bush should do his best. Stop 100 threats, but maybe 1 one will get through. Willl Kerry do better?

And any one other than Bush elected President wouldn't do his/her best to defend the country? Protect America/Americans?

What you have to be convinced of, and I am not, is that Bush is employing the best methods, intelligence, analysist and tools for protecting the country.

Further, important as national defence is (assuming you are convinced that Bush is the right "war" President...i.e. fighting the right war against the right parties, at the right time and place...) he has a lot of other responsiblities (domestically), and these are a disaster. What good is saving the village if you have to burn it...to conjure up a Vietnam image...

[geni]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Or when Clinton was handed Bin laden and did nothing.

Cruise missiles = nothing
intersting equation there.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by geni


Cruise missiles = nothing
intersting equation there.

Did he get Bin Laden? Or smash up a training camp?

Other:
The Vietnam allegory is something to work with. Is our war being run by politicians? Seems so, considering how we kiss Saudi's oily butt. I'm not convinced Bush is the best president for the next run, but I am very worried that anyone else will be worse. People are hung up on the parties. I just don't see the need for them. Why are the primaries supported by our taxes? The guy here at work says you have to support a platform. Why? There are positive and negative aspects to each and all. I find every administration after the next isa just as corrupt and compromised.

[headscratcher4]

WHat has GWB done to convince you that someone else would be worse...specifically Kerry?

Is it his impressive use of intelligence to determine the threat leavel against the US?

Is it the impressive way that he has rallied global opinion to embrace American ideals and objectives?

Is it the way that they've managed Iraq post invasion?

Is it the way that Afghanastan has fallen off the map and is again becoming a hot-bed for the kinds of folk who hate America?

Is it his management of the deficit and US debt?

Is it his holier than thou Patriotism?

I mean, GWB is very human. Not as dumb as I like to charachterize him, but certainly no genius. So, why would someone, like Kerry, who not only went to the same schools, but actually fought in a War, be intrinsically worse or to be feared when it comes to national security, not to mention domestic policy?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Lothian

Bush certainly made people want to fly planes into buildings.


Did he? It's pretty clear the 9-11 "operation" had been in planning for years. The first attack on the WTC was 1993. Same folks, already angry.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
Bush and his Administration are not to blame for pre-911 failures. It was part of a poorly maintained system that was absolutely glacial in its decision making process and thatw as politically compromised from way back.

But he is responsible for failurs after he took office. The US had recieved many warnings from other countries, plus information on the potential threat of Bin Laden, however this information was not acted on. The budget for anti-terrorist activities was trippled under Clinton, it was about to be cut by Bush before 9/11.



If you want to lay blame, go back to the Reagan-era when Ollie North said Bin Laden was the greatest threat America faced.

nice story, but just a story (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm)


Or when Clinton was handed Bin laden and did nothing.
Was he? From what I've read the offer was not credible, but an effort to reduce sanctions against a terrorist supporting nation, and the offer came not from an official of the nation but someone who had investments in that country's oil industry.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
WHat has GWB done to convince you that someone else would be worse...specifically Kerry?

Is it his impressive use of intelligence to determine the threat leavel against the US?

Is it the impressive way that he has rallied global opinion to embrace American ideals and objectives?

Is it the way that they've managed Iraq post invasion?

Is it the way that Afghanastan has fallen off the map and is again becoming a hot-bed for the kinds of folk who hate America?

Is it his management of the deficit and US debt?

Is it his holier than thou Patriotism?

I mean, GWB is very human. Not as dumb as I like to charachterize him, but certainly no genius. So, why would someone, like Kerry, who not only went to the same schools, but actually fought in a War, be intrinsically worse or to be feared when it comes to national security, not to mention domestic policy?

How about the number of terrorist attacks in the United States after 9-11?

[BTox]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

I mean, GWB is very human. Not as dumb as I like to charachterize him, but certainly no genius. So, why would someone, like Kerry, who not only went to the same schools, but actually fought in a War, be intrinsically worse or to be feared when it comes to national security, not to mention domestic policy?

Perhaps because Kerry has no convictions, no true positions (or apparently so) - just bends with the wind on seemingly every issue. If you want a noodle as President, he's your man!

And seriously, do you really want Herman Munster in the Whitehouse? Imagine all the shenanigans he and Grampa will get into...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


How about the number of terrorist attacks in the United States after 9-11?

Considering it was rougly eight years between the first and the more successful WTC attacks, it's early days yet.

[zenith-nadir]

I wonder what the "enemies" of America will think if Bush is replaced?

In certain cultures I feel they may see it as a sign of weakness by the American public on the war on terror.

I do not know.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

...it's early days yet.

Hmmm...

I could say the same about almost all the points raised by headscratcher4, including the hunt for WMD's...

[Kodiak]

Who would you rather have in office if you were Al Queda?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Kodiak


How about the number of terrorist attacks in the United States after 9-11?

And how many before 911? McVeigh? That was home-grown.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun


Did he get Bin Laden? Has Bush?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Who would you rather have in office if you were Al Queda?

:confused:

Osama Bin Laden. What's that got to do with anything?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DaChew
Absolutely.
I don't support JK and will probably vote for Bush but he could be defeated. His dad was easily as popular as he is and was but that didn't keep him from being defeated. The difference is that Bill Clinton defeated GHWB outright. Bush had everything going for him and allowed Clinton (a master politician if ever there was one) to hand him his ass. I don't see that in Kerry though. We'll see.

Kerry doesn't have to be a master politician to beat Bush. If Kerry wants to defeat Bush outright, perhaps he can convince Ross Perot to pull 19% of the electorate again.

That would probably do it.

[Mr Manifesto]

Seriously, though, Kodiak, we know Bush is a lousy strategist. He's used up tonnes of resources taking out Iraq, one of the only countries in the Middle East that have virtually nothing to do with Al-Qaeda (I say 'virtually' because there was that 'almost' meeting in '98). This has allowed Al-Qaeda a little more freedom to operate. It even seems that they're able to take pot-shots at the UN and US soldiers in Iraq... something they haven't had the opportunity to do before.

Kerry is an unknown entity. We don't know what his plans are in regards to A-Q. Maybe he will turn out to be just as lousy at the strategy game as Dubmeister. However, if I were A-Q, I'd be more inclined to go with the devil I know.

I'm curious as to why you thought the question even had to be asked. Do you think Kerry will just say, "Oh, bugger A-Q, they are so September 10"?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Who would you rather have in office if you were Al Queda?
Bush, certainly. Doesn't his name mean something ridiculous in Arabic?

[Zero]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I wonder what the "enemies" of America will think if Bush is replaced?

In certain cultures I feel they may see it as a sign of weakness by the American public on the war on terror.

I do not know. No, you don't know...

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Who would you rather have in office if you were Al Queda? Obviously Bush...he can be counted on to react exactly as the terrorists want him to. He has been Bin Laden's puppet since 9-11, why would the terrorists want any change?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Zero
No, you don't know...

I'll tell you what "zero".

You stop trolling around JREF to make snide remarks directed at me and I promise not to point out that you are trolling.

Sound fair?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


How about the number of terrorist attacks in the United States after 9-11?

This reminds me of yesterdays Simpsons. A bear wandered into Spingfield, no one could remember the last time that had happend. So a crazed public demanded action (think ofthe children) and the Mayor put in the "Bear Patrol" (complete with stealth bombers). Where Homer was so proud of the Bear Patrol's success keeping bears out Lisa pointed out the flaw in his logic since bears had not been a problem before the Patrol.

I love that show.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Seriously, though, Kodiak, we know Bush is a lousy strategist. He's used up tonnes of resources taking out Iraq, one of the only countries in the Middle East that have virtually nothing to do with Al-Qaeda

Just out of curiosity, just how is the war in Iraq taking resources away from the fight against Al Qaeda? (That was one of the claims made by the anti-war faction prior to the invasion.)

The invasion of Iraq was primarily a military action. The fight against Al Qaeda is primarly one of intelligence. Deployment of one set of resources (military in Iraq) doesn't necessarily eliminate the deployment of another mutually exclusive set of resources (CIA, FBI etc. against Al Qaeda.)

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
(I say 'virtually' because there was that 'almost' meeting in '98).

First of all, there was more than just that 'almost' meeting. I do admit that other countries (such as Saudi Arabia) were bigger sponsors of Al Qaeda, but Saddam was quite happy to give shelter to some of bin Laden's operatives.

Secondly, there are other terrorist groups besides Al Qaeda. The UN (in resolution 1441) acknowleged that Iraq supported terrorism.

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This has allowed Al-Qaeda a little more freedom to operate. It even seems that they're able to take pot-shots at the UN and US soldiers in Iraq... something they haven't had the opportunity to do before.


Pot shots? Unlike, say, the bombing of the USS Cole?

I don't really see it as having 'more freedom' to operate. Yes, there is another country for Al Qaeda to try to influence and run operations in, but their resources are limited. Putting people in Iraq means they have fewer to deploy elsewhere. (Or, is the problem of 'resources' only an issue if its the U.S. that has to engage in more than 1 activity at once?)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun

And how many before 911? McVeigh? That was home-grown.

There was the first world trade center bombing in the early 90s. Plus there were a couple of thwarted attempts (such as the people who tried to bring explosives in to Canada to blow up the Los Angeles airport, for example.)

However, I agree... the number of pre- and post-9/11 terrorist attacks isn't a good measure of Bush's success. (To be honest, I don't expect to know how things went for probably several decades.)

[Zero]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir


I'll tell you what "zero".

You stop trolling around JREF to make snide remarks directed at me and I promise not to point out that you are trolling.

Sound fair? It would be fair if I were trolling. You, on the other hand, seem to be able to read minds, which makes you a prime candidate for Randi's million bucks.
The fact is, we don't know what the "enemies of America" are going to think of the election results either way, although my hunch is that Osama Bin Laden has been perfectly thrilled with Bush so far, based on what I have read about terrorism and its goals.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Zero
TRANSLATION: watch me backpedal for the masses and then insult you again....

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Geez is Bush to blame FOR ANYTHING!!?? At the end of the day, it was Bush's decision to invade Iraq. That he did not have correct or complete information does not alleviate his responsibility for that decision. That his political opponents agreed with him at the time the decision was made does not alleviate his responsibility for that decision.

Ultimately, Bush made the call and is responsible for invading a country that was of no immediate threat to us or our interests during a time when genuine terrorist threats in other countries were left unconfronted. It was a strategic blunder in terms of global terrorism and foreign relations.

I don't know how Kerry or whoever wins the Democratic candidate will handle things, but I do know how Bush has handled things. Frankly, in more ways than one, I don't think we can afford another Bush presidency term.

[Zero]

I'm a troll? You misquote me, and I'm the troll?

Why don't you go back to humping your Israeli flag and let the adults discuss things?


Anyhoo, on with the topic: Yes, obviously Bush can lose this election. One of the major issues is going to be the mainstream media, which above all has a 'we wanna create the story' bias. Will they report honestly for a change, will they continue to suck up to Bush, or will they help the Dems by using their "slime Gore" strategy on Bush?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm a troll? You misquote me, and I'm the troll?

Why don't you go back to humping your Israeli flag and let the adults discuss things?



Wow, the third personal attack in a single thread....but your not a troll...:D

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero

The fact is, we don't know what the "enemies of America" are going to think of the election results either way, although my hunch is that Osama Bin Laden has been perfectly thrilled with Bush so far, based on what I have read about terrorism and its goals.

Wow - talk about spin. Osama is thrilled that his puppet government in Afghanistan was obliterated, half his organization has been wiped out and he's being hunted like a dog... but he's thrilled! What a kook...

[geni]

Originally posted by BTox


Wow - talk about spin. Osama is thrilled that his puppet government in Afghanistan was obliterated, half his organization has been wiped out and he's being hunted like a dog... but he's thrilled! What a kook...

I suspect some very simular would have happened whoever was incharge.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


Wow - talk about spin. Osama is thrilled that his puppet government in Afghanistan was obliterated, half his organization has been wiped out and he's being hunted like a dog... but he's thrilled! What a kook... Uh huh...one of the long-term goals of terrorists is to gain popular support, and Bush's war on Iraq is a perfect tool for terrorist recruiting. :D

[Zero]

One of the things you have to remember is that these are people who are willing to blow themselves up...it is a whole different set of motivational priorities. Most of us would think it is horrible to get blown up...terrorists see it as a higher calling.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by BTox


Wow - talk about spin. Osama is thrilled that his puppet government in Afghanistan was obliterated, half his organization has been wiped out and he's being hunted like a dog... but he's thrilled! What a kook...

I'm not sure anyone has asked him, but I assume Al Gore would have invaded Afghanistan. I see that action as more or less required as a response to the 9/11 attacks.

I do know other liberal Democratic leaders have stated this. During an (ex post facto) interview with Sen. Dick Durbin, who was a strong opponent of Gulf War 2, he clearly stated that action in Afghanistan was a needed response.

I don't see how the person in the Oval Office would have affected bin Laden's current status.

Segnosaur says:
However, I agree... the number of pre- and post-9/11 terrorist attacks isn't a good measure of Bush's success.

It probably isn't. There have been terrorist attacks on American targets since 9/11, only not on American soil. I'm not sure "attacks per year" is a good measure of any President, since we don't have information like "attempts per year".

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...one of the long-term goals of terrorists is to gain popular support, and Bush's war on Iraq is a perfect tool for terrorist recruiting. :D

Unless of course, they manage to turn Iraq into a free, open, functioning democracy. Then, hopefully all of the people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. will all ask themselves "Why are we listing to this religious guy who wants us to blow ourselves up, when we could be more like the Iraqis who get to watch Baywatch reruns , eat pork, and actually select their leaders?"

Edited to add: I know there's no guarantee the US will be successful, but Iraq is relatively more secular than other middle east countries, and the benefits if they succeed might outweigh the risks.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Unless of course, they manage to turn Iraq into a free, open, functioning democracy. Then, hopefully all of the people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. will all ask themselves "Why are we listing to this religious guy who wants us to blow ourselves up, when we could be more like the Iraqis who get to watch Baywatch reruns , eat pork, and actually select their leaders?"

Edited to add: I know there's no guarantee the US will be successful, but Iraq is relatively more secular than other middle east countries, and the benefits if they succeed might outweigh the risks. That's a sort of Pollyanna view, and while I appreciate your optimism, I can't share it. There WAS an opportunity before the war to make sure this happened, but somehow that planning never occurred. Plus, Iraq as a secular state seems to be in danger of disappearing.

[headscratcher4]

Just want to be sure...Kodiak...your point is that John Kerry, as President, would not do everything in his power to prevent another terrorist attack. Indeed, the reason for not re-defeating Bush is because Bush cares more about national security and protecting America than John Kerry? That, indeed, electing John Kerry is essentially electing a fellow traveller...someone who will specifically make policy choices designed to undercut America and put Americans at risk?

My point isn't to specifically defend Kerry -- though I think Bush, as you know, is very problematic. It is the willingness to suggest that only Bush has solutions to the national security challenges that face this country...a notion I reject, and which seems to be proven in the application of Bush policies.

How, may I know, is someone like Kerry less honorable than Bush? Less patriotic? Less interested in securing America and Americans?

[Bottle or the Gun]

I honestly believe that the masterminds of these attacks think that it will bring us to our knees. Like Japan, who honestly thought that a strick on Pearl Harbor would weaken our country, Osama thought a strike against New York and other targets would make the US say "WTF? We were fools! We are Satan personified!" If he ever picked up a book when we were educating him in our schools he'd realize that the US will spend years of time, billions of dollars and many lives to teach someone a lesson.

Japan surrendered because we had the capability to erase their culture from history, not because they were out-fought. Some defectors from North Korea came south not because of the US ideology, but because by looking at the trash that blew across the DMZ, they could tell that no matter how bad they were told it was over in the South, if you don't have to make every meal from scratch and knit your own clothes every day, maybe another way of life wouldn't be so bad.

I think we are doing the same thing in the mid-east. replacing the primitive screw-head way of life with something less superstitious, more modern, little more common sense. A culture change will defeat Osama as well as a missile.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
I honestly believe that the masterminds of these attacks think that it will bring us to our knees. Like Japan, who honestly thought that a strick on Pearl Harbor would weaken our country, Osama thought a strike against New York and other targets would make the US say "WTF? We were fools! We are Satan personified!" If he ever picked up a book when we were educating him in our schools he'd realize that the US will spend years of time, billions of dollars and many lives to teach someone a lesson.

Japan surrendered because we had the capability to erase their culture from history, not because they were out-fought. Some defectors from North Korea came south not because of the US ideology, but because by looking at the trash that blew across the DMZ, they could tell that no matter how bad they were told it was over in the South, if you don't have to make every meal from scratch and knit your own clothes every day, maybe another way of life wouldn't be so bad.

I think we are doing the same thing in the mid-east. replacing the primitive screw-head way of life with something less superstitious, more modern, little more common sense. A culture change will defeat Osama as well as a missile. I think it is just the opposite...I think Osama & Co. attacked the US to provoke a response that would almost certainly kill innocent civilians, thereby "proving" that America is the "evil Satan bad guys", or whatever.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...one of the long-term goals of terrorists is to gain popular support, and Bush's war on Iraq is a perfect tool for terrorist recruiting. :D

Keep on spinning - you might convince yourself!

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


Keep on spinning - you might convince yourself! No spin required. :D

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


Keep on spinning - you might convince yourself! No spin required. :D

What I find interesting is that people call terrorists "madmen", and then ascribe sane and pedestrian motivations to them... :p

[Shane Costello]

How should fiscal conservatives vote come November? Bush has strayed from the small government philosophy to a degree that can't be explained away by spending on the war on terror. OTOH how would John Kerry handle the American economy. Can you play the class warrior and balance the budget at the same time?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
How should fiscal conservatives vote come November? Bush has strayed from the small government philosophy to a degree that can't be explained away by spending on the war on terror. OTOH how would John Kerry handle the American economy. Can you play the class warrior and balance the budget at the same time? Speaking of spin..."class warfare" is a perfect example. Fiscal conservatives should vote for Kerry, and count on the Republican-controlled Congress to balance him out.

[Snide]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Kerry doesn't have to be a master politician to beat Bush. If Kerry wants to defeat Bush outright, perhaps he can convince Ross Perot to pull 19% of the electorate again.

That would probably do it.
Even that might not be necessary. Had Perot not been in the race, Bush Sr. would have needed the Perot voters to favor him over Clinton by roughly a 2-to-1 margin.

For Dole to win in '96, he would have needed virtually all Perot supporters.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Zero:
Speaking of spin..."class warfare" is a perfect example.

From which angle? From what little I've seen of Kerry he seems to be going down the road of decrying the shady corporate cabals that have the Bush administration in their pocket. I've seen it suggested that Al Gore lost the last election because he adapted a similar stance. Personally I can see how. I've always found the whole "class warfare" line of politics jaded in general, but puke inducing coming from scions of political dynasties and patronizing to people from "blue collar" backgrounds.

Fiscal conservatives should vote for Kerry, and count on the Republican-controlled Congress to balance him out.

Presuming the Republican congressional majority isn't swept aside in the Kerry tidal wave.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Presuming the Republican congressional majority isn't swept aside in the Kerry tidal wave. I don't see it. The past decade of slimy Congressional redistricting has made that very unlikely.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Originally posted by Kodiak
Who would you rather have in office if you were Al Queda?
:confused:
Osama Bin Laden. What's that got to do with anything?
I don't often agree politically with the Manifestual One, but this is exactly the right answer.

I have no use from anyone for argumentam ad "playing in to the hands of".

[epepke]

I predicted he would win in 2000. Now I'm predicting that he will lose in 2004.

At least it's on the record.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Hillary trying to pull the strings rant time:

Hillary doesn't want to run in 2008 against a Democrat incumbent, so Kerry or whoever must lose.

If Bush or his people are smart, Cheney will step aside because he wants to spend more time with his family. Dr Rice will be the running mate.

In 2008, It'll be Rice versus Hillary and Rice will get just enough of the African American vote.

If only we could somehow acquire a wand of undead turning and have a Humphrey/Stevenson ticket. :p

That wouldn't be too bad if you don't mind zombies in high places, but some folks say that's already the problem. :p :p :D

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
That wouldn't be too bad if you don't mind zombies in high places, but some folks say that's already the problem. :p :p :D

Braaaaainnnnnssss.....

Actually, that might help... :p

[TillEulenspiegel]

Could Bush lose in November?

Oh God Please!Please!Please!Please!Please!Please!Please!P lease!Please!Please!

[Tony]

Does it matter? No matter who wins, we are still going to have a tyrannical and un-American system where people in power want to push their morals on everyone else.

[davefoc]

Zero said:Speaking of spin..."class warfare" is a perfect example. Fiscal conservatives should vote for Kerry, and count on the Republican-controlled Congress to balance him out.

Wow, I thought I was the only fiscal conservative thinking along those lines.

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee which will be only the second time I've voted for a Democrat for president. It is a little weird though listening to the party of my guy blast a way with their evil rich people, pro-tax, pro-labor union, protectionist, pro big government anti-business schtick and think I'm actually going to vote for one of these guys.

And to top it all off I'm voting for the party of Jesse Jackson.

[subgenius]

9/11 Commission, opposed it, obstructed it, opposed an extension, forced subpoenas.
CIA agent outing, indictments imminent.
WMD commission: Well the ends justified the means.
Record deficits.
New Immigration policies.
AWOL.
Jobs going overseas is a good thing for US.
Didn't win the popular vote last time.
NYC, the justification for the Patriot Act, just passed a resolution condemning it.
Duh.

[davefoc]

9/11 Commission, opposed it, obstructed it, opposed an extension, forced subpoenas. - agree, but if he's successful at hiding major screwups by his administration he will probably lose less votes with a little cover up than with the actual facts

CIA agent outing, indictments imminent. - need to wait and see, not sure how this will play out, it doesn't help him but doubt he'll lose many votes over this.

WMD commission: Well the ends justified the means. - not sure what you mean here

Record deficits. - agree, big issue and one of main reasons Califonians rightly got rid of their never say no governor.

New Immigration policies. - hmmm, I think he's floated some trial balloons but I doubt he'll lose votes for ideas not actually acted on.

AWOL - agree, I don't know what the truth is, but he's likely to lose votes just based on accusations

Jobs going overseas is a good thing for US. - Maybe he'll lose a few votes for saying it bluntly, but to some degree this is really just part of a blunt argument for free trade, of course politicians can never speak bluntly. If you favor free trade you are by definition favoring the loss of some jobs and the gain of others.

Didn't win the popular vote last time.- agree, maybe some lingering resentment over that

NYC, the justification for the Patriot Act, just passed a resolution condemning it. - hmm, Are you sure all this whining about the patriot act isn't just partisan bs? I suppose even if it is partisan bs the fact is that partisan bs works so I guess he'll lose a few votes here

A few more things:

No WMD found. - This is huge and might be enough to lose him the election as a stand alone issue

No Ralph Nader. - Without him he wouldn't have won first time.

anti-free market crap like nationalizing baggage inspectors, protecting the steel mills (and then reversing after foreign pressure), massive agricultural subsidies, pro-industry drug bill - admittedly issues that only limited government folks care about but we do make up a lot of the Republican party core and when you piss us off sufficiently we won't vote for you even if you claim to be a Repbulican.

Continuing deaths in Iraq - If this is still going on during the election I can't imagine that he even has a chance

Haliburton contracts - maybe not much of an issue but enough for him to lose a few more votes from people who were having difficulty making up their minds

Cheney - Cheney is too old and medically suspect for the job. Coupled with Haliburon tie in, Cheney looks like major liability.

[kuroyume0161]

Puuuuuuuhleaaaaaaaaase LOooooooooooose!!!! :)

He basically lost in 2000. Although he had 5 more electoral votes, think about his: GWB lost by more than 1/2 million votes to Al Gore; a 1/2 million!!! That's more than 500,000 people!!! (okay, ya get the point) Yet, the bastard still won.

That's only 1/2%, but still a large populous in variance. The public spoke and the club counted dangling whatevers.

Who wins really doesn't matter much any more. It's the same stupid quo. Nothing changes. Politicians remain politicians. I'm just waiting for the president to proclaim himself supreme dictator so that our transformation into falling Rome can be complete. GWB just wants to circumvent this and go directly to the theocratic Rome that proved oh so useful to the human race...

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
Puuuuuuuhleaaaaaaaaase LOooooooooooose!!!! :)



Who wins really doesn't matter much any more. It's the same stupid quo. Nothing changes. Politicians remain politicians. I'm just waiting for the president to proclaim himself supreme dictator so that our transformation into falling Rome can be complete. GWB just wants to circumvent this and go directly to the theocratic Rome that proved oh so useful to the human race...

But, it does matter who wins! Currently we have a bonofide retard/moron/idiot (choose your favorite title) ruining our economy, foreign relationships, my love for this country, etc. all in the name of God's will. He has to lose this election... if he doesn't, I just may have to take my own life. I would rather have Liberace's dead corpse run the country right now. In case you care, I voted for Dean in the primary. DEAN= The only good choice.

[fishbob]

Bush was a child of privilege, got breaks due to family connections, made millions on insider stock deals, put the stupidest non-sponsored name in history on a baseball field, took pride in the Texas death penalty count during his term, ran a bogus education reform in Texas, trying to implement the same bogus education reform nationally, took us into an unnecessary war where hundreds of American and Brit troops have been killed and thousands wounded, hundreds to thousands of Iraqi civilian bystanders killed and who knows how many wounded. Racked up debt for the foreseeable future but denies it whenever questioned, granted favors for his insider buddies.

The thing about Bush on a personal level that fries me is that he is arrogant. Arrogance just sets me off like nothing else. In my experience, arrogance is a personality trait closely associated with incompetence. I see arrogance in Cheney and Rummy and Ashcroft. I suspect that perhaps the best policy decisions have not been made and will not be made because these guys are twits.

[Zero]

Originally posted by davefoc
Zero said:

Wow, I thought I was the only fiscal conservative thinking along those lines.

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee which will be only the second time I've voted for a Democrat for president. It is a little weird though listening to the party of my guy blast a way with their evil rich people, pro-tax, pro-labor union, protectionist, pro big government anti-business schtick and think I'm actually going to vote for one of these guys.

And to top it all off I'm voting for the party of Jesse Jackson. You know, while "tax and spend"(which is right-wing spin again) may not be your cup of tea, isn't it better than spend spend spend, and cut taxes at the same time? Taxes are the dues you pay to live in America; the question is how do we spend those taxes, on "missile defense" and pork, or on keeping this country a decent place to live?

Taxes should be regulated by honest methods like slashing pork and better accountability, not by raising outrageous deficits while cutting taxes to the people who need it least, and who don't stimulate the economy.

[davefoc]

kevinsbikes said: Currently we have a bonofide retard/moron/idiot (choose your favorite title) ruining our economy

Bush is not any of those things and if you remotely believe any of that you are engaging in some very lazy thinking.

Perhaps it makes you feel better to say things like that because you find it easier to call people names that you disagree with than to go through the difficulty of thinking about why and dealing with the tremendous uncertainties that are part of the real world.

Maybe you think you'[ve thought a lot about those issues and have distilled down the result of your thought process into this childish diatribe. If that's the case your words don't provide evidence of much ability on your part for rational analysis.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Just want to be sure...Kodiak...your point is that John Kerry, as President, would not do everything in his power to prevent another terrorist attack. Indeed, the reason for not re-defeating Bush is because Bush cares more about national security and protecting America than John Kerry? That, indeed, electing John Kerry is essentially electing a fellow traveller...someone who will specifically make policy choices designed to undercut America and put Americans at risk?

My point isn't to specifically defend Kerry -- though I think Bush, as you know, is very problematic. It is the willingness to suggest that only Bush has solutions to the national security challenges that face this country...a notion I reject, and which seems to be proven in the application of Bush policies.

How, may I know, is someone like Kerry less honorable than Bush? Less patriotic? Less interested in securing America and Americans?

I do not know where you are getting all your inferences from.

My only points were that 1. Kerry is an unknown and 2. the fact that Kerry is a liberal Democrat means that there is a very good chance that he is less "hawkish" than Bush.

Will Kerry do what he thinks is best? Of course.

Will it be that same things Bush would be willing to do? I doubt it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by davefoc
Zero said:

Wow, I thought I was the only fiscal conservative thinking along those lines.

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee which will be only the second time I've voted for a Democrat for president. It is a little weird though listening to the party of my guy blast a way with their evil rich people, pro-tax, pro-labor union, protectionist, pro big government anti-business schtick and think I'm actually going to vote for one of these guys.

And to top it all off I'm voting for the party of Jesse Jackson.

Actually Dave the sentiment goes deeper and far wider on both sides of the political spectrum. American's historically prefer a divided government. I guess we tend to be naturally suspicious. Wonder why .

[davefoc]

TillEulenspiegel.
I have come to think that the success of the US has more to do with the two party system than I had ever realized.

As something of an ideolog I had always thought that we would be better off if the party that more closely matched my ideology was in power.

I think, I failed to take into account the nature of humans and the nature of politics with that idea. The fact is that both parties are run essentially as businesses to generate money and get people elected. While almost all the public speeches reference public policy and public benefit behind the scenes both parties are making deals and acting to provide special benefits to special interests. The two things that stand in the way of this process are an effective president or governor and the pressure applied from the other party.

It seems like in Califonia we had an example of what happens with an ineffective governor and the near elimination of the two party system. It seems like on the national level we may be living through the same thing but with the Republicans in charge.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


Actually Dave the sentiment goes deeper and far wider on both sides of the political spectrum. American's historically prefer a divided government. I guess we tend to be naturally suspicious. Wonder why .

Ya gotta love grid-lock!

[odorousrex]

Bush: Yale boy, Skull and Bones, Washington Insider, good ole' boy politian, rich, america likes him.

Kerry: Yale boy, Skull and Bones, Washington Insider, good ole' boy politian, rich, america likes him.


"What flavor ice cream do you want with your american pie? Vanilla or vanilla?"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by odorousrex
Bush: Yale boy, Skull and Bones, Washington Insider, good ole' boy politian, rich, america likes him.

Kerry: Yale boy, Skull and Bones, Washington Insider, good ole' boy politian, rich, america likes him.


"What flavor ice cream do you want with your american pie? Vanilla or vanilla?"

Just one thing: Bush, a "Washington Insider"? :confused:

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Just one thing: Bush, a "Washington Insider"? :confused: Well, one step removed...after all, he did bring all of his dad's "Washington insider" friends along with him.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, one step removed...after all, he did bring all of his dad's "Washington insider" friends along with him.

Ah...the ol' "political dynasty"...

True enough.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Kodiak


How about the number of terrorist attacks in the United States after 9-11? Yes, I want a President who reacts to threats only after it's too late to do anything about them.

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by davefoc
kevinsbikes said:

Bush is not any of those things and if you remotely believe any of that you are engaging in some very lazy thinking.

Perhaps it makes you feel better to say things like that because you find it easier to call people names that you disagree with than to go through the difficulty of thinking about why and dealing with the tremendous uncertainties that are part of the real world.

Maybe you think you'[ve thought a lot about those issues and have distilled down the result of your thought process into this childish diatribe. If that's the case your words don't provide evidence of much ability on your part for rational analysis.

Wow davefoc,
You are a very well spoken dude... I am truly iimpressed. However, you are absolutely wrong. Bush is a very powerful moron. ...and I am not offended in any way that you are a supporter of his maniacal ways. Say hi to what ever preacher runs your crack pot christian religion, as your blind faith in this idiot bores me.

[BTox]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes


Wow davefoc,
You are a very well spoken dude... I am truly iimpressed. However, you are absolutely wrong. Bush is a very powerful moron. ...and I am not offended in any way that you are a supporter of his maniacal ways. Say hi to what ever preacher runs your crack pot christian religion, as your blind faith in this idiot bores me.

Another brain-dead Bush hater. What sewer did you crawl out from?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by BTox


Another brain-dead Bush hater. What sewer did you crawl out from?
Bush is the brain dead one.
Do you know what he got on his SAT's? (You don't claim he's a world class thinker, do you?)

[Stereolab]

subgenius, what do you think he got?

I forget exactly what Time magazine printed a few years back...but whatever it was, I was amazed (in disbelief?) that Bush supposedly got that score. It was maybe low 1200's?

For the record, I did way better than that on my own SATs...and I am not ashamed to say I hate Bush, also. (I'm with kevinsbikes...Dean is by far the best candidate out there...I'll vote for Kerry if he wins the nomination, but I am not very fond of him either.) Anyways, if Bush got 1200+, that is respectable.

[Zep]

Originally posted by fishbob
Bush was a child of privilege, got breaks due to family connections, made millions on insider stock deals, put the stupidest non-sponsored name in history on a baseball field, took pride in the Texas death penalty count during his term, ran a bogus education reform in Texas, trying to implement the same bogus education reform nationally, took us into an unnecessary war where hundreds of American and Brit troops have been killed and thousands wounded, hundreds to thousands of Iraqi civilian bystanders killed and who knows how many wounded. Racked up debt for the foreseeable future but denies it whenever questioned, granted favors for his insider buddies.

The thing about Bush on a personal level that fries me is that he is arrogant. Arrogance just sets me off like nothing else. In my experience, arrogance is a personality trait closely associated with incompetence. I see arrogance in Cheney and Rummy and Ashcroft. I suspect that perhaps the best policy decisions have not been made and will not be made because these guys are twits. Absolutely ditto agreement from me on this - well said!

And Bush and his team has lost just about ALL respect outside the USA, I can assure you. Right now, the USA looks to be run by a bunch of arrogant gun-totin' cowboy galoots - that can't be good.

Which says that there must surely be plenty of room for a (semi-)competent and respected statesman and team at the helm next time round. Rep or Dem doesn't really matter.

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by BTox


Another brain-dead Bush hater. What sewer did you crawl out from?

The sewer that this brain-dead bush nonliker came from is the sewer of the following:

Tired of christian right pounding their belief system on me, society, and schools.
Tired of the ultra rich becoming even more powerful via tax cuts and loopholes created by lawmakers signed off by the prez.
Tired of a business failure (Bush) throwing a budget surplus into the toilet using voodoo math to fool idiots like you (BTox) into thinking that the big picture is o.k.
Tired of providing the police force for the entire world on my tax dollar in the name of terrorism.
Tired of allowing child labor/prison labor/inhumane work condition products to flow into our nation laying off boucoup American workers.
Tired of the mindset that it is o.k. to allow illegals to work in the U.S. and grant the criminals citizenship.
Tired of footing the bill, via social services to those that don't have adaquate jobs.
Tired of major companies being allowed to base themselves offshore to avoid corporate taxes without penalties.
Tired more minimum wage jobs being created and idiots like you (BTox) thinking this is a great trade off for technical/manufacturing jobs.
Tired of more things that I don't feel that I should mention, because if you don't get it now, you wont get it by the time you are done reading this. BTox, I am ashamed that you think everything is hunky dorie (sp). Our countries economy is spiriling into the can and I am affraid that it is unrepairable. You can't tax $5.00/hour employees and expect to cover the budget. You can't provide social services (which I don't really like) without a working force tax base to fund the social services.
I apologize if I was long winded, but BTox, you, my friend are quite silly if you think Bush is a good president. To the rest of the Forum... I apologize for my ranting.

[fishbob]

Originally posted by BTox :
Another brain-dead Bush hater. What sewer did you crawl out from?

BTox - I know you like fishing so you gotta have some smarts. Why do you favor Bush? What has he done that you think warrents re-election? OK - he stood up well in the aftermath of the WTC attack, but what else?

[Quasi]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes


The sewer that this brain-dead bush nonliker came from is the sewer of the following:

Tired of christian right pounding their belief system on me, society, and schools.
Tired of the ultra rich becoming even more powerful via tax cuts and loopholes created by lawmakers signed off by the prez.
Tired of a business failure (Bush) throwing a budget surplus into the toilet using voodoo math to fool idiots like you (BTox) into thinking that the big picture is o.k.
Tired of providing the police force for the entire world on my tax dollar in the name of terrorism.
Tired of allowing child labor/prison labor/inhumane work condition products to flow into our nation laying off boucoup American workers.
Tired of the mindset that it is o.k. to allow illegals to work in the U.S. and grant the criminals citizenship.
Tired of footing the bill, via social services to those that don't have adaquate jobs.
Tired of major companies being allowed to base themselves offshore to avoid corporate taxes without penalties.
Tired more minimum wage jobs being created and idiots like you (BTox) thinking this is a great trade off for technical/manufacturing jobs.
Tired of more things that I don't feel that I should mention, because if you don't get it now, you wont get it by the time you are done reading this. BTox, I am ashamed that you think everything is hunky dorie (sp). Our countries economy is spiriling into the can and I am affraid that it is unrepairable. You can't tax $5.00/hour employees and expect to cover the budget. You can't provide social services (which I don't really like) without a working force tax base to fund the social services.
I apologize if I was long winded, but BTox, you, my friend are quite silly if you think Bush is a good president. To the rest of the Forum... I apologize for my ranting.

Although I do not agree with all of this, I would like to add a few things Bush has claimed, that are outright falsehoods:

One: Embryonic Stem Cell research deystroys embryos and therefore is akin to abortion.

Commment: Stem cell research harvests cells on the outside of embryos and does not deystroy them as the president claims. This is a total lie. Further, the president did not mention that if embryos are not used, they are incinerated in the hospital furnace because they do not last forever. So here, he is merely preventing the development of highly beneficial medicine all in the name of his own selfish power and deceit.

Two: France and the United Nations lied about the WMD in Iraq. Just wait and you will see.

Comment: All the kings horses and all the kings men couldnt find any WMD. Still waiting. Almost been a whole year. The UN is critical to humanity, and the anti UN feelings fostered by the president are extremely dangerous. The UN will fail without the United States and its support, and if that happened, it would likely be a prelude of horrible things to come.

Three: Faith based initiatives work.

Comment: Actually, no. By cutting the finding of non profit, not religious groups and giving the money to christian indoctrination sources for those same services, (and allowing them to discriminate against people applying for work based on their religious beliefs,) is a violation of the US constitution in terms of seperation of church and state i.e. freedom of religion. Should we have a president who so flagrantly discards the constitution? I might be a little rusty, but the swearing in of the president on inauguration day reads something like "I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States of America." Apparently Bush is violating that oath. And I will only briefly mention the right to a speedy trial and camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay....

Comments?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Quasi

Two: France and the United Nations lied about the WMD in Iraq. Just wait and you will see.


Has he said that? My recollection was that France (and the UN) said that they wanted the weapons inspectors to find the WMD, not that there were no WMD to be found.

I'm not a Bush lover* and don't agree with everything Kevinsbikes said either, but all credit to you, Kevin, for actually producing an itemised list of things you don't like about him, instead of going "Yah boo sucks".


* Is there anybody who is not American that actually likes Bush?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by richardm


Has he said that? My recollection was that France (and the UN) said that they wanted the weapons inspectors to find the WMD, not that there were no WMD to be found.

I'm not a Bush lover* and don't agree with everything Kevinsbikes said either, but all credit to you, Kevin, for actually producing an itemised list of things you don't like about him, instead of going "Yah boo sucks".


* Is there anybody who is not American that actually likes Bush?

Tony Bliar, PM of the UK.
John Howard, PM of Australia.

To name but two.

Edit: I'm not trying to belligerently contradict you. I'm hacked off that these two crawled to Bush for what they thought was political gain at the time. May it come back to bite them on the arse.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Tony Bliar, PM of the UK.
John Howard, PM of Australia.

To name but two.

Real people, I mean :D

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by richardm


Real people, I mean :D

Ah, good. I was afraid you might have missed my point. :D

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by richardm
* Is there anybody who is not American that actually likes Bush?
The Danish PM - who just might be more stupid and more arrogant than Bush. Sad but true.

[subgenius]

You know what Dubya got on his SAT's?




















Drool.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Ah, good. I was afraid you might have missed my point. :D

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: No way! Liberals NEVER demonize the right! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: No way! Liberals NEVER resort to character assassination or personal attacks! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Monketey Ghost]

I thought those tactics were properties of conservative behavior and thought...

Liberals "demonizing the right" made me laugh out loud... the liberal POV has been bitch-slapped from coast to coast, and somehow liberal has been turned into a dirty word.
That's just funny. Thanks for the larf.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: No way! Liberals NEVER demonize the right! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: No way! Liberals NEVER resort to character assassination or personal attacks! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: No, they do...but with neither the energy or enthusiasm of the far right.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
No, they do...but with neither the energy or enthusiasm of the far right.

My evidence lies in some of the posts in this very thread.

Where's your evidence that the right is worse?

Unlike you, I say that no one side is better or worse than the other.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak


My evidence lies in some of the posts in this very thread.

Where's your evidence that the right is worse?

Unlike you, I say that no one side is better or worse than the other. To my knowledge, no one on the "left" has produced a videotape accusing the president of being a mass murderer. Or accusing the first lady of being a lesbian murderer.

[Tony]

Originally posted by No Answers

...and somehow liberal has been turned into a dirty word.


When a political group has the gall to advocate high taxes, and laws limiting personal freedom while calling themselves "liberal". People start to see the farce, and respond accordingly.

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by Quasi





Three: Faith based initiatives work.

Comment: Actually, no. By cutting the finding of non profit, not religious groups and giving the money to christian indoctrination sources for those same services, (and allowing them to discriminate against people applying for work based on their religious beliefs,) is a violation of the US constitution in terms of seperation of church and state i.e. freedom of religion. Should we have a president who so flagrantly discards the constitution? I might be a little rusty, but the swearing in of the president on inauguration day reads something like "I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States of America." Apparently Bush is violating that oath. And I will only briefly mention the right to a speedy trial and camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay....

Comments?

I agree with you on all accounts... especially this last one. It gets under my skin.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
To my knowledge, no one on the "left" has produced a videotape accusing the president of being a mass murderer. Or accusing the first lady of being a lesbian murderer.

No videotape, but the accusations are there none the less...

Protestors Call Bush Mass Murderer (http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,6119,2-7-1442_1383360,00.html)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Quasi



Three: Faith based initiatives work.

Comment: Actually, no. By cutting the finding of non profit, not religious groups and giving the money to christian indoctrination sources for those same services, (and allowing them to discriminate against people applying for work based on their religious beliefs,) is a violation of the US constitution in terms of seperation of church and state i.e. freedom of religion. Should we have a president who so flagrantly discards the constitution? I might be a little rusty, but the swearing in of the president on inauguration day reads something like "I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States of America." Apparently Bush is violating that oath. And I will only briefly mention the right to a speedy trial and camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay....

Comments?

No? They don't work? Surely you have some facts? Personally I'm also against giving government grants to faith-based charities, but I'd never be so foolish as to say these charities "don't work". Faith based charities do fine work and have an important place in the fabric of society. That they should not be granted tax-payer funds has little to do with their impact.

Also I must take issue with your assertion that this is; "A violation of the US Constitution"...if it is you will need to show what section it violates.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


I'm no lawyer, but I do fail to see how the provision of funds spread among many faith based charities violates either the letter or the spirit of this amendment.

I don't like it, because I'm not religious at all, but my dislike of it does not make it un-constitutional. The rest of your assertion is based upon this. I agree that we should not have to suffer a POTUS who "shreds the constitution"....but the hard facts are that we have no such president now.

You only briefly mention Camp X-ray....and the right to a speedy trial. Why? Is it because you know that the Constitution does not confer rights upon non-US citizens located overseas?

-z

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
To my knowledge, no one on the "left" has produced a videotape accusing the president of being a mass murderer. Or accusing the first lady of being a lesbian murderer.
Because previously there wasn't a pres/1st lady who were?

[Marc]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Faith based charities do fine work and have an important place in the fabric of society. That they should not be granted tax-payer funds has little to do with their impact.

Sure, some do very fine work. And they already had access to federal funds if they set up a secular service that complies with all federal and state regulations. (non-discrimination rules for example, and medical requirements for drug rehab for example) The 'faith based' movement is honestly just a way to sidestep those requirements, letting federal money go to unregulated groups that can't or won't meet those requirements.


Also I must take issue with your assertion that this is; "A violation of the US Constitution"...if it is you will need to show what section it violates.
I'd say it potentially violates it. Will Islam, Buhddist, Wiccan, Scientology, and Pagan groups get the same access to the money as christian groups? I have a feeling that the ones promoting the faith based initiative would not care for that. Nor do some care to abide by anti-discrimination rules they might have to face.

The director of the Office of Faith Based initiatives had this to say:
Colby, from Centralia MO writes:
Do you feel that Pagan faith based groups should be given the same considerations as any other group that seeks aid?

Jim Towey
I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.




You only briefly mention Camp X-ray....and the right to a speedy trial. Why? Is it because you know that the Constitution does not confer rights upon non-US citizens located overseas?
Rights are also given to non-citizens arrested in America. Or do you think that the police is legally able to arrest forigners without cause, and lock them up without trial or contact with anyone? I would think we would see a lot fewer people at TAM3 if friends from say Australia knew they could just end up disapearing on entering the country, and no one could say anything. The prisoners at Camp X-ray would not be eligible for constitutional protection if they were prisoners of war, which would then put them under international law and the Genieva Convention. But they have not been given that status either. So have they been arrested or are they prisoners of war? Either the government is violating the constitution or the GC.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak


No videotape, but the accusations are there none the less...

Protestors Call Bush Mass Murderer (http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,6119,2-7-1442_1383360,00.html) Did you accidentally post the wrong link...I didn't see anything in there about Americans, mass murder, or accusing Bush of having specific individuals murdered for political purposes. I did see something about 150 South African protestors.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Zero
Did you accidentally post the wrong link...I didn't see anything in there about Americans, mass murder, or accusing Bush of having specific individuals murdered for political purposes. I did see something about 150 South African protestors.

So only Americans can sit on the left and right sides of the political spectrum?

Who limited this discussion to just Americans?!?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kodiak


So only Americans can sit on the left and right sides of the political spectrum?

Who limited this discussion to just Americans?!? I did...you got a problem with that?!?:p

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Marc



Rights are also given to non-citizens arrested in America. Or do you think that the police is legally able to arrest forigners without cause, and lock them up without trial or contact with anyone? I would think we would see a lot fewer people at TAM3 if friends from say Australia knew they could just end up disapearing on entering the country, and no one could say anything. The prisoners at Camp X-ray would not be eligible for constitutional protection if they were prisoners of war, which would then put them under international law and the Genieva Convention. But they have not been given that status either. So have they been arrested or are they prisoners of war? Either the government is violating the constitution or the GC.

I snipped your comments about the "faith based" initiatives as I care not to debate them. I have no love for the idea either, and therefore no wish to debate the merits. What I do not see however, is a contstitutional problem as long as the aid is not going to a specific religion.

As for Constitutional rights. Sure they are applied to non-citizens arrested in America, but the "people" detained in Guantanimo are not in America, were not arrested in America, and are not Americans. Not one person there was "arrested without cause".
Unless our Australian friends are travelling to TAM3 by way of Al Qaeda training camps, or Afghan and Iraqi war zones, then I fail to see how they could be fearful of arrest or even a mild amount of hassle.

If the government is violating the Constitution you need first to supply the article or amendment you feel that it is in violation of. Same with the GC. As I see it these are ununiformed enemy combatants, and as such they defy legal definition. Also, terrorists have commonly basked in their ability to exploit the gray fringes of legal definition. It's been one of their strengths. If one cannot identify a country with them, how then can they be effectively attacked? Remember the aftermath of 9/11? As the forces of the US Navy massed in the Arabian Sea, many liberal minded people called for evidence that Osama was even involved at all. The terrorists have ever exploited their ability to hide themselves by eschewing the dubious protection of uniforms and national identities. It works well unless one is caught. They reap what they sow.

-z

[Marc]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I snipped your comments about the "faith based" initiatives as I care not to debate them. I have no love for the idea either, and therefore no wish to debate the merits. What I do not see however, is a contstitutional problem as long as the aid is not going to a specific religion.
I agree, however I would highly suspect that those doing the most to promote the initiatives only have christian faiths in mind.



As for Constitutional rights. Sure they are applied to non-citizens arrested in America, but the "people" detained in Guantanimo are not in America, were not arrested in America, and are not Americans. Not one person there was "arrested without cause".
I think you are forgetting the "people of interest". People like illegal aliens that were detained and sent to the camp without the benefit of being able to contact a lawyer, and are still there nearly 2 years later. They were arrested, but not given any of the rights or due process of someone arrested, nor have they been deported.



If the government is violating the Constitution you need first to supply the article or amendment you feel that it is in violation of.
right to due process of the law, right to a speedy trial.


Same with the GC. As I see it these are ununiformed enemy combatants, and as such they defy legal definition. Also, terrorists have commonly basked in their ability to exploit the gray fringes of legal definition.
so that gives us the right to ignore the law, both domestic and international on the treatment of prisoners?



If one cannot identify a country with them, how then can they be effectively attacked?
irrellivent to the question of treatment of prisoners. If they are criminals then they need to be treated according to the law. If they are POW then they need to be treated according to international law. If they are war criminals again they need to be treated according to international law. When people like Saddam have people put into prison where they are never heard from again there comes an outcry from other countries about human rights. Why should we be immune if we do essentially the same thing?


Remember the aftermath of 9/11? As the forces of the US Navy massed in the Arabian Sea, many liberal minded people called for evidence that Osama was even involved at all.
which would be a fair question in my mind. You want to get those responsible. Going off half-cocked and attacking the wrong group would not do much for our credibility or help us get those responsible. Identify the target, then take it out.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by rikzilla

As for Constitutional rights. Sure they are applied to non-citizens arrested in America, but the "people" detained in Guantanimo are not in America, were not arrested in America, and are not Americans. Not one person there was "arrested without cause".


Jose Padilla isn't in Guantanimo, but he was an American citizen arrested in America currently being held on American soil as an "enemy combatant".

[BTox]

Originally posted by kevinsbikes


The sewer that this brain-dead bush nonliker came from is the sewer of the following:

Tired of christian right pounding their belief system on me, society, and schools.
Tired of the ultra rich becoming even more powerful via tax cuts and loopholes created by lawmakers signed off by the prez.
Tired of a business failure (Bush) throwing a budget surplus into the toilet using voodoo math to fool idiots like you (BTox) into thinking that the big picture is o.k.
Tired of providing the police force for the entire world on my tax dollar in the name of terrorism.
Tired of allowing child labor/prison labor/inhumane work condition products to flow into our nation laying off boucoup American workers.
Tired of the mindset that it is o.k. to allow illegals to work in the U.S. and grant the criminals citizenship.
Tired of footing the bill, via social services to those that don't have adaquate jobs.
Tired of major companies being allowed to base themselves offshore to avoid corporate taxes without penalties.
Tired more minimum wage jobs being created and idiots like you (BTox) thinking this is a great trade off for technical/manufacturing jobs.
Tired of more things that I don't feel that I should mention, because if you don't get it now, you wont get it by the time you are done reading this. BTox, I am ashamed that you think everything is hunky dorie (sp). Our countries economy is spiriling into the can and I am affraid that it is unrepairable. You can't tax $5.00/hour employees and expect to cover the budget. You can't provide social services (which I don't really like) without a working force tax base to fund the social services.
I apologize if I was long winded, but BTox, you, my friend are quite silly if you think Bush is a good president. To the rest of the Forum... I apologize for my ranting.

Typical ignorant response of the issues and facts from a person who has no capability to think for himself. As expected...

[subgenius]

potkettleblack

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

The Danish PM - who just might be more stupid and more arrogant than Bush. Sad but true.
I didn't vote for Anders Fogh (Danish prime minister), or any of the parties that support him, but he's definetly not stupid. Arrogant yes, but not stupid.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I didn't vote for Anders Fogh (Danish prime minister), or any of the parties that support him, but he's definetly not stupid. Arrogant yes, but not stupid.
Having read a newspaper article he wrote about 15 years ago that was ridiculously moronic, I'd say he's definitely not the "sharpest knife the the drawer". Mind you, he might just have written deliberate lies in that article to support his political views. I'll see if I can find said article.

[Tricky]

Getting back to the original question, yes it's looking ever more likely that Bush could lose. The latest poll (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2400657) shows that barely half of the voters (52%) find him "honest and trustworthy", down from 71% at the height of his popularity. Add into that the ever more damaging reports (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2400741) of his national guard duty (He was there. He has paychecks and records of auto accidents, but not much else) and you have a candidate that has many vulnerable points.

Earlier, I believed that there was little chance of him losing, but I may have been premature in my assessment. I always seem to forget how short the memory of the American people is.

Of course, with the Republican slime machine getting into gear (Jane Fonda! Affairs!), things could change drastically. It will be interesting.

I have to wonder why nobody seems to have copies of Bush's personnel reviews (or whatever they call them) from his guard days? Didn't he have a commanding officer who remembers being over the son of the CIA director? How about guard buddies? Surely someone could vouch for him (besides the traffic cops).

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Marc

I agree, however I would highly suspect that those doing the most to promote the initiatives only have christian faiths in mind.


I suspect much the same....but then again I'd suspect that Christians of various stripes make up the religious majority in this country.




I think you are forgetting the "people of interest". People like illegal aliens that were detained and sent to the camp without the benefit of being able to contact a lawyer, and are still there nearly 2 years later. They were arrested, but not given any of the rights or due process of someone arrested, nor have they been deported.

You'll need to point these out. I know of no case save that of Jose Padilla that remains in the kind of limbo you refer to.


right to due process of the law, right to a speedy trial.
Okay then, you must be referring to:
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

...but of course Amendment V allows for the exception bolded above. Perhaps that is why Jose Padilla has found himself in such dire circumstances?

As a U.S. citizen, Padilla usually would be afforded traditional legal rights such as presumption of innocence until a conviction.

Padilla, however, has been classified an "enemy combatant," or "unlawful combatant." It means that he has fewer legal rights than an ordinary civilian defendant in a criminal case.

Classification arose from Nazi saboteurs:
For example, Padilla may be held indefinitely without being charged until the U.S.-declared war against terrorism ends, said John McGinnis, professor of constitutional law at Northwestern Law School in Chicago.

The designation also allows U.S. authorities to interrogate the suspect in a more aggressive fashion, and restrict his access to an attorney, McGinnis said.

The U.S. Supreme Court defined an "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant" in a World War II case called Ex Parte Quirin. In a 1942 decision, the court confirmed the authority of Congress and the president to try Nazi terrorists operating in the United States by military commissions.


So it sounds to me that the framers of the Constitution did not mean for it to be used to aid the enemy, or treasonous citizens. A nation could not long survive if it codified protections for those who sought to destroy it. The fathers of this country were not stupid.

so that gives us the right to ignore the law, both domestic and international on the treatment of prisoners?

What law? The terrorist protection act has not yet been written, much less passed.

irrellivent to the question of treatment of prisoners. If they are criminals then they need to be treated according to the law. If they are POW then they need to be treated according to international law. If they are war criminals again they need to be treated according to international law. When people like Saddam have people put into prison where they are never heard from again there comes an outcry from other countries about human rights. Why should we be immune if we do essentially the same thing?

You equate the US treatment of the captured terrorist enemy with that of Saddam's tortured, executed, and dumped political prisoner? That is absurd. No one has been made to disappear, no one has been mistreated, no one has been killed. I read Scott Ritter's first book "End Game"...in it he detailed how his group found records of Iraqi political prisoners being used as lab animals.

UNSCOM 227 inspection (from Ritter's book Endgame) uncovered Iraqi documents detailing biological and chemical agent testing done on humans. (political prisoners)...Endgame page 180.

So we "do essentially the same thing" eh?? I think you need to re-think your position.


which would be a fair question in my mind. You want to get those responsible. Going off half-cocked and attacking the wrong group would not do much for our credibility or help us get those responsible. Identify the target, then take it out.

Wrong group? Are you saying that the intel was wrong on Osama? Is there no vile terrorist group, or inhuman dictator that you do not personally support?

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky
Getting back to the original question, yes it's looking ever more likely that Bush could lose. The latest poll (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2400657) shows that barely half of the voters (52%) find him "honest and trustworthy", down from 71% at the height of his popularity. Add into that the ever more damaging reports (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2400741) of his national guard duty (He was there. He has paychecks and records of auto accidents, but not much else) and you have a candidate that has many vulnerable points.

Earlier, I believed that there was little chance of him losing, but I may have been premature in my assessment. I always seem to forget how short the memory of the American people is.

Of course, with the Republican slime machine getting into gear (Jane Fonda! Affairs!), things could change drastically. It will be interesting.

I have to wonder why nobody seems to have copies of Bush's personnel reviews (or whatever they call them) from his guard days? Didn't he have a commanding officer who remembers being over the son of the CIA director? How about guard buddies? Surely someone could vouch for him (besides the traffic cops).

Tricky,

You applaud the findings of Democratic inquisitors, while calling their Republican cousins the "slime machine". :D

You reveal yourself to be "fair and balanced" in the tradition of the FOX network! Congrats!

Besides, wasn't it the Clinton admin that first decried the "Politics of Personal Destruction"?? That makes it all the more troubling that the Dems are so gleefully swimming in the slime as well.......doesn't it?

-z

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Tricky,

You applaud the findings of Democratic inquisitors, while calling their Republican cousins the "slime machine". :D

You reveal yourself to be "fair and balanced" in the tradition of the FOX network! Congrats!

Besides, wasn't it the Clinton admin that first decried the "Politics of Personal Destruction"?? That makes it all the more troubling that the Dems are so gleefully swimming in the slime as well.......doesn't it?

-z
They are two news articles, Rik. They are from a newspaper in a conservative city. I selected them because they support my position. I have not suggested anything that is not on the public record. In contrast, we have already seen threads trying to associate Kerry with Jane Fonda (surely that is a crime!) and to stoop to cheap gossip about a supposed affair. None of this is public record, only innuendo.

Although they are both efforts to
defame (http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/d.html), surely you can tell which definition (from The Devil's Dictionary) applies to which.
DEFAME, v.t.
To lie about another. To tell the truth about another.

[Zero]

I love the way questioning Bush's NG service, based on missed drills and missing paperwork, is somehow 'sliming' him. No, I don't think it is exactly the most important issue of the campaign, or even in the top ten. However, it pales in comparison to what Republicans do. Crybaby Republicans just want the slime all to themselves, it what it is.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Having read a newspaper article he wrote about 15 years ago that was ridiculously moronic, I'd say he's definitely not the "sharpest knife the the drawer". Mind you, he might just have written deliberate lies in that article to support his political views. I'll see if I can find said article.
I'd be a little cautious characterizing a person as a moron based on a single article he wrote; he could have been having a bad day. I have no problem believing that he could have been lying though. Still it would be interesting if you could find the article.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky

we have already seen threads trying to associate Kerry with Jane Fonda (surely that is a crime!)

Only in the court of public opinion Tricky! ;)

Hanoi Jane, as you know, is a poster child for the excesses of liberalism. You know, little stuff like treason, sedition, etc....

As one who scored Kerry 100% on the AOL poll, I find it of great interest that he is politically in accord with such a person. No matter how much I like Kerry's ideas....if he's a Fondaesque radical...I'd never vote for him. No matter who he was running against. Personally, I'd like to see him judged on who he is now, and on his policy ideas (many of which I like). But if this is to be the standard, then Bush's own past must be discounted as well.

It's way too early to tell what could happen in Nov....but it's pretty obvious to me that the Repubs have yet to even properly join the political fight. A better yardstick would be to measure the post-convention bounces of both parties....but we still have quite a time till then.

-z

[Marc]

Originally posted by rikzilla
...but of course Amendment V allows for the exception bolded above. Perhaps that is why Jose Padilla has found himself in such dire circumstances?

hmm... looking at that I see

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

it would seem to apply to people in the american military, not any old person in times of war. Though with terrorism the war can be very ill defined, and potentially never ending. In any case if Jose Padilla is considered an enemy combatant then he should be treated as any POW. I do not know the legal complexities of "unlawful combatant".




What law? The terrorist protection act has not yet been written, much less passed.
should they be considered criminals? We had no problem prosecuting the original WTC bombers as such. Should they be treated as POW? As most of these guys were captured fighting in another country. You seem to want to put them in a brand new category, one with no standards of conduct and no laws covering it. That is a very bad president to set. When previous presidents bombed or used military actions in other countries without an actual state of war, our soldiers could be labeled terrorists by those countries. And anyone captured could then be kept in the same limbo without any legal ramifications.


You equate the US treatment of the captured terrorist enemy with that of Saddam's tortured, executed, and dumped political prisoner? That is absurd.
That is absured, it is also a strawman. I am not refering to medical experiments, torture, or the like. I am refering to people being imprisoned without a trial, without legal councel, and left to rot in prison.


Wrong group? Are you saying that the intel was wrong on Osama? Is there no vile terrorist group, or inhuman dictator that you do not personally support?

Now an even bigger strawman, ad hominem, appeal to emotive language, and possibly a few other fallacies.

I in no way said our intel on Osama was wrong. I do not support any terrorist group, dictoator, etc.. Now, if someone on Sept. 12 said Hamas was responsible, it would be a fair to ask for evidence that they were invovled. Not that getting rid of that group would be a bad thing, but tearing up Palistine to destroy Hamas would not help bring the real perpetrators down. So how would asking for the evidence that Osama was the guilty party not be reasoable? Would you prefer we target people based on gut feelings? on psychic readings on who was guilty? If not based on evidence, then what would you have us use to find and eliminate for such crimes?

[fishbob]

Rik sez:Okay then, you must be referring to:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherry Picking! Cherry Picking! I caught Rik cherry picking!

What the Amendment says is No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger
In other words, the exception applies to people in military service, and only to people in military service. Not Padilla, and not a bunch of civilians down in Guantanamo.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Marc


hmm... looking at that I see

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger

it would seem to apply to people in the american military, not any old person in times of war. Though with terrorism the war can be very ill defined, and potentially never ending. In any case if Jose Padilla is considered an enemy combatant then he should be treated as any POW. I do not know the legal complexities of "unlawful combatant".


As I said before I'm no lawyer....I thought it meant something else, and I guess I can see now that I was wrong.

Idid find this info about the "unlawful combatant" status:
The U.S. Supreme Court defined an "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant" in a World War II case called Ex Parte Quirin. In a 1942 decision, the court confirmed the authority of Congress and the president to try Nazi terrorists operating in the United States by military commissions.

The case centered on eight Nazi saboteurs who had crossed the Atlantic in a German submarine: four Nazi operatives landed on Long Island, New York, and another four at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The FBI arrested both groups and turned them over to the military, which promptly tried them.

In the case, the United States was able to execute the saboteurs because they were not deemed to be prisoners of war but unlawful combatants.

"If someone is a soldier, he is under the rules of war and needs to be treated as such," McGinnis said. But "He [Padilla] is not necessarily a prisoner of war. He's an undeclared combatant , a saboteur ... aiming at civilian targets, and outside the protection of the Geneva Convention."

U.S. officials must still supply evidence showing Padilla at least planned to harm U.S. interests, McGinnis said.


But of course that also requires that evidence be brought forward. Perhaps this is why Mr. Padilla's status is under revision?? I guess we'll see how it all plays out.


should they be considered criminals? We had no problem prosecuting the original WTC bombers as such.

It is patently absurd to threaten suicidal terrorists with a lawsuit. You might as well start arresting corpses of suicide victim for the crime of suicide.

Should they be treated as POW? As most of these guys were captured fighting in another country.

Ununiformed enemy are normally refered to as spies or sabateurs. Either catagory of individual has been in the past subject to a military trial and if found guilty subject to immediate execution. It is my fervent hope that the military will soon try and execute many of these cases @ Gitmo. (but that's just me)

You seem to want to put them in a brand new category, one with no standards of conduct and no laws covering it.
There should be enumerated international laws or treaties describing terrorism, and what should be done with captured terrorists. That there are not is not the fault of the US government. The terrorists have historically used this gray area of international law to their advantage,...but there are two sides to every coin. They cannot expect to exploit loopholes in law, and then cry about the fact that once captured their captors use the same loopholes and gray areas against them. What's good for the Goose....etc....etc...


That is a very bad president to set.
The targeting of civilians for a horrible death based on their religion or nationality is a worse precedent. Since many people say that terrorism is merely a military tactic there can be no meaningful WOT. So what then can be our response?

This is why I have been so overjoyed at having a president such as GWB. A man unafraid to see what needs doing, and then doing it. Had AlGore been in the Oval Office, I shudder to think of the strength Al Qaeda would be gathering as they continued to conduct operations against a "paper tiger". How many would have to die before a Democratic POTUS would actually do anything? The final number is not known, but it's easy to see it would have to be more than the 3,000+ death toll of 9/11.

When previous presidents bombed or used military actions in other countries without an actual state of war, our soldiers could be labeled terrorists by those countries.

Since terrorists are ununiformed and take pains to not be associated with a specific country I'd say that only an idiot or a dishonest person could come to such a conclusion.

And anyone captured could then be kept in the same limbo without any legal ramifications.

Eh? You mean like the POW/MIA's from Vietnam who just "disappeared" in Hanoi??

"Sen. John F. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, is one of the key figures pushing for normalization. Kerry is currently on a visit to Vietnam where he has been doing two things: (1) praising the Vietnamese effusively for granting access to their war archives and (2) telling the press that there's no believable evidence to back up the stories of live POWs still being held. "Ironically, that very kind of live-POW evidence has been brought to Kerry's own committee on a regular basis over the past year, and he has repeatedly sought to impeach its value. Moreover, Kerry and his allies on the committee - such as Sens. John McCain, Nancy Kassebaum and Tom Daschle - have worked to block much of this evidence from being made public."


I guess even a uniform and an ID card really isn't much protection unless an enemy is complying with the GC,...is it? The fact remains that captured terrorists have been maintained in safety by US forces....whereas the same cannot be said of those captured by terrorists. Case in point; --I edited this link to the Daniel Pearl video as I reviewed it and just realized it is likely a violation of JREF rules to publish a link to so gruesome an image.

That is absured, it is also a strawman. I am not refering to medical experiments, torture, or the like. I am refering to people being imprisoned without a trial, without legal councel, and left to rot in prison.
No, what was absurd were your own words, equating the common treatment of Gitmo detainees with the common treatment of Saddam's "detainees", most of whom have finally been located....in mass graves.
Originally posted by Marc: When people like Saddam have people put into prison where they are never heard from again there comes an outcry from other countries about human rights. Why should we be immune if we do essentially the same thing?

These were your disgusting words I've responded to...not a "strawman".

I in no way said our intel on Osama was wrong. I do not support any terrorist group, dictoator, etc.. Now, if someone on Sept. 12 said Hamas was responsible, it would be a fair to ask for evidence that they were invovled.
Of course, are you saying that people did not? We had to rely on intelligence didn't we? Luckily it was good intel, and we did the right thing by acting on it.

Not that getting rid of that group would be a bad thing, but tearing up Palistine to destroy Hamas would not help bring the real perpetrators down. So how would asking for the evidence that Osama was the guilty party not be reasoable? Would you prefer we target people based on gut feelings? on psychic readings on who was guilty? If not based on evidence, then what would you have us use to find and eliminate for such crimes?

This last is not worth responding to.

-z

[Marc]

You keep starting out rational, but seem to devolve into emotional appeals and accusations.

Originally posted by rikzilla
It is patently absurd to threaten suicidal terrorists with a lawsuit. You might as well start arresting corpses of suicide victim for the crime of suicide.
strawman again. I am not talking about threatening lawsuits, I am talking about how to deal with terrorists that have been captured. Should they be treated as criminals, as we have done in the past which can result in imprisonment or even the death penalty, or should we treat them as prisoners of war? What I am against is just letting them sit forever in limbo. Either charge them as criminals and send them to prison or whatever, or make them prisoners of war and do whatever is done with them.




Ununiformed enemy are normally refered to as spies or sabateurs. Either catagory of individual has been in the past subject to a military trial and if found guilty subject to immediate execution. It is my fervent hope that the military will soon try and execute many of these cases @ Gitmo. (but that's just me)
Good! Then they can do that. As I said above it is the limbo they are in that I am not in favor of. If they are considered saboturs then fine, put them on trial, and be done with them.



There should be enumerated international laws or treaties describing terrorism, and what should be done with captured terrorists. That there are not is not the fault of the US government. The terrorists have historically used this gray area of international law to their advantage,...but there are two sides to every coin. They cannot expect to exploit loopholes in law, and then cry about the fact that once captured their captors use the same loopholes and gray areas against them. What's good for the Goose....etc....etc...
Then you are starting to tread into the eye-for-an-eye, ends justifies the means teritory. Any kind of justice or moral superiority goes right out the window. Once we start exploiting loopholes to do whatever we want then on what grounds can we complain when others do the exact same thing?



The targeting of civilians for a horrible death based on their religion or nationality is a worse precedent. Since many people say that terrorism is merely a military tactic there can be no meaningful WOT. So what then can be our response?

again the appeal to emotive language. If you start defending your position with the "what they did is worse" defence, then you are just setting up an excuse to commit just about any crimes. Say someone killed several innocent people, then a group hunts this person down, captures them, and tortures him to death. What the dead murderer did was a 'worse precedent', but does that justify the actions of the vigilantes?




How many would have to die before a Democratic POTUS would actually do anything? The final number is not known, but it's easy to see it would have to be more than the 3,000+ death toll of 9/11.

more emotive language, and appealing to the unkown. We cannot know how things would have been under Gore, perhapes he might have even been able to handle things better than Bush. We can't truly know, so it is an invalid argument.



Since terrorists are ununiformed and take pains to not be associated with a specific country I'd say that only an idiot or a dishonest person could come to such a conclusion.
Why? In some countries we are considered the 'great satan', a bit if hyperbol at the very least. So why wouldn't some nation that we do not have an official state of war with declare troops on their soil terrorist? And then they could take advantage of some of those legal loopholes to treat them as such while the diplomats play word games on the definition of terrorist.


Eh? You mean like the POW/MIA's from Vietnam who just "disappeared" in Hanoi??
Exactly!! If we take prisoners that "disappear" into prisons that prevent any contact with anyone not in the US military, then what right would we have to complain if another country does it with our people?


No, what was absurd were your own words, equating the common treatment of Gitmo detainees with the common treatment of Saddam's "detainees", most of whom have finally been located....in mass graves.
Ok, I used the wrong example. How about this, a US citizen visiting China, or some other country, gets caught with drugs, they go to prison. No contact with their family is allowed, they are not allowed a lawyer, they are not given a trial. If that happens you can bet that the US diplomats would raise hell, or the person's family would if they didn't. So why should we get indignant over that situation if it so resembles some of what we are doing?


These were your disgusting words I've responded to...not a "strawman".
It was, and still is a strawman as you are 1) focusing on something I had not intended to be part of the annalogy, 2) were accusing me of saying our Intel was wrong when I wasn't, and 3) accused me of personally supporting terrorists and dictators. Who's words are disgusting now?


Of course, are you saying that people did not? We had to rely on intelligence didn't we? Luckily it was good intel, and we did the right thing by acting on it.
try reading what I wrote and not what you think I'm saying into it. I did not say anything was wrong with our intel, and I agree that the right thing was acting on it. What I'm saying is there is nothing wrong asking for what evidence we had that Osama was guilty. Try to understand what that question is, it is just simply asking what was the intel we have that he did it!!!! It was a question to see if we had good intel, not an attempt to prevent any needed action.


This last is not worth responding to.
neither was a lot of what you accused me of, but I'm responding anyway.

[pleiades61]

Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

Can anyone truly protect us from evil in whatever form it should appear, whether planes, nukes, bio or chemical weapons?

[subgenius]

Even Robert "the Traitor" Novak feels the answer (to the thread topic question) is yes.

Strike two for Bush

Supporters of the president were surprised that he would ask to be questioned by Tim Russert. What flabbergasted them was the absence of any plan to use this event to stop being the target as the 2004 campaign began.

This failure was Strike Two for President Bush. Strike One was his humdrum State of the Union address. Fortunately for the president, this is not baseball where three strikes are out.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/column.novak.opinion.bush/

[epepke]

Originally posted by pleiades61
Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

Can anyone truly protect us from evil in whatever form it should appear, whether planes, nukes, bio or chemical weapons?

Did Bush protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Hanoi Jane, as you know, is a poster child for the excesses of liberalism. You know, little stuff like treason, sedition, etc....
I know she is, and I'm not sure why. Her opposition to a war that almost everyone now admits was a terrible mistake shouldn't brand her forever. Besides, now she's a Born Again Christian. How can the Right continue to trash her? What she has always been is an airhead. She could not be part of any tresonous, seditious conspiracy because it would conflict with her hair appointment. Really, pick someone more deserving (like Gore Vidal) as your liberal target. Jane is not worthy.

Originally posted by rikzilla
As one who scored Kerry 100% on the AOL poll, I find it of great interest that he is politically in accord with such a person. No matter how much I like Kerry's ideas....if he's a Fondaesque radical...I'd never vote for him. No matter who he was running against.
Which is why such polls mean nothing. You have your ideas about Kerry and you are not going to let a little thing like his political positions get in the way of them. But in truth, I find those polls to be pretty worthless too. They never ask the right questions. I came out being a Sharpton supporter, but I wouldn't trust him with a pair of blunt scissors. Candidate's official position and their trustworthiness to actually defend that position are greatly different.

I'm not sure I trust Kerry, but I am damn sure I don't trust Bush. I suffered under his governorship for several years, and he is simply a lying tool (examples available upon request). He will say anything his handlers tell him to say. I trust him as much as a five-dollar Rolex.

Originally posted by rikzilla
Personally, I'd like to see him judged on who he is now, and on his policy ideas (many of which I like). But if this is to be the standard, then Bush's own past must be discounted as well.
BZZT! Sorry, wrong answer. There is nothing better you can judge a candidate on than their past. You cannot go on their "positions" (as that poll proved well). All politicians (or at least all successful politicians) take sometimes contrary positions for various political reasons. It goes with the territory. You have to look at the whole of their career to see the real picture. Bush's career includes poor student, poor businessman, poor soldier, poor governer, and poor president. The only area in which he is not poor is in money. I honestly cannot understand what the average non-rich American finds likable in him. But maybe I don't watch enough TV.


Originally posted by rikzilla
It's way too early to tell what could happen in Nov....but it's pretty obvious to me that the Repubs have yet to even properly join the political fight. A better yardstick would be to measure the post-convention bounces of both parties....but we still have quite a time till then.

And a lot will happen. Truly, the election is decided more by the events of the previous 6 months than by the previous four years. We will have to see what happens over those six months. If I were Bush, I would release Saddam and then capture him again. That was great press.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

I know she is, and I'm not sure why. Her opposition to a war that almost everyone now admits was a terrible mistake shouldn't brand her forever. Besides, now she's a Born Again Christian. How can the Right continue to trash her? What she has always been is an airhead. She could not be part of any tresonous, seditious conspiracy because it would conflict with her hair appointment. Really, pick someone more deserving (like Gore Vidal) as your liberal target. Jane is not worthy. You miss the point, Jane is just fun to trash.
BZZT! Sorry, wrong answer. There is nothing better you can judge a candidate on than their past. You cannot go on their "positions" (as that poll proved well). All politicians (or at least all successful politicians) take sometimes contrary positions for various political reasons. It goes with the territory. You have to look at the whole of their career to see the real picture. Bush's career includes poor student, poor businessman, poor soldier, poor governer, and poor president. The only area in which he is not poor is in money. I honestly cannot understand what the average non-rich American finds likable in him. But maybe I don't watch enough TV. Are you taking a stab at defending Kerry’s flip-flopping on issues?
“Bush's career includes poor student, poor businessman, poor soldier, poor governer, and poor president.”
GW was a C student at Yale; not good enough for you? Or is it his SAT score that bothers you? Wow election 2000 all over again… How many times does it have to be shown that Bush fulfilled his requirements for the National Guard? Since when does being a good soldier matter to you “lefties” anyway? I don’t know about his Governorship; Texas isn't as bad off as California under under Davis by a long shot.

And a lot will happen. Truly, the election is decided more by the events of the previous 6 months than by the previous four years. We will have to see what happens over those six months. If I were Bush, I would release Saddam and then capture him again. That was great press. It would be even better if a certain government hands over Osama between then and now.
I think this election is a testing ground for the Democrats on liberal spin (just how far can we stretch the truth) and the real race is in 2008. These candidates are just sacrificial lambs.

Baa, baa black sheep,
Have you any pull?
Yes sir, yes sir,
Three States full.
One for my Kerry,
One for my Hillary,
But none for the little Dean,
Who cries in the lane.

[Bottle or the Gun]

This has been sitting forgotten a few months. Has anyones' opinion changed? If it wasn't for the fact that Kerry is going to oppose George, I'd say Bush will lose for sure.

[LFTKBS]

You know what's weird? I didn't see anyone call you out for saying that Oliver North claimed ObL was the biggest threat to the U.S.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
You know what's weird? I didn't see anyone call you out for saying that Oliver North claimed ObL was the biggest threat to the U.S.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/north.htm

I got Abu and Osama confused myself. I think it came from being another example of someone we support who turns on us.