Lcyberlina

And you know what the f***ed up part about it is? He had no idea until the story came out in the news. :confused His father never told him.

...and foreign allies. We're not supposed to have any of those according to Kerry. Obviously this makes the rest of the article suspect (or should in the mind of a dem) 582874[/snapback] I know we have allies. 582877[/snapback] I find it kind of disturbing that Kerry doesn't understand this though... 582881[/snapback] Yeah... Let's see. Brittain,... :mischief2 Brittain.... :mischief2 Oh that's right Poland!, he forgot Poland! Please! Get a grip! As if Bush knew what "allies" really meant.

Is anyone saying we should reach their tax levels? 582893[/snapback] The socialized medicine (emulate Canada) crowd plainly is, even though they won't admit to the taxes it would take to make it happen. 582896[/snapback] The thing is that in your Fox state of mind you aren't able to even get Kerry's Health care plan straight. He is not calling for a government run health care system, he is simply talking about giving Americans the same alternative as congress members have. In other words he is merely advocating for a health program paid by the government not run by it. :whistle

smirkingchimp.com now that's credibility! 582892[/snapback] Did you read the piece? If you would have you would know it is a satire of the Bush Administration.

In terms of "the test", obviously Bush's argument was good enough for Kerry since he voted for authorization. Bush didn't pass the "Global Test". He actually has proven that he did not do it for legitimate reasons. The facts keep piling on against the case that Bush made for war. We all know the "faulty" intelligence they used, which now Condoleeza herself has admitted they knew it was bad. If a majority of congressmen had a majority of their constituency tell them they didn't want continued funding their wouldn't be any. The congress has the power to pull the funding rug out from under any war any time it wants to, and the administration would have no choice but to fold its cards and come home. That is just pure crap Tonyi. If this were true, we would have pulled our troops out of Iraq YESTERDAY. Half the country thinks this war is a mistake and that it isn't worth our troops dying. Once again you are reaching.

I dont think many can deny thats true lcyberlina...but hey....some said Bush wont the debate, so you never know. 582858[/snapback] Fortunately 62 Million people were watching and with such large an audience, the spin game on the GOP's part is major problem. Is one thing to dupe a couple hundred lemmings, but 62 million is another story.

Full article Insurgents aren't striving for revolution as much as they are trying to spoil the U.S.-backed interim Iraqi regime by inflicting as much pain as possible on the United States and its Iraqi and foreign allies. "We want every U.S. dog to leave the country," said an insurgent leader in Fallujah who identified himself as Abu Thar, a 45-year-old former colonel in the Iraqi army. Beyond that, the estimated 20,000 insurgents have little in common, although groups have occasionally work together in temporary alliances of convenience. U.S. commanders describe the war as a "compound insurgency" sorted into four groups with different tactics and goals. Three are made up of Sunni Muslims, almost all of whom are Iraqis. A fourth group is radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, formed of Shiite Muslims, Iraq's largest social grouping. 582839[/snapback] I saw a compelling report on News World International and it wasn't pretty. Let me tell you, if the administration bitches that the media only shows the "bad" things, they are being sarcastic. It is much worse. I wish they had an online video...

The claim: Tax cuts help the economy. Last year's tax cut was officially named the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - and administration economists provided a glowing projection of the job growth that would follow the bill's passage. Status: False The Reality: That projection has, needless to say, proved to be wildly overoptimistic. U.S. businesses announced 107,863 job cuts in September, up from 74,150 job cuts in August, a gain of 45 percent, according to Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which keeps track of monthly job-cut announcements. It was the worst month for job-cut announcements since January, when 117,556 cuts were announced. September's job-cut plans were 41 percent higher than the 76,506 cuts announced in September 2003. Meanwhile, companies announced plans to add just 16,166 new jobs, compared with 132,105 in August. Source :mad :

The number of job cuts planned by U.S. employers jumped to an eight-month high in September, while hiring announcements fell sharply, an outplacement firm said Tuesday. The report came just days before the government's critical gauges of unemployment and job growth in September, but did little to clarify how strong those measures would be. U.S. businesses announced 107,863 job cuts in September, up from 74,150 job cuts in August, a gain of 45 percent, according to Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which keeps track of monthly job-cut announcements. It was the worst month for job-cut announcements since January, when 117,556 cuts were announced. September's job-cut plans were 41 percent higher than the 76,506 cuts announced in September 2003. Meanwhile, companies announced plans to add just 16,166 new jobs, compared with 132,105 in August. http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/05/news/econo...index.htm?cnn=y 582810[/snapback] This is one of the things that really cracks me up about Reaganomics (or Bushanomics should I say). They parrot their tax cuts as the miraculous cure for all economic problems. They preach that tax cuts help companies invest and promotes economic growth. It has proven the opposite. While the people who largely benefited from the tax cuts, largely the rich, got a lot of money in their pockets, they went on with the downsizing, outsourcing and lower pay for the working class. It is a lie that has to stop somewhere some day. Tax cuts that only benefit the rich don't really help the economy. It is just the opposite. While the CEO of company has more money in his pocket from a juicy tax cut, this doesn't translate in immediate investment and expansion (within the US that is). The only way to help an economy grow is to help the middle class have more money in their pockets. The middle class is who keeps the economy moving, they are the consumers and therefore the spenders in this economy. It doesn't benefit any economy when the middle class shrinks. Ask any economist. The shrinking of the middle class is what has been happening and what has prevented this economy from taking off.

The Global Test It's called reality. By William Saletan Posted Monday, Oct. 4, 2004, at 3:49 AM PT LINK We've just reached the crux of the presidential campaign?the moment in which one candidate, purporting to expose the other's fatal flaw, has instead exposed his own. Saturday morning, President Bush attacked John Kerry for a comment Kerry made in Thursday night's debate. Here's how Bush described Kerry's remark: He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. That's what he said. Think about this. Sen. Kerry's approach to foreign policy would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions. I have a different view. When our country is in danger, the president's job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America. I'll continue to work every day with our friends and allies for the sake of freedom and peace. But our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals. This description, which Bush continues to repeat at campaign stops and in television ads, is plainly false. In his first answer of the debate, Kerry said, "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security." But if that isn't what Kerry meant by a "global test," what did he mean? Let's go back and look at Kerry's words. No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test?that passes the global test?where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. Here we have our own secretary of state who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with [French President Charles] de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, [the secretary of state] said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. But notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Ohio. He's talking about you. What do you have in common with a Frenchman? Look again at Kerry's words. He says the test is to "prove" that our reasons for attacking were legitimate. In the next sentence, he gives an example of someone failing that test: Colin Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What did Powell apologize for? The inaccuracy of our intelligence. Kerry contrasts this with the trust France once placed in American spy photos. Proof, intelligence, spy photos. The pattern is obvious. The test isn't moral. It's factual. What you and the Frenchman share is the evidence of your senses. The global test is the measurement of the president's assertions against the real world, the world you and I can see. This is the test Bush has failed. He has failed to produce evidence for his prewar claims of Iraqi WMD and operational ties to al-Qaida, or for his postwar claims of success against the insurgency. Now he's going further. He's not simply failing the test. He's refusing to take it. Listen to Bush's words again. "The president's job is not to take an international poll," he says. "Our national security decisions will be made in the Oval Office, not in foreign capitals." Bush doesn't say these decisions belong to the United States. He says they belong to the Oval Office. He frames this as patriotism, boasting that he doesn't care whether he offers evidence sufficient to convince people in France. He shows no awareness or concern that evidence is also necessary to convince people in Ohio. He says it isn't his job to take a "poll," to hear what others think. He needs no validation. Bush pretends he's just blowing off the French. But his comments show a pattern of blowing off external feedback in general. He shrugs off information that debunks his claims about WMD, arguing that it's more important for a president to understand the overall nature of the world. He defines credibility as agreement with himself. He reinterprets evidence of policy mistakes in postwar Iraq as evidence of success. In Thursday's debate, he dismissed unwelcome reports from that country as too offensive to heed. And according to Sunday's New York Times, he and his aides exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capability, ignoring warnings from "the government's foremost nuclear experts." Bush claims he has done all this to protect you. But that claim is precisely what's challenged by the evidence he conceals or disregards. What he's protecting you from is the ability to measure his assertions against the world that you and I can see. That's the global test he's mocking. And he expects you to applaud him for it, because he thinks you resent the French so much you'd rather have a president accountable to no one.

The two historical paths on November 2 choose one Posted on Monday, October 04 @ 10:02:10 EDT By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers LINK Virtually everyone agrees that this presidential election is the most important one in the modern era, and will determine for a long time in which direction this country will move. So, thanks to a writer's magic wand, here are two newspaper articles from the year 2024 that lay out in stark terms the ramifications of a Kerry or Bush victory on November 2, 2004. Which historical path would you and your children -- and, perhaps more importantly right now, your still-undecided voting friends and colleagues -- want to walk down? The decision is yours. ***************************************************************** What Happened After Bush's 2004 Victory (Agence-France Presse) George W. Bush's second-term victory in the 2004 election was a watershed in modern American politics, and set the tone of HardRight conservative rule that dominated the early part of the 21st century, according to a wide variety of prize-winning American historians. Despite his narrow victory, Bush, proclaiming an electoral "mandate," expanded his brand of government -- permanent "war on terrorism" abroad, a crackdown on dissent at home -- and in so doing, established the tone and momentum for HardRight conservative domination of America's institutions for nearly the next two decades, said Prof. Charles Calthorp of Princeton. (See entries on Jeb Bush, George Prescott Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom DeLay, Richard Perle, and Ann Coulter.) One of the reasons for this dominance was that the traditional two-party system in America collapsed after Bush's victory. "The Democrats were weak, disorganized and on the wrong side of history, said Prof. Kenneth Starr III of Pepperdine University. "The Republicans became the only major party able to exercise rule." Many of the remaining elected Democrats chose not to run again, or wound up blacklisted by the ruling Republican faction. "They saw the handwriting on the wall, and either signed up, exiled themselves abroad, or chose to keep their mouths shut in other professions," Starr said. According to Prof. Amy Tribe of Harvard, the "Democratic Party split after the election into an accomodationist wing -- 'go along to get along' was basically their motto -- and a progressive wing, appalled that their candidates had lost so many presidential elections by abandoning the party's fighting spirit and mainstream liberal issues. Eventually, that wing of the Democratic Party merged with the Greens, and founded the successful GDC (Green-Democratic Confederation)." RE-EDUCATION CAMPS However, that political flower took a long time to bloom, said Prof. Antoni Golan of Duke University, "because so many of the original thinkers and activists -- academics, Democratic aides, internet writers, grassroots organizers, many of whom would have become leaders in such a party -- were rounded up and sent to the Bush Administration's RRCs (rehabilitation re-education camps), where they were incarcerated for years." Scores of such internment camps, according to Crocker, were established in sparsely-populated rural areas in the West, to deal with huge influxes of convicted protesters (termed "anti-patriots") after the Bush and subsequent Administrations invaded and bombed several more countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. More prisoners, especially women and their doctors, arrived after the U.S Supreme Court -- with the addition of several Bush-appointed justices -- overturned the controversial Roe v. Wade decision that had permitted women the right to choose abortions. According to newspaper accounts at the time, Republican Administrations, needing more guards and national-security police to keep tabs on the citizenry (with electronic, internet and personal surveillance), set up its own police force, the Homeland-Security System (H-SS). They had to turn away hundreds of thousands of applicants, interested in steady, good-paying jobs, with governmental benefits for them and their families not available to the general populace. Internationally, the U.S. was, for at least a while, the supreme power in the world, and not averse to exercising its overwhelming military force. However, said Prof. Eric Boudin of Colgate, "technology and high-tech weaponry could not destroy the guerrilla rebellions that were constantly springing up, and terrorism against the U.S. inside and outside the country was rampant and exceedingly deadly -- especially when biochemical agents, and dirty radiation bombs were used. Further, the political civil war in America constantly threatened to rage out of control." ISLAMIC "INSURRECTIONS" Islamist forces and political parties throughout the Middle East and in Asia, angered by what they interpreted as "Christian-Jewish crusades" against their religion -- a point reinforced by statements from religious zealots high up in the U.S. government -- became even more popular and strident, said Prof. Hamid Sharani of NYU. "More and more wars were launched by the U.S. and its relatively few allies, in order to keep the insurrections controlled," he said. "All potential competing sources of power were decimated," said Sharani. "The politically-defanged United Nations, for example, did little more than charitable work, helping children and families in various wartorn areas of the world. The key political decisions were made in Washington, D.C., the effective center of the U.S. empire." "Eventually, of course, as always happens with huge, farflung empires, the U.S. ran into real problems. First, by not planning fast enough for alternative sources of energy, even America found that its lock on oil worldwide would not suffice. The economy went into a tailspin. Many governments chose not to own U.S. bonds and other financial instruments. The resulting economic Depression created scenarios reminiscent of the 1930s. THE REBEL FORCES "More and more poor, formerly middle-class, families became increasingly enraged at government policies that led directly to their deprived conditions, and began joining forces with the rebel forces opposed to the HardRightists in control." In addition, said Dr. Barbara Garfunkel of Purdue, "by sheer weight of numbers and religious and nationalist fervor, such countries as China and the Muslim nations forged a kind of loose alliance and threatened to fight back. It was around this same time when the Green-Democratic Confederation -- gaining political traction as the polluted water and air got undrinkable/unbreathable, with enormous drains on the health-care system -- began to assert its growing popularity as a mainstream alternative to the ruling Republican tribunes. "The GDC was joined domestically by a merging of far-right survivalists and leftwing resisters, anxious to restore the primacy of the original Constitution of the United States." That, according to most historians, was the beginning of the end for what Bush and his neo-con advisers had started in the early years of the 21st Century. ************************************************************** What Happened After Kerry's 2004 Victory (Post-Times) Twenty years after John F. Kerry defeated incumbent President George W. Bush, noted historians continue to proclaim that the 2004 election was a watershed one in the history of American politics and society. "What you have to understand," said Yale professor Enrique Lugo, "is that the Bush Administration, using the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack as cover, had carried out a radical policy-revolution. Internationally, that led to the U.S. 'preventively' invading other countries that were not threatening America, causing tens of thousands of deaths and injuries, to our own soldiers and to innocent civilians, some from battles and many from the uranium-laced weaponry employed. "Domestically, under the guise of hunting for those terrorists who had killed 3000 people inside the U.S., the Bush Administration had frightened the population into accepting a fascist-like martial state; Constitutional rights protecting citizens from unbridled government power were superceded by even harsher Patriot Act-type laws." "The incoming Kerry Administration, with the help of a friendly Senate, was forced to spend virtually all of its first term dealing with damage control resulting from its predecessor's extreme policies," said Prof. David Litz of Tulane. "For starters, it managed over time to turn the disastrous Iraq war over to the Iraqis themselves in coordination with a United Nations peacekeeping force composed mainly of troops from Islamic countries, thus allowing the Americans to withdraw the bulk of their occupation armies. "Corrupt and corrupting contracts with foreign companies were canceled and native Iraqis received the bulk of the reconstruction monies instead, a side-effect of which was to reduce the pool of unemployed young men gravitating to the violent, anti-American insurgency. THE IMPACT OF TORTURE "An Islamic party eventually won the national elections, partially in reaction to Bush Administration policies -- including state-sanctioned torture of Iraqi detainees -- but Kerry, in concert with America's traditional European partners, was able to bring Iraq into normal diplomatic relations with the West. With its allies on board, this renewed coalition hunted down and captured many of the worst terrorist groups, and marginalized and finally dealt in some fashion with the remaining smaller factions." One key to the success of this anti-terrorism campaign was the move to solve the seemingly intractable Israel-Palestine puzzle. Bush's policy, which had given Israel's hard-line government carte blanche to handle the Palestinian situation in whatever way it so chose, gave way to Kerry's more balanced approach. "Kerry remained a stalwart supporter of Israel's right to exist and thrive in the midst of an Arab region," said Professor Arwan Talebi of Columbia University. "But he saw that in order to reduce tensions, and terrorism, in the Muslim world and within the U.S. as well, the Israel-Palestine problem would have to be addressed seriously. "After Sharon and Arafat exited the scene, the resulting accords between the two warring nations, arranged under the energized auspices of the Kerry Administration, did significantly reduce tensions in the Middle East and beyond. Especially successful in this regard were the various job-creation programs established for Palestinian young men, which over time led to the flowering of the new state's 'economic miracle'." KERRY'S REFORM AGENDA Domestically, said Standford Professor Catherine Chen, "a whole raft of initiatives were introduced by the first Kerry Administration. These new reforms made it illegal for corporations to write the regulations on their behavior and products; enforced and strengthened anti-pollution laws; moved toward less reliance on increasingly scarce oil reserves and encouraged alternate-energy R&D; kept rightwing ideologue judges off the appeals courts and U.S. Supreme Court; reduced the astronomical deficits run up by the Bush Administration; restored the integrity of various social programs such as Head Start and Social Security and Medicare; ensured that virtually all Americans had access to affordable health care and prescription medications, and so on." In short, said Chen, "America moved away from its temporary fascination with the extreme right philosophy propounded by Bush Administration officals, and back toward the moderate center, and on certain legislation just left of center." Said Professor Max Gordon of Notre Dame, "The neo-conservative imperial imperative that had left America isolated and a pariah in much of the world -- feared but not respected -- was in disrepute, and there was a return to a more realistic foreign policy, with many of the same goals but without the arrogant militarism. The U.S. often got with diplomacy what it could not win with the bayonet and bomb." THE CENTER HELD "When Americans saw what could be accomplished to help the population," said Professor Abaka Mohammed of Brandeis, "and that the worst fears of rightwing politicians and pundits about those policies did not materialize, successive administrations learned to shun the extremes on either end of the political spectrum; instead, as had happened in previous decades, the parties operated pretty much along the slightly-left-of-center/center/slightly right-of-center continuum. Political stability and rapid social and economic progress was the result. So, in a way, the extreme recklessness of the Bush years provided a strong, negative example of what not to do, and led to the positive developments and role-models later." Prof. Ricardo Montoya of Harvard agreed: "The electorate's reaction against the mean-spirited and dangerous extremism of the Bush years meant that Kerry and his successors over the past two decades could move to address serious foreign and domestic concerns that had been left to fester. Faced with these problems, Kerry focused his attention on the worst aspects of ethnic and religious intolerance domestically, and upon the strengthening of international institutions abroad, with America once again a full and willing partner. "Had the dark shadow of Bush Administration misrule been permitted to continue, there is no telling in what dire straights this country and the world would be in today. Thankfully, the American population awoke, as if from a bad nightmare, and re-asserted its desire to do good for itself by doing right. We here in 2024 are all the lucky beneficiaries of such a popular electoral uprising in 2004." Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government, has taught at various universities, was a writer-editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). He is a contributing author to the recently-released "Big Bush Lies" book.

This has already been said, look up like 4 posts.... thanks for adding something new :plain 582799[/snapback] :plain

and another potential throw off... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6175529/ The lead might even be bigger for Kerry than what polls predict... Or who knows the turn out may be bigger for Bush... Either way, we'll see on November 3? :thumbup 582393[/snapback] November 2nd. 582588[/snapback] November 3rd we'll know the results, not on November 2... And if there is a recount (hopefully not) then we won't know until December :plain

:lol That's a great one... I'm using it at another forum.... :shifty

I think it shows that there are different viewpoints in the country. :blink: 582363[/snapback] Now, this is the first time I see something sensible out you chewbacca. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean I am stupid and you are smart or vice versa. We just have a different way of seeing things.

and another potential throw off... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6175529/ The lead might even be bigger for Kerry than what polls predict... Or who knows the turn out may be bigger for Bush... Either way, we'll see on November 3 :thumbup

Interesting Tonyi. Every poll (including dubious Gallup) puts them tied and some who had Bush way ahead now has Kerry/Edwards on top... :mischief2 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6173033/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/04/...ain647342.shtml :cool

anybody who supports Kerry just proves the lack of education in this country 582332[/snapback] Your post proves the opposite is true.

582321[/snapback] :lol :lol Seriously, this stuff is getting ridiculous. Some people need to learn not to be sore losers. There are still two more debates to go. Who knows, by a God given miracle, Bush may win those debates, after all he claims God is "on his side"... :mischief

:lol You are so deluded. It isn't happening. No other ally is participating on the reconstruction. 581961[/snapback] You need to up your meds, you're suffering some sort of episodes. You basically have no clue as to who is doing what in Iraq and that is a truly sad thing, because its a condemnation of the US media. If its all the US, then how come all sort of non-US workers are getting kidnapped? Did they all go to Iraq on holiday? Explain this curious dilemma (within your particular belief system). 581974[/snapback] :lol :lol Watching too much Fox Tonyi. There is no bigger mess than Iraq's reconstruction effort. Please tell me how much money, which country, how many contracts were others awarded in the reconstruction... Let me know, I am open minded. :mischief

Non-answers? you crack me up. Kerry has talked about letting them participate in the reconstruction efforts. 581946[/snapback] Yawn, that's already happening, not just being talked about. I was hoping you'd have something fresh. 581953[/snapback] :lol You are so deluded. It isn't happening. No other ally is participating on the reconstruction. We are the ones paying the whole bill and Halliburton (an American company) was awarded a no-bid contract.... Got anything to support the fact that we are the ones doing the whole reconstruction and that we told other countries to go to hell when they offered their help after the war???? huh? :blink:

Just because Bush can't doesn't mean anybody can't. 581889[/snapback] How would Kerry alter Franch and German national interests? No need to write a book here, just toss out a few credible ideas to bolster your argument. 581917[/snapback] He just have to try dude, that's all. :thumbup 581926[/snapback] I'm asking you how he might "try". Your non-answers are telling. I'll help you out and give one obvious possible answer -- but its one not too appealing to the American public. Alter their intrests by altering the financial balance to the point where Saddam's contracts become irrelevant. 581944[/snapback] Non-answers? you crack me up. Kerry has talked about letting them participate in the reconstruction efforts. Let's see what George W. leaves alive in Iraq and then we talk. We have to elect John Kerry first. :thumbup

Just because Bush can't doesn't mean anybody can't. 581889[/snapback] How would Kerry alter Franch and German national interests? No need to write a book here, just toss out a few credible ideas to bolster your argument. 581917[/snapback] He just have to try dude, that's all. :thumbup

CF dude... This is about the second time you post a thread regarding the cuteness of some dudes. This thread is really gay. :lol

it's conservAtive not conservItive atleast spell it right so you won't look like a dumbass. 581813[/snapback] :lol The irony of your post. I didn't know atleast was a word. 581849[/snapback] D'oh! 581892[/snapback] marlinfan... Just in case it is "at least" not 'atleast'... Just making sure you understand Shammy's sarcasm :mischief