Will Bush win?

[goodboy]

What do you think?

[pgas]

That this post  should at least be moved to the Off Topic forum......

[rrashkin]

I believe (and so voted) that Bush will win.  That's because I have a very cynical view of my fellow citizens.  I will vote for Kerry only because there is no one to the left of him.

I think that this year it is clearer than ever that liberals have no one to vote for.  Conservatives have Kerry; wacko looney imperialists have Bush.

[zbones]

Are you refering to a small green shrub, or the hairy bits covering the female reproductive organ, or maybe something that you smoke?

I can't think of any other type of bush at the moment, let alone one that could win something other than "best garden" competition.

Is this an American thing perhaps?

 

[stupkid]

Clearly the US is the greatest democracy in the world just look at our two primary presidential candidates.  What more evidence need be provided?  It is a clear sign that the US is no plutocracy, but a representative government by and for the people.  

This message brought to you by Coca-Cola.  Cocacolanising a developing nation near you.  

And your friends at Shell providing you with renewable atrocities.
 

[doseas]

Conservatives have Kerry

Surely you jest (a few smilies would help)...

Kerry has beed named the most liberal member of the US Senate (out of the 100 Senators!) four times in his career by the independent publication National Journal (see, for example: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040301-085725-5267r.htm ).

A liberal political group called The Americans for Democratic Action has given Kerry a 92 out of 100 liberal ranking.

The American Conservative Union gave Kerry a 13 out of 100 rating as a conservative.  His career ranking from the group is a 5.


-David (who considers himself a moderate & an independent)

[charlie]

Stupidkid,

not wishing to be offensive but would that be Royal Dutch Shell based in Den Haag?

Chas

[rrashkin]

A liberal political group called The Americans for Democratic Action has given Kerry a 92 out of 100 liberal ranking.

The American Conservative Union gave Kerry a 13 out of 100 rating as a conservative.  His career ranking from the group is a 5.

That just goes to show how far off center the "center" has moved.  Kerry is for limited goverment, limited improvement in health care access, limited improvement in education.  He's no George McGovern (the first candidate I voted for and the last I felt good about).

[stupkid]

Charlie,

It no longer matters with multi-national corporations what the country is.  A multi-national has no reason to care about its "nation" or about the welfare of those citizens (unless they profit in the short run).  A corporation exists to make its share holders profitable.  If it suits you better I could have used Exxon as an example.

[doseas]

He's no George McGovern (the first candidate I voted for and the last I felt good about).

He's decidely to the left of Mr. McGovern.

Here's a quote from political commentator Mark Taylor on the Democratic candidate political spectrum:

In fact John Kerry is not only more liberal than Howard Dean, he will be the most liberal candidate the Democrats have ever nominated. The left wing advocacy group “Americans for Democratic Action” gives John Kerry a lifetime vote rating of 93. Ted Kennedy only gets an 88! Walter Mondale’s rating was 90. George McGovern was a veritable right winger among Democrats with a lifetime ADA rating of only 75%. Of the ten people who officially sought the party’s nomination in 2004, Kerry’s liberal voting record exceeds them all. Carole Moseley-Braun rated an 88. And Dennis Kucinich scored a 90%.

[rrashkin]

I must admit, I know less about Kerry's voting record in Congress than his stated position in this race.  I'm sure you are right.  I'll feel better about voting for him, then.

[technojunkie]

Let me ask you this...

If you had a beef wth the U.S who would you want to be elected?

The Right wing Nutjob that would sooner stomp you flat and grind you into the dust than wait for the world to agree it was OK.

or

The guy who would spent a year trying to decide wether to ask for approval versus throwing some weight toward a domestic non-issue to make people forget about it.

Personally I would rather worry a little about my retirement and healthcare than worry about wether my kids will come home from school tomorrow. (Just because it was Chechen Muslim radicals in Beslan, doesn't mean other Muslim radicals in the world won't think it's a good idea and attempt a repeat somewhere else.)

Just because they are out to get us doesn't mean I'm paranoid.
Does that make me a 'wacko looney imperialist'?

(Although to be honest, Seeing Kerry win would bring me solace in the fact that it would deprive Hillary from running in '08)

**edited for spelling**

[stupkid]

Violence spawns more violence.  The fighting in the middle east has been going on for hundreds of years.  Do you really want to live in a country that is like Israel?

I feel that the more prudent action is to not get involved with the middle east.  It was our screwing around in that part of the world that created people like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien.  They are our creation gone awry.  

We need to get off of the energy opium of petroleum and start using sustainable energy sources that can be generated locally.

[technojunkie]

Do you really want to live in a country that is like Israel?...

I feel that the more prudent action is to not get involved with the middle east.  It was our screwing around in that part of the world that created people like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien.  They are our creation gone awry.

So you are saying we should have left our rabid dogs to continue wreaking havoc and destruction on millions of innocents?

I for one think it is our responsibility to clean up our mess.


The reason Israel is in the position its in is because they are being forced to negotiate with the terrorists instead of decisively dealing with them. The terrorists know they can strike with impunity, and they have learned that about us time and again as well:

World Trade Center Bombing - 1993

Khobar Towers Bombing

US Embassy Bombings

USS Cole

After all of these attacks we did little to nothing in response, and that served to encourage them.

If we leave the middle east completely, not only do we condemn our allies there to constant terrorism and fighting, we also send the message to the terrorists that their methods will work, and they will then press their advantage.

[stupkid]

technojunkie,

Perhaps I need to further explain what I mean by not "screwing around in the middle east".  I think that our intellegence agencies need to stop funding and training terrorists that we think will attack our enemies.  I think that we are obviously responsible for causing all the death and destruction that continues in Afghanistan and Iraq.  We should help remedy that situation without exacerbating it.  My point was that it was our actions 30 years past that created our current dilemma.

If you want to know more about why past US terrorism policies where flawed I recommend reading "See No Evil:  The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism" by Robert Baer http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/140...6929411-0854307 .  It spans both Bush sr. and Clinton's presidency and the problems with both policies (not that they were different).

The flaw with "I'm going to blow up your country because a terrorist came from there" policies is that it does not solve the problem of terrorism.  Tough guy ideas like this may work in action movies, but they don't work in reality.  This is because most of the people that die have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.  It encourages people that would have otherwise rejected terrorism into thinking that maybe the terrorists are right.  Two wrongs do not make a right and killing innocent people is not acceptable.  

To compound this flawed policy, there is no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.  There are MANY links between Al-Qaeda and Saudia Arabia, but we do not invade Saudia Arabia because they are making US Oil companies billions of dollars.  So, eliminating the terrorism link for why we invaded Iraq perhaps it was because Saddam was a bad guy that tourtured people, gassed his own people, etc.  If that was the reason then why aren't we invading the other 30+ countries around the world that have brutal dictators?  Could it be because there is no corporate profit in it?

The recent actions in Rafah are excellent example of what NOT to do:

Israel commits 'war crimes' in Rafah
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/350...5-3C5E2EA55C84}

Israeli forces massacre protesters in Rafah
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/350...B-55DDC8CE7FCF}

World leaders criticise Israel
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FD5...BDC94900F06.htm

Killed in Rafah
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/350...D-F6BF236A6679}

Israeli helicopters, tanks raid Rafah
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/350...B-FD128C19C572}

Keep in mind Israel is a nation that has never complied with UN resolutions.  When has Israel ever negotiated with terrorists?  The Palestinian Authority is not a terrorist organization.  It is a rather pathetic attempt at creating a Palestinian government.  I find it interesting that you are concerned of what might happen to your children when Arab children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel are be slaughtered right now by US and Israeli forces.  Aren't persons of Arabic descent born in Israel, Iraq, or Afghanistan deserving of basic human rights?

I propose that we change some of our foreign policies.  For starters we can cut off funding for Israel until they stop their genocidal rampage against Arabs and start to work with the rest of the world to solve terrorism instead of encouraging it.  How about instead of spending the billions of dollars we spent on destroying Afghanistan and Iraq, we spend some money on relieving the starvation, and education problems in those countries.  

Something that has always confused me is that if I say I want to spend one million dollars to educate children so they are  productive members of society, I'm a bleeding heart liberal.  If I say I want to spend ten million dollars to put those same kids in jail when they become criminals because they have no skills, I'm a conservative that's tough on crime.  One ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

You might want to check out some non-US corporate media outlets like:

http://english.aljazeera.net

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

They tend to be more objective with their US coverage than US media.

I understand how passionate you are about terrorism, but we really need to work on solving the problem.  Running around the globe killing non-terrorists in pathetically impoverished countries is not the answer.  It's expensive, counterproductive, and wrong.

"America is great because America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
- Alexis deTocqueville "Democracy in America" circa 1830