# Challenge: convert me to a bush supporter



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 11, 2004)

Ok, I'm just curious. Why do bush supporters like bush so much? What are your reasons? Does he take the right stance on certain issues? Is he intolerant and that appeals to some of you? Here's your chance to try and convert me.

Best Wishes,

pck


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 11, 2004)

Now THAT'S intriguing - I'll be interested to read the replies to this one!


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 11, 2004)

Nice signature!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 11, 2004)

*thanks*


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 11, 2004)

> Why do bush supporters like bush so much?



On that note, why do the terrorists want "Anyone but Bush" ?

I like his lower taxes approach, respects the 2nd Ammendment and is tough (pre-emptive) on terror.

I'll take whoever is closest to the right.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> On that note, why do the terrorists want "Anyone but Bush" ?


That's an interesting assertion. Where does it come from?

This came from Reuters. It's a statement from the group, tied to Al-Qaeda, that committed the terrorist attacks in Spain earlier this year.

"The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection
campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the
Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a
leader 'more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force
rather than with wisdom.'

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: 

'Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the 
Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to 
the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.' 

'Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.'" 



> Challenge: convert me to a bush supporter


Why don't I convert you to an athletic supporter?


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> On that note, why do the terrorists want "Anyone but Bush" ?
> 
> I like his lower taxes approach, respects the 2nd Ammendment and is tough (pre-emptive) on terror.
> 
> I'll take whoever is closest to the right.


I resent you calling me a terrorist. That shows just how ignorant people can cover their asses by insulting others with perfectly legit. opinions. Your perfeclty acceptable statement at the end was overshadowed by your attack on liberals and conservatives that choose not to support Bush.

And as for your statement about terrorists, too, read my signature.
 :jedi1:


----------



## KenpoTess (Aug 11, 2004)

* Mod Note

Keep it friendly~!

~Tess
-MT S. MOD-

*


----------



## Tgace (Aug 11, 2004)

Like this thread was ever destined to be friendly....


----------



## Kane (Aug 11, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm just curious. Why do bush supporters like bush so much? What are your reasons? Does he take the right stance on certain issues? Is he intolerant and that appeals to some of you? Here's your chance to try and convert me.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
> pck


Let me first ask you, what do YOU not like about Bush?


----------



## KenpoTess (Aug 11, 2004)

ok.. if not friendly..At least the posters.. Please.. Think before replying..


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 11, 2004)

What I dislike about bush is not the issue here. I could write books about how I dislike Bush and could find tons of facts to back up my opinions (saying that you can find tons of an intangable item is really saying something, too!), and alot of people have done just that.

Best Wishes,
pk


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> On that note, why do the terrorists want "Anyone but Bush" ?
> 
> I like his lower taxes approach, respects the 2nd Ammendment and is tough (pre-emptive) on terror.
> 
> I'll take whoever is closest to the right.


Which terrorists are you quoting?


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Which terrorists are you quoting?



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&e=4&u=/afp/us_attacks_qaeda

" Quoting from unnamed US intelligence officials....

The view of Al-Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush,' "

Wasn't referring to you, MartialArtist68.


----------



## TwistofFat (Aug 11, 2004)

You get 7% off long distance calls (Sunday 3-4am...it's very quiet).


----------



## Kane (Aug 11, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> What I dislike about bush is not the issue here. I could write books about how I dislike Bush and could find tons of facts to back up my opinions (saying that you can find tons of an intangable item is really saying something, too!), and alot of people have done just that.
> 
> Best Wishes,
> pk


Or you can find a bunch of facts stating why Bush is a good president. 



In order for me to so call try to convert you into a Bush supporter or not, I need to see why you dislike Bush. You dont have to name a lot of reasons, just name a few basic reasons on why you dislike him. Name some policies you dont agree with it. Maybe *hint, hint* tell me how much you were so against the war in Iraq.


----------



## Melissa426 (Aug 11, 2004)

Think September 11, 2001.

Now try to imagine if Bush had not been president that day.
Would the Taliban still be in power in Afghanistan?
Would Saddam and cronies be awaiting trial for  crimes against humanity?  (or whatever they are being charged with)

I don't know but I, for one, am glad to see them gone.

Having said that , I am undecided about who I am voting for.:uhyeah: 

I leaned strongly to the left when I was younger, but I find I am starting to slant the other way as I age.  Maybe it's early senility.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Tgace (Aug 11, 2004)

This thread seemed to be more "Bush Bashing Bait" than a discussion from the get go. "Tell me why you like Bush and Ill tell you why your wrong."

Personally Im facing another election where I dont really like anybody all too much....


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 11, 2004)

I'm not Bush bashing but watch this video and then tell me you still want to try and vote for the guy... http://www.compfused.com/directlink/282/ 
btw, I'm not a Kerry supporter either... my favorite candidate for THIS election is "non-of-the-above!"


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 11, 2004)

OK, I think this thread should go in a friendly, intriguing direction.  I would like our Bush-supporting buddies here at MT to explain why they actively like and support him.  Policies?  Things he's done?

I ask because in other threads, it seems that once I mention that I like John Kerry, I get asked the same questions, "Why would you vote for him?  What has he done?"

I'll ask the same of people who are interested in Bush.  What has he done?  Obviously, my views are: not much good.  BUT, I would like to have a discussion (heated though it may get) to find out what Bush supporters actively like about him, aside from that he's an incumbent, and has made himself a "war President".

I hope that was tactful and friendly enough to get a discussion going here.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 11, 2004)

Haha.  I love the "Anyone but Bush" Slogan. Completely silly... For this exact reason:

You think Bush is so bad you want anyone BUT him?  Vote me into office.

My finger would be poised over the little Red "Nuke" button 24/7.  Why? Cuz it could be.  

No it couldnt you say?

Bah.  Under the powers granted to me by Homeland security, I would deem that Congress, the Senate, and well... most any other people with power and/or influence who didnt agree with my policy as "Enemys of the state" and use the clauses THEY put into place To imprison them indefinately without legal council.  I could affect this arrest, because as commander in chief, I would be able to simply order the military in to do it.  And since the CIA would basically get free reign, and unlimited funding under me, they would most likly support my actions... 

Hey... it would soon be my private dictatorship! 

All because I wasn't Bush.

Now you say, this could never happen... you are probably right... and if I did get elected and try, Im sure I would be assassinated/jailed/whatever.  BUT my point is... If *I* considered the possibilitys... Oh yeah... would you want to give me the opportunity to try?

Clearly not.  Maybe that slogan should be "Anyone but Bush & Technopunk!" 

Hey... heres a thought.... Charles Manson is not Bush...  Hehe.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 11, 2004)

Technopunk - who do you think you will vote for? Is your statement to keep people honest in what they say, or to make an argument in a roundabout why as to why you like Bush?

(Yes, I am trying to weasel you into a discussion.)


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 11, 2004)

I do not think a Bush Supporter is on the Product shelfs currently but hey some person with imagination may just may make a gag item with this name LOL LOL!!! In time for the election


----------



## Gary Crawford (Aug 11, 2004)

Ok.I'll break my personal policy of not posting on political subjects here on MT.Please,no one be offended.The reason why so many people hate Bush so much is the standard Democratic playbook-Divide and conquer.Divide as many people as possible,black vs. white,rich vs. poor,ect.It doesn't matter who is running,it always goes the same way.Phase 1,hate propaganda.The mainstream media plays along with this.Every well meaning idea can be construed as a conspiracy, ie Patrot act,ect.If he acts too strong,he's ridiculed,if he acts too weak,he's rediculed.Pres. Bush can't win with the mainstream media,they won't let him.America has learned to hate the rich.I personally do not like many rich people,but I don't hate them for being rich,I envy them for being successful enough to be rich.Does Pres. Bush cater to the super rich?Of course he does,and he is right to do so.70% of our econemy is created by these people on a daily basis,only 30% is goverment sevices paid for by THESE people.These people don't have to invest in America.They could just put their millions in a savings acount and live on the interest,but when it's adventagious to them to do so,they invest in higher paying investments ,which we all in one way or another benifit from.Tax cuts for those who pay taxes-The best thing since sliced bread.For those of you who buy into only the rich get breaks,here are some facts you can verify with www.irs.gov. The top 50% of wage ea... are their demands-All must convert to Islam.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 11, 2004)

Hey Gary, I'm glad you did post - I like the discussions.  (I will ask that maybe you could put in a paragraph or two, I got a bit lost a couple of times, not because of what you wrote, though.)



> The reason why so many people hate Bush so much is the standard Democratic playbook-Divide and conquer.Divide as many people as possible,black vs. white,rich vs. poor,ect.


That's funny, that's exactly what I see the Republicans doing!  



> Pres. Bush can't win with the mainstream media,they won't let him.


Actually, I think they cater to him.



> but when it's adventagious to them to do so,they invest in higher paying investments ,which we all in one way or another benifit from.


I don't see how we all benefit.

Anyways, since I'm hoping more people will come and talk about why they support Bush (although not in THAT WAY, Mark, lol...I think!), I don't want it to seem that I'm jumping all over you, Gary.  So I will bide and see what others have to say, too!

Thanks for posting.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 11, 2004)

Gary, thank you for posting. 

I disagree with just about everything you say. 

Although sometimes, it seems you disagree with yourself in that post, but I'm sure you probably didn't mean it. 

Rest assured. President Bush is not nearly as bad I as think he is. And Senator Kerry is not nearly as bad as you think he is. They are both good men, who truly want to do what is best for the country. 

One last thought; I think your definition of 'Lame Duck' needs to be re-examined.

Thanks again. Mike


----------



## Gary Crawford (Aug 11, 2004)

Well! I am sure glad not to covered with tar and feathers after that!Maybe my support of Pres. Bush is a trust issue.I trust him even though he is not the most charismatic guy there is,but I really think he truly believes what he is doing is right.He makes mistakes,and I bend his ear every time.He may not be re-elected,but with the events that have happened beyond his control,he hasn't had the luxury of politicing throughout his term.I have a unique perspective on things that most people are never exposed to.I lived in Ca until my parents decided to move back to their home state of Ar.I went to school in Hot Springs, Ar.My Dad was born and raised in Hope,Ar.(sound familiar to anyone?).My Grandmother called my up in 1992 and asked me if I would take her to Clinton's victory celebration.I told her "Hell No!".She then informed me that Bill was her nephew.That was the worst shock of my life! Me,Clinton's second cousin!We all(besides my grandmother) in Ar knew what he was,but if you wanted to stay above ground,you kept your mouth shut.


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 11, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> OK, I think this thread should go in a friendly, intriguing direction.  I would like our Bush-supporting buddies here at MT to explain why they actively like and support him.  Policies?  Things he's done?
> 
> I ask because in other threads, it seems that once I mention that I like John Kerry, I get asked the same questions, "Why would you vote for him?  What has he done?"
> 
> ...


Thank you, FeistyMouse. I don't know why people are so focused on MY opinions, here. I just want to know what people like about GWB.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 11, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Technopunk - who do you think you will vote for? Is your statement to keep people honest in what they say, or to make an argument in a roundabout why as to why you like Bush?
> 
> (Yes, I am trying to weasel you into a discussion.)



Fiesty... I am actually undecided.  

I dont particularly like Bush or Kerry... Im almost tempted to throw my vote to the likes of Darth Nader, but I know that would be futile, and a waste of a vote... We'll see, we'll see.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 11, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Fiesty... I am actually undecided.
> 
> I dont particularly like Bush or Kerry... Im almost tempted to throw my vote to the likes of Darth Nader, but I know that would be futile, and a waste of a vote... We'll see, we'll see.


 I think it interesting that we don't want to elect a person who has devoted his entire adult life to consumer awareness, responsible business practices, and self-empowerment.

 I know now what I want my next ink to read:  "No more Bush!" low on my abdomen and...well...give an example.  ahem...<walks away whistling and glancing around nervously>


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 11, 2004)

Why not write in the name of your cat or dog? ;-)


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 11, 2004)

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> I like the Idea of Washington getting nothing done.When Washington does nothing,the rest of the country prospers.


Gary, thanks for joining us in The Study.  Yes, sometimes it gets hot in here, but provided everyone thinks about their post, and supports their claims (or can if asked), generally everyone here is intelligent and balanced enough to give others a voice.  

I have nothing really to say about Bush or Kerry, because I don't get to vote.  But, I did find Gary's above quote interesting, and I thought it was of value to separate it from the pile, that we might look a little closer at it.

Gary, I think that you hit on an interesting point here.  I agree with you that less government interference is usually better for the progress of the citizenry on the whole.  What I find particularly interesting about it, though, is that usually Conservative governments tend toward 'smaller', while Liberal governments tend toward larger. But you are outlining a scenario wherein there is no executive/congressional leverage, and that it will cause a disturbance to governmental flow.  It works that way in Canada too, but usually deals get made, and things get done, maybe they just require a little more debate and backroom handshaking.  However, if Parliament doen't pass the Federal budget, automatic election.  

I just thought the notion that an ineffective government as opposed to an effective, but streamlined and focused government, would allow the country to prosper was interesting.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 11, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I think it interesting that we don't want to elect a person who has devoted his entire adult life to consumer awareness, responsible business practices, and self-empowerment.



But that goes back to my other comments in other threads that it doesnt matter who you are or what you stand for, 

Only that you carry a sign that reads "Democrat" or "Republican"



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> I know now what I want my next ink to read:  "No more Bush!" low on my abdomen and...well...give an example.  ahem...<walks away whistling and glancing around nervously>



hehe.  That made me laugh.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 11, 2004)

As far as the War on Terror is concerned, here is my case against president Bush.  I agree that Saddam certainly was a bad dude and deserved to be removed, but, if we are going to wear the white hats here, there certainly is a lot more work to be done! 

"Ridem cowbow" is not what the administration told us when they took us to war though. They said that Iraq was in cahootz with the terrorists.  They said that they were stuffed to the gills with WMD and they said they said that Iraq was an imminent threat... 

As far as the terrorists go, buy the 911 commision reports book on Amazon and find out about that. Or you could read Richard Clarkes book on the subject. Either way, no connections to 911 have been found and although Iraq supported some terrorist acts in Isreal, this is a far cry from the terrorism the Saudis support worldwide. 

"Riyadh has not yet fully joined the international effort to block bank accounts thought to be financing terrorist operations, U.S. officials say. But the Bush administration, fearful of offending the Saudis, has not yet raised a public complaint. Elaine Sciolino, et al., U.S. is Reluctant to Upset Flawed, Fragile Saudi Ties, New York Times, October 25, 2001 

Regarding the WMD in Iraq, Iraq had them at one time, but did not have them when we invaded. Inspectors were beginning to catch on this fact, which is why the Bush Administration did not want to wait for their full report. 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Consider the following about Iraq, before you think that it was this huge threat to our security. 

"Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991." Stephen Zunes, "An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bushs State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003. Segments of President George W. Bushs State of the Union Address," Foreign Policy In Focus, January 29, 2003 

"Iraq never threatened U.S.security. Bush officials cynically attacked a villainous country because they knew it was easier than finding the real 9/11 villain, who had no country. And now they're hoist on their own canard." Maureen Dowd, "Were Not Happy Campers," The New York Times, September 11, 2003. 

"Iraq never threatened the US, let alone Australia. The basic consideration was and remains the perception of America's wider strategic interest in the Middle East." Richard Woolcott, "Thread bare Basis To The Homespun Yarn That Led Us Into Iraq," Sydney Morning Herald, November 26, 2003(Woolcott was Australias Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs And Trade during the first Gulf War.) 

Granted, Iraq did support suicide bombers in Isreal at the same time, so did Lebonon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, ect...

And what about all of those supposed terrorists in Iraq 

All of those guys did nothing in Iraq or were not even in Iraq until Saddam was gone. Iraq was not a terrorist threat to the United States. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html 

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021020-092811-8185r 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1220-07.htm 

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1240541,00.html 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5437742/ 

http://www.adetocqueville.com/cgi-binloc/searchTTC.cgi?displayZop+11854

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jwit/jwit020823_1_n.shtml

And then there is the question regarding Iraqs history...Of which most Americans are totally ignorantPerhaps we should ask where Saddam came from, how he got those weapons, and what the US response was at that time. 

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-18-98.html 

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-19-98.html 

And then there is the question of what actually happened during the infamous gassing event...and this is very interesting... 

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html 

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html 

So apparently we are left with some serious doubt in this situation. Either way, the US was heavily involved in the skullduggery against Iran and wasn't too concerned when it happened. 

Here are some more questions that beg the question... 

Why Saddam? Why Now? Why Alone? 

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ 
and 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html 

The US is bearing the brunt of this war effort in terms of casualties and money. Did it have to be this way? I'm not going to count the moroccon contributions  

"The administration has even turned to the animal kingdom for help in the war. First came the dolphins, those really smart mammals recruited to help clear mines at the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr. Then came word that Morocco was offering 2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines." Al Kamen, "They Got the Slov Part Right," Washington Post, March 28, 2003 

And to those who have said that we are in it now and the time to speak up was three years ago. I wholeheartedly agree. I think that Kerry and Edwards by voting for the war and now critizing that same effort have shown true gutlessness and I just can't bring myself around to respect them. I don't care what kind of dodging excuses the pair of them give, but if an average joe like myself can get my hands on all of this counter information... 

Is Iraq better off now? Maybe we should ask Enron or Haliburton or any of the members in the Carlyle group that are profiteering in this ridem cowboy mess. 

By virtue of its holdings in companies like U.S. Marine Repair and United Defense Industries, Carlyle is the equivalent of the eleventh-largest defense contractor in the nation. It has $16.2 billion under management and claims an average annual return of 35%. Phyllis Berman, Lucky Twice, Forbes, December 8, 2003. 

On a single day last month, Carlyle earned $237 million selling shares in United Defense Industries, the Army's fifth-largest contractor. The stock offering was well timed: Carlyle officials say they decided to take the company public only after the Sept. 11 attacks.  On Sept. 26, [2001], the Army signed a $665-million modified contract with United Defense through April 2003 to complete the Crusader's development phase. In October, the company listed the Crusader, and the attacks themselves, as selling points for its stock offering. Mark Fineman, Arms Buildup is a Boon to Firm Run by Big Guns, Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2002. 

"Still, in its annual report for 2001, United announced that it had been awarded a three-year, $697 million contract to complete full upgrading of 389 Bradley units and had added a $ 655 million contract modification to complete the Crusader's 'definition and risk-reduction phase contract,' which would be worth $ 1.7 billion through 2003. Together, the Crusader and Bradley programs contributed 41 percent of United sales in 2001, the report said. With Crusader and the Bradley upgrade in hand, a decision was made to sell United stock to the public in late 2001." Walter Pincus, Crusader a Boon to Carlyle Group Even if Pentagon Scraps Project, Washington Post, May 14, 2002. 

And who has been in on this from the start... 

In the mid-1990s, George H.W. Bush joined up with the Carlyle Group. Under the leadership of ex-officials like Baker and former Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci, Carlyle developed a specialty in buying defense companies and doubling or quadrupling their value. The ex-president not only became an investor in Carlyle, but a member of the company's Asia Advisory Board and a rainmaker who drummed up investors. Twelve rich Saudi families, including the Bin Ladens, were among them. In 2002, the Washington Post reported, Saudis close to Prince Sultan, the Saudi defense minister ... were encouraged to put money into Carlyle as a favor to the elder Bush. Bush retired from the company last October, and Baker, who lobbied U.S. allies last month to forgive Iraq's debt, remains a Carlyle senior counselor. Kevin Phillips, The Barreling Bushes; Four Generations of the Dynasty Have Chased Profits Through Cozy Ties with Mideast Leaders, Spinning Webs of Conflicts of Interest, Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004 

And now by proxy... 

James Baker was a Carlyle Senior Counselor beginning in 1993. Carlyle Group web site, http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/team/
l5-team391.html. 

Now, lets broaden our perspective and take a look at the master plan...as it was cooked up by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Haliburton, Enron, Carlyle, United Defense, ect... 

http://www.newamericancentury.org/ 

and 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html 

Please note that the very people named above have written articles describing the economic intent of this war as being paramount. 

Please note also, that when President Bush made his Axis of Evil speech, the above information was out there. Therefore, this resulted in an outcry in the UN from the Canadian Prime Minister "Who else is on the list, Mr. Bush?" 
Ah yes, Pakistan. By far, they supported more terrorist activity then Iraq, yet they converted very quickly. Maybe it was not for the reasons that you think... 

A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. Taleban in Texas for Talks on Gas Pipeline, BBC News, December 4, 1997 (Sugarland is 22 miles outside Houston.) 

The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the NASA space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives. The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms. After a meal of specially prepared halal meat, rice and Coca-Cola, the hardline fundamentalists - who have banned women from working and girls from going to school - asked Mr. Miller about his Christmas tree. Caroline Lees, Oil Barons Court Taliban in Texas, The Telegraph (London), December 14, 1997. 

And guess where the pipeline has to pass before in be complete? Pakistan. Ohhh sweet deals galore! Now guess who is going to get rich off of this pipeline... 

On October 27, 1997, both Unocal and Halliburton issued press releases about their energy work in Turkmenistan. Halliburton Energy Services has been providing a variety of services in Turkmenistan for the past five years. Press Release, Halliburton Alliance Awarded Integrated Service Contract Offshore Caspian Sea In Turkmenistan, October 27, 1997. http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/
1997/hesnws_102797.jsp; ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan, Oct. 27, 1997 - Six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in formal signing ceremonies here Saturday. Press Release, Consortium Formed to Build Central Asia Gas Pipeline, October 27, 1997. 

Dr. Zaher Wahab of Afghanistan, a professor in the US speaking at International Human Rights Day event, explained that Delta, Unocal as well as Russian, Pakistani and Japanese oil and gas companies have signed agreements with the Turkmenistan government, immediately north of Afghanistan, which has the fourth largest gas reserve in the world. Agreements also have been signed with the Taliban, allowing these oil and gas giants to pump Turkmenistan gas and oil through western Afghanistan to Pakistan, from which it then will be shipped all over the world. The energy consortium Enron plans to be one of the builders of the pipeline. Elaine Kelly, Northwest Groups Discuss Afghan, Iranian and Turkish Rights Violations, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 31, 1997. 

So now if you have any doubt what really changed Pakistan's heart...There is so much money floating around that region that we really have no comprehension. 

And then there is this whole business about Libya and how the presidents policies have succeeded so well thereYeah, and I'll believe a man like Qadaffi has seen the light when the horned one is buying snowblowers. 

Perhaps this is what he has seen... 

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6591641 

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/971105/1997110502.html 

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/971017/1997101719.html 

And guess who will benifit from this radical transformation of this dictator... 
WASHINGTON, July 19 (Reuters) - U.S. oil company Occidental Petroleum ... continues to "actively negotiate" upstream oil concessions in Libya, where it ... http://www.oilnews.com/ 

Occidental Petroleum is a company pretty much owned and controlled by the Bushes. 

So I guess Iran is next on the list for President Bush or President Kerry. Check PNAC. Its all part of the plan and Iraq is a convenient jumping off point. These articles are the precursor excuses and they will be increasing fed to us in the days to come... 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040808.wiran0808/BNStory/International/ 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60286-2004Jul18.html 

The last article includes the following information... 

"In an even more dramatic move, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) plans to introduce an Iran liberation act this fall, modeled on the Iraq Liberation Act that mandated government change in Baghdad and provided more than $90 million to the Iraqi opposition. The goals would be the same for Iran, including regime change, congressional officials said." 
And the war never ends... 

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

So, if you have followed me up to this point grab a gold star because this has been an exercise in stream of conciousness writingthe end game is near, have not fear 

Unfortunately, I understand all too well what Iraq is going to cost United States. Let me tell you something about enriched uranium. To make a Hiroshima style bomb, you need about a six packs worth, or one hundred pounds. Thankfully, this is very difficult to make, but after its done, its all down hill to the bomb. 

The design for the bomb is relatively easy. You need a reinforced tube, with some dynamite at one end. In the middle you take a heavy neutron source like cobalt or nickle. You put your fissile material in the other end and you cap it off. Then you blow up the dynamite. This bomb will fit in the back of a van. 

The Hiroshima style bomb was 12 kilotons. Here is what would happen in it were detonated in Times Square. Everything within 1/3 of a mile would be completely obliterated. Everything within a mile would look like the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. One half a million people would die in one second. Another half would die within days. Anyone alive within five miles would be scraping radiation burns off their skin with wire brushes. If you were standing ten miles away from the bomb and were looking directly at it, your eyes would burn in their sockets and melt away. 

This is what people who support the war fail to realize. Abbas, Nidal, Zarqawi, they are all small potatoes and they are all damned excuses to invade a country that has been PROVEN not to be a threat to the citizens of the United States! 

Meanwhile, we have ignored things that really, really, really are important. The first thing that we have ignored because we are busy raping the oil in Iraq is the fact that A Q Kahn from Pakistan has been selling ENRICHED URANIUM like candy along with the centrifuges to make more. North Korea thawed enough plutonium, which formed the fissile material for the Nagasaki bomb, to make at least six nuclear weapons. The North Koreans have professed that they will sell this to ANYONE. And now Iran is on the verge of completing the infrastructure to make its own fissile material...Meanwhile the Saudis continue to fund the terrorists that hate us, giving them the money to buy the peices of our destruction. 

With all of this on the horizon, why Iraq? 

During this argument, I have shown that the war in Iraq and partly in Ahfganistan have really been about Oil and Profits. This has not been refuted by anyone here, nor the Bush administration or anyone in the press. Now I really want you to wrap your mind around this and attempt to accept it as truth, because that is what it is and I think that the majority of people in this country already recognize that fact. Here is the catch, and this is what enrages me, Oil and Profits, under the guise of protecting us, have been put in front of our safety. 

911 was horrible, but Americans have no idea what really could happen in this War on Terror. The administration is in really big trouble if another terrorist attack happens because people are going to ask what could have been done to stop it. Then people are going to realize that this administration has done nothing but invade a country that was very low on the actual danger list. Then they are going to find out how the Bush Administration prefers to line the pockets of the folks and Haliburton, Enron, Carlyle, United Defense, ect, with war and oil profits rather then protect them from the terrorists. 

I wouldn't be surprised if 10 years after then next attack RNC ceased to exist.

Ultimately, this gulf of understanding and this refusal to accept that the military industrial corporatist complex exists is going to be crossed with a nuclear weapon and then you'll find out how wrong you are. 
I've said enough on this. Go back and read my sources and think about the capital and human resources that are being wasted in Iraq, while the real terrorist get closer and closer to the ultimate goal. Then I want you to think about all of the people who are getting filthy rich while putting us at risk. 

Pitchfork and torch anyone? 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 11, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Now try to imagine if Bush had not been president that day.
> Would the Taliban still be in power in Afghanistan?


 If they continued to harbor Al-Qaeda, then my answer would be "no", no matter who was in power at the time. But it's all conjecture, isn't it? Why do you assume Al Gore, just to pull a name out of the hat, *wouldn't* have gone after the nation harboring Al-Qaeda officials?

 Moreover, I think we'd have even odds that said non-Bush individual would have actually *finished* the job in Afghanistan, instead of letting the country devolve back into warlordism and lawlesness. As long as we're just throwing around conjecture, of course.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Would Saddam and cronies be awaiting trial for crimes against humanity? (or whatever they are being charged with)


 Quite possibly no (again, conjecture). Of course, we would also have 931 (as of this posting) more American soldiers not dead, 5715 more American soldiers not wounded, and thousands of Iraqis not dead, wounded, or tortured by American interrogators, both contract and military. I'll save the exact count of international laws not broken and ally countries not pushed away as an exercise for others.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 12, 2004)

Gary,

   Thanks for joining us in the Study!  It's always good to engage new people.

   You cover a lot of stuff in your post, so I'll be selective in this response 



			
				Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> the standard Democratic playbook-Divide and conquer.Divide as many people as possible,black vs. white,rich vs. poor,ect.It doesn't matter who is running,it always goes the same way.


 I would argue that this is the standard *political* playbook, regardless of the major party involved. If you don't think Republicans practice these same techniques, then you don't closely follow politics.



			
				Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> Does Pres. Bush cater to the super rich?Of course he does,and he is right to do so.70% of our econemy is created by these people on a daily basis,only 30% is goverment sevices paid for by THESE people.


 First off, this statement is simply wrong. Do you think any of "our economy" is created by the actual *laborers" whose work generates the capital used by said 70%?

 But, accepting this simplistic viewpoint for the sake of argument, are you still asserting that people with more money have a right to more control over government? To more power in our society? If so, can you then explain how this idea is compatible with the republic as defined in the US Constitution?



			
				Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> Those of us who earn our money every day,those of us who strive to make more and more because we are better than most,and we have no reason to feel guilty for it.


 Your statements carry an interesting mixture of classic Republican propaganda from the past 20+ years, and classic capitalist propaganda from a far longer tradition.

 First off, why are people who make more money "better"? Is this the only measure of individual worth that you consider mentioning?

   Second, why does believing that the wealthy should pay a fair share of society's costs necessary equal "hating the wealthy"?



			
				Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> Then they know that that all they have to do is lay low until we move out,then they can take over again.


 When were "the terrorists" in charge in Iraq previously? Was that when Saddam Hussein was using American-provided chemical weapons against Iranians and his own people, while Donald Rumsfeld was shaking his hand?



			
				Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> We are in the beginning of the great Jihad.We think of a war to last one to three years,Islam is commited to one thousand years.


 I have a hard time understanding this statement. Do you mean that, without provocation, the entire world's population of Moslems spontaneously decided to go to war with everyone else on earth? Or something else enitrely? I'm genuinely curious.



			
				Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> "9-11? What was that? Oh yea,it'll never happen again and if you worry about it, then the terrorists win"


 Can you point us to a place where "liberals" have forgotten about 9-11, and claim that it will never happen again? Thanks.



			
				Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> Kery thinks he can negotiate with Al Queda.


 Can you point us to any statements or platform policies where Kerry plans to negotiate with "Al Queda"? Thanks.


----------



## Kane (Aug 12, 2004)

Ill say why I support Bush for the most part and why I will most likely vote for him in this coming election.

First, I think Bush is an overall better leader than Kerry will be. There is no way in hell we can ever take Al Queda lightly. Meaning negotiating will not work. You tell me, would you negotiate with someone who thinks YOU are the devil of their religion and want to kill you? It wont work that way. We must destroy or take over Al Queda by force. I honestly dont think Kerry will take Al Queda as a threat so easily. Im sure he wont do anything with the war on terror until its too late and someone has already attacked us.

There was enough reason I think to go into war in Iraq. My main reason on why I supported the war is because of the way Saddam treated his people. Many experts compared the way Saddam treated his people is almost as bad as the way Stalin treated his people. That type of tyrant should not be even in this world. I have no respect for any who pity him. As for the weapons of mass destruction, Im sure one day we will find them in the sands of the dessert. 

Saddam also has ties to Al Queda, and we shouldn't even get into why that is bad.

I however dislike the way Bush is handling the war. If I was president, I would bomb all the places where opposition exists instead of sending in our troops to die in these dangerous places. Heck, we dont even have a tank in Iraq fighting all those wars. As a result, more and more of our troops are getting killed more than how many we should be loosing, which isnt nearly as much. However, other than that I think he is a good president.

I also like his tax cuts. Kerry when becoming president plans to raise taxes up to 1.2 trillion Ive heard! I definitely dont want taxes to get anymore worse than it is now even now.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Fiesty... I am actually undecided.
> 
> I dont particularly like Bush or Kerry... Im almost tempted to throw my vote to the likes of Darth Nader, but I know that would be futile, and a waste of a vote... We'll see, we'll see.


You do realize a Vote for Nader *is* a Vote for Bush? 

I voted for Nader last time around. But we had two candidates that were almost indistiguishable from each other. However, President Bush is not the President he campaigned to be. He is far more radically right than we would have believed from his campaign messages. This time we have his experience to draw from; and he is not a compassionate conservative. He has demonstrated he is brutally not compassionate, and he hasn't conserved a damn thing while in office.

Without the support of the Green Party, Nader has to work hard to get his name on the ballot as an independent in most states. Look carefully at who is gathering signatures, and their talk tracks, to get that name on the ballot. You also should be aware of who is funding the Nader campaign. While there are a lot of red, white and blue independents, alot of the money is coming from the Red States.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/11/gop_is_accused_of_aiding_nader/


> For the past 10 days, temporary workers hired by Norway Hill Associates, a Hancock firm headed up by a well-known GOP consultant, have been collecting signatures for Nader around the state. Last Friday, about a dozen workers buttonholed Bush supporters in the parking lot outside a Stratham farm where the president was speaking. They were armed with talking points instructing them to remind reluctant Republicans that "without Nader, Bush would not be president."


http://www.nbc4.tv/news/3534154/detail.html?subid=10101581


> One of the Republicans giving to Nader is former Nixon speech writer and game show host Ben Stein. Records show he's donated more than $14,000 to Republican causes, like the Bush-Cheney committee. But he's also given two donations to Ralph Nader totaling $1,000.


This article shows that Bush's Ambassador to Ireland is donating money to Nader ... Good Grief Karl Rove.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0701-04.htm



> Billionaire Richard J. Egan built his reputation in politics as a major donor and fund-raiser for the Bush campaign,
> 
> Egan, cofounder of EMC Corp. in Hopkinton, has given Nader the maximum $2,000 allowed under the law, according to federal elections documents that also show a $4,000 contribution to Nader from Egan's son and daughter-in-law, John R. and Pamela C. Egan.
> 
> Egan, who was sent to Ireland as US ambassador by President Bush after his fund-raising successes in the 2000 campaign, returned home to Massachusetts last year.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> Why not write in the name of your cat or dog? ;-)


I realize you are still too young to vote. Perhaps you should not be in such a hurry. It is very poor etiquette to put a name on the ballot as a write-in candidate *without* that persons consent. Can your dog or cat give consent? I think not.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Ill say why I support Bush for the most part and why I will most likely vote for him in this coming election.
> 
> First, I think Bush is an overall better leader than Kerry will be. There is no way in hell we can ever take Al Queda lightly. *Meaning negotiating will not work.* You tell me, would you negotiate with someone who thinks YOU are the devil of their religion and want to kill you? It wont work that way. We must destroy or take over Al Queda by force. I honestly dont think Kerry will take Al Queda as a threat so easily. Im sure *he wont do anything with the war on terror until its too late and someone has already attacked us*.
> 
> ...


Wow Kane, .. Thank you ... You provide a wonderful insight into how you receive your news.

Why do you think Kerry would "Negotiate" with al Qaeda? Someone has already attacked us. Kerry has commanded US Soldiers in battle before, why do you think he now would not?

The war in Iraq was fought because Saddam Hussein had "massive stockpiles" of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the "relationships" with terrorist organizations to deliver them "without fingerprints" against the U.S. and its allies. The war in Iraq was not fought to protect Iraqis from their government. But, because the weapons did not exist, the terrorist connections did not exist, and our troops are in country, we needed a reason; yeah, we're humanitarian.

The U.S. Marine Corps is currently laying seige to Najaf, Iraq using "tanks, heavy weapons, and armored vehicles", with "helicopter gunships patrollling overhead". Why do you believe there are no tanks in Iraq? Why do you believe a tank is an effective weapon against a guerilla insurgence?

The much touted 1.2 Trillion dollar number is the sum of the tax increase over *10 years,* and that tax increase is propsed to only affect those making more than $285,000.00.

Please, Please, Please ... Turn off the talk radio.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've said enough on this. Go back and read my sources and think about the capital and human resources that are being wasted in Iraq, while the real terrorist get closer and closer to the ultimate goal. Then I want you to think about all of the people who are getting filthy rich while putting us at risk.
> 
> Pitchfork and torch anyone?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


This, and the entire post is worth reading. It may not be a conspiracy theory ... but is sure as hell is an awful lot of coincidences ....


----------



## old_sempai (Aug 12, 2004)

Lets look at the alternative and his cronies as well:

Sandy Berger.... stole classified documents, possibly even destroyed some to hid what?????  His role in the previous administrations failure to act decisively to past terrorist attacks... an administration that had 8 years to do something meaningful and did basically nothing.  Never mind that Bush had been in office only 8 months before being handed another Pearl Harbor.

Richard Clarke.... the counter-terrorist expert that recommended not going after Bin Laden... not once, not twice, but three times... certainly must be a charm in that somewhere?????????

The lady democrat [cant remember her name] on the 911 Commission that set up the wall between the different agencies, FBI, etc that prevented sharing intelligence.... wouldn't want to invade their privacy while they're making plans to kill Americans.... 

The bleeding hearts that say its wrong to keep the enemy combatants locked up in Gtmo.... after all they were in Afghanistan as tourists.....

And now for the big one... the guy that remembers being in Cambodia in 1968 at Christmas time on a secret mission while serving one of the shortest tours of duty in country for any American military serviceman.... 4 months.... hell I spent more time in boot camp than he did in combat and then gets wounded by a rock no less and receives a Purple Heart....  The man that went to private Swiss schools and travels the world living in mansions where the gardener probably earns more than most lower income Americans... this man can surely relate to my driving a 20-year old car while putting my children through college when I was turned down for financial aid.... he certainly can feel my pain and understand my humble dreams and daily needs....completely.....  

One liberal president had the morals of an alley cat... this wannabe has even less scruples when it comes to honesty.....    

artyon:


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 12, 2004)

:cheers:  artyon:  :cheers:


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

old_sempai said:
			
		

> Lets look at the alternative and his cronies as well:
> 
> Sandy Berger.... stole classified documents, possibly even destroyed some to hid what????? His role in the previous administrations failure to act decisively to past terrorist attacks... an administration that had 8 years to do something meaningful and did basically nothing. Never mind that Bush had been in office only 8 months before being handed another Pearl Harbor.
> 
> ...


re: Sandy Berger - Please see the most current news reports. Sandy Berger has been cleared of all charges, other than absent mindedness. No documents were destroyed or lost. The 911 commission got to see *all* relevant materials.

re: Richard Clarke - His plans were acted upon when the United States launched cruise missle attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan. How did the country react; "Wag the Dog". "Wag the Dog". Clinton was trying to obscure his impeachment trial. Were we committed to get al Qaeda then? Were you fighting for an invasion of Afghanistan then?

re: John Kerry - While certianly not poor, John Kerry actually has married into most of his money - twice. And lest you forget, John Kerry served *two tours* of duty in the Pacfic; February 1968 - November 1968 on the USS Gridley, November 1968 - March 1969 in command of a Swift Boat. 

re: George Bush & 8 months in office - During this time, how often did the President or his adminstration hold counter-terrorism meetings?

Thanks for playing - Mike


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> re: Sandy Berger - Please see the most current news reports. Sandy Berger has been cleared of all charges, other than absent mindedness. No documents were destroyed or lost. The 911 commission got to see *all* relevant materials.


One thing I want to say about that is that some people have a tendency to LIE. Yes, I know we have that "innocent until proven guilty" thing but that doesn't mean she didn't do it. "Absentmindedness" explains why I'm not in Calculus right now because they misplaced school records. "Absentmindedness" could explain why I forgot to write about not being malicious on my "How many ... does it take to screw in a lightbulb" post.

I did like your post, however!

My ranting is done.
pck


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 12, 2004)

> The man that went to private Swiss schools and travels the world living in mansions where the gardener probably earns more than most lower income Americans... this man can surely relate to my driving a 20-year old car while putting my children through college when I was turned down for financial aid.... he certainly can feel my pain and understand my humble dreams and daily needs....completely.....


So how does Bush, who thinks that only people who make more than 200,000/yr are the "small business owners" in this country, who has openly stated to the super-wealthy "you are my base", who has had everything in life handed to him on a silver platter, and got leapfrogged up into the Natl Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam - how is he more "down-to-earth" or understanding of "the little guy"?

Kerry has actually worked for some of his money.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> One thing I want to say about that is that some people have a tendency to LIE. Yes, I know we have that "innocent until proven guilty" thing but that doesn't mean she didn't do it. "Absentmindedness" explains why I'm not in Calculus right now because they misplaced school records. "Absentmindedness" could explain why I forgot to write about not being malicious on my "How many ... does it take to screw in a lightbulb" post.
> 
> I did like your post, however!
> 
> ...


I didn't want to have to post the entire story, but when the word 'LIE' is thrown around so prominantly. I am not sure who you are referring to in the pronoun 'some people'. For clarity sake then:

http://journals.aol.com/richardbk8/TheSentryNewsDigest/entries/416



> Berger Exonerated in Withholding of Information From 9/11 Commission
> 
> By Scot J. Paltrow
> *The Wall Street Journal *
> ...


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 12, 2004)

<i>nothing Mr. Berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. </i>

Did they have an attendance sheet or a list of documents that "should be here"? I'm just curious...


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 12, 2004)

Apparently, a lot of AOL users won't need converting:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39932

"In what some political observers might view as shocking news, a poll of America Online members is currently forecasting a landslide victory for President Bush, who collects 48 of the 50 states in this year's electoral race. 

The unscientific survey, whose results change in real time as more people vote, reveals with more than 34,000 participants, Bush takes a whopping 58 percent of the popular vote compared to 40 percent for Sen. John Kerry and 2 percent for Ralph Nader.

...

Kerry may be winning in the war of 'hating Bush,' but he is not the best man for president. "


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 12, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> There is no way in hell we can ever take Al Queda lightly. Meaning negotiating will not work.


 Can you point out where Kerry has stated he intends to negotiate with "Al Queda"?  Thanks.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Im sure he wont do anything with the war on terror until its too late and someone has already attacked us.


 Why do you think this?  Do you think Kerry has lied when he discussed his plans for pursuing Al Qaeda?



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> My main reason on why I supported the war is because of the way Saddam treated his people.


 Can you provide a list of other worldwide tyrants you're willing to conquer, along with a sense for how many American lives these actions are worth, how many civilian lives, how much of a monetary cost, and what cost in international standing you're willing to withstand?



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Saddam also has ties to Al Queda, and we shouldn't even get into why that is bad.


 Saddam's "ties to Al Queda" were no more significant (and, in fact, were less significant) than those of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.  Should we conquer those nations?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Aug 12, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> One thing I want to say about that is that some people have a tendency to LIE. Yes, I know we have that "innocent until proven guilty" thing but that doesn't mean she didn't do it. "Absentmindedness" explains why I'm not in Calculus right now because they misplaced school records.


 Assuming you're referring to Sandy Berger, the word you're looking for is "he", not "she".


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 12, 2004)

Originally Posted by Kane
_Saddam also has ties to Al Queda, and we shouldn't even get into why that is bad._


_It is no worse than GW Bush having direct ties to Osma Bin Laden. He has even had luncheons and dinners with him and his family at his ranch in Texas years ago during the time Osama was being recurited to fight Soviet Union in Afganistan. _

_Should GW be held accountable to having ties to this Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?_


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 12, 2004)

Oh, yeah, that "worldnet," website? The one with the poll about Hizzoner winning in a landslide? Eminently objective and reasonable, especially if you can't get access to the latest from Himmler.

Really, Micheal, I'm surprised at the compelete absence of reasoning and critical ability this claim exhibits. This website features articles by the well-known right-wing shill Ann Coulter--who refers to John Kerry (a DECORATED and WOUNDED VETERAN) as  "Eddie Haskell)--by Hal Lindsey (author of the "Late Great Planet Earth," and a fundamentalist nutcake who's been making his living from preaching hateful crap since the 1970s)--and, my personal favorite!, if you'll look at the site at about the level  of  Hizzoner's Adam's apple, an article advancing the theory the the Tunguska meteor of 1908 was actually an alien spacecraft saving our planet.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with disagreement, especially political. There is something very wrong with taking biased nonsense written by loons as objective information, to say nothing of buying into the whole fundamentalist lunacy this site exhibits--you know, "Jesus is  coming back soon to SEND all you unrighteous to HELL, so support right-wing Israeli madness about rebuilding the TEMPLE, help us bash GAY PEOPLE, and you too can go to HEAVEN and watch everybody you're afraid of BURN in TORMENT for ETERNITY. Oh yeah, and vote for Bush or your daughters will be forced to play softball with LESBIANS." 

Beyond the ugly yet pathetic morality exhibited on that site (sometimes I slip in decency, and wish there were indeed a Biblical hell, so such malice and viciousness could be appropriately rewarded), there's the ludicrousness of any pretense to objectivity. 

Hey, did you catch my post on the Rev. Moon having himself crowned Messiah, with Ronald Reagan and a  host of  other prominent Republicans in the crowd?  The Rev--oops, I  forgot, the "Third Adam"--or was it "The Lord?" owns and operates "The Washington Times." Which he tells everybody is there to fulfill the Unification Church's mission. Which is to force everybody on the planet into One True Church, with the Rev at its head. 

And these are the morons who claim that the UN houses the Antichrist.

Come on. You have to do better than this.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 12, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&e=4&u=/afp/us_attacks_qaeda
> 
> " Quoting from unnamed US intelligence officials....
> 
> The view of Al-Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush,' "


For some reason, I'm less inclined to believe an "unnamed US intelligence official" than I am to believe the direct quote from the terrorist responsible for the terror attacks in Spain.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You do realize a Vote for Nader *is* a Vote for Bush?



Every election that rolls around, I hear that. 

"A Vote for whomever is in the Middle, is a Vote for whomever is republican!"

SO I have to ask this... If thats the case, is the democratic party so weak, the only way they can win is to convert the middle?  Or maybe the Republicans are... and have to dupe democrats into voting the middle to rob them of votes.

I have a problem, basically, of Voting for the "Lesser Evil"

Given the choices, I could A) Vote for Kerry and kick myself in the @ss if he wins.
b) Vote for Bush, and kick myself in the @ss if he wins.
c) Vote for Nader, knowing that he will never win because no one takes the middle seriously, because its not labled Democrat or Repubican.
d) Not vote, and wash my hands of the whole mess, only to be told "Your part of the Problem"

Sounds like a No-win situation we have going here.  Maybe Ill toss a coin in the booth.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Every election that rolls around, I hear that.
> 
> "A Vote for whomever is in the Middle, is a Vote for whomever is republican!"
> 
> ...


I voted for Nader in the last election cycle. That should be evidence that you should support whom you believe will best serve your interests. The fact that the Republicans are *actively* supporting Nader should speak volumes to you.

Looks like your best choice is 'D' ... but then you have to give up your keys to 'The Study' 

More seriously, why do you think the D's and R' don't take the middle (whatever that is) seriously?

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 12, 2004)

Well, i dunno Robert, even if a tenth of what you said was true, it doesn't have much to do with the credibility of AOL's poll.

They simply reported the poll.

http://www.electionguide04.com/straw_poll.adp


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I voted for Nader in the last election cycle. That should be evidence that you should support whom you believe will best serve your interests.



Yeah, I was speaking in general terms, wasnt referring to anyone in particular.   :asian: 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Looks like your best choice is 'D' ... but then you have to give up your keys to 'The Study'



Yeah, sad isnt it? Hehe. 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> More seriously, why do you think the D's and R' don't take the middle (whatever that is) seriously?
> 
> Mike



I think a lot of that is conditioning... "My daddy was a Republican, so I am a republican" etc etc...


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 12, 2004)

While your at it do something different write yourself in and vote for yourself.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 12, 2004)

I appreciate the courtesy, Michael. 

However, the problem is that this "poll," is simply not a remotely-valid sample; it's composed of people who "vote," on a website, yes? And as such a poll, it isn't remotely trustworthy. Among other things, it's easy to stack the deck.

Gallup and the other organizations that conduct polling always explain how they get their results. They are careful to get a statistically-significant sample--in other words, they tell you, just as I was taught in tenth grade, how they did their expreiment. And mainstream media ALWAYS tells you something about how the poll was done.

Leaving aside the issue of nutcakes--but I am surprised, and even a bit appalled, that you would take seriously ANYTHING presented on a website with artciles by Ann Coulter and Hal Lindsey, to say nothing of their whole serious treatment of the flying saucer-that-landed-in-Siberia-in-1908 story, that failed so fundamentally in the basic responsibilites of "the news media."

The deeper problem, for your politics, is that such a site exposes something fundamental about the contemporary American Right: its very close ties to out-and-out nuttery. Reagan's telling evangelists that The End was coming soon, back when he was Prez, and his wife's astrologer; Ollie North's close ties to lunatic fringe groups like the Unification Church; that website's ties to the apocalyptic edge of Christianity, which wants Israel to expand and rebuild the Temple, to hasten on the End Times.

For all the Babittry, sexual peccadillos and stupidity of Democrats, at least they don't pull that crap.

Why would any rational person associate themselves with these nutbars?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2004)

Considering the number of "nutbar" actors and celebs that camp out on the Dem. side, I find that arguement funny.


----------



## MartialArtist68 (Aug 12, 2004)

This is all well and good, but the point of this post is for Bush supporters to present their reasons for supporting "Dubya". If you want to discuss something else, click the "start new thread" button.

Thanks,
pck


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 12, 2004)

Threads drift. 

Lots of personalities reading lots of comments in different ways. To try and control this is foolish. (Moderator's excepted  ) If you don't like the way a thread is evolving, you can stop contributing, or bring it back to the topic yourself. It would probably be much more effective than telling everyone else what to do (where to go).

Peace


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 12, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Apparently, a lot of AOL users won't need converting:
> 
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39932




AOL users are on dial up lines, correct?  Broadband cable has cut into their market share quite a bit.

Dial up service dominates in red states/rural settings.  Broadband in urban/blue settings.  I wouldn't be too quick to assume that this AOL survey indicates anything of significance.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Gary Crawford (Aug 12, 2004)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
the standard Democratic playbook-Divide and conquer.Divide as many people as possible,black vs. white,rich vs. poor,ect.It doesn't matter who is running,it always goes the same way. 

I would argue that this is the standard *political* playbook, regardless of the major party involved. If you don't think Republicans practice these same techniques, then you don't closely follow politics.
I follow politics every day,thank you very much.Maybe it's just my prejudicial leaning,but when have Republicans devided people by anything other than politictical parties?uote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
Does Pres. Bush cater to the super rich?Of course he does,and he is right to do so.70% of our econemy is created by these people on a daily basis,only 30% is goverment sevices paid for by THESE people. 

First off, this statement is simply wrong. Do you think any of "our economy" is created by the actual *laborers" whose work generates the capital used by said 70%?

But, accepting this simplistic viewpoint for the sake of argument, are you still asserting that people with more money have a right to more control over government? To more power in our society? If so, can you then explain how this idea is compatible with the republic as defined in the US Constitution?
al parties? Who do you think pays the payroll for labor? No,I do not think these people should have more CONTROL over goverment,but since they are resposible for so many to be able to have a job,to pay the bills and so on.Their opinions are listened to more since they have much more to loose when things go bad,thus reducing Federal revenues and increasing unemployment.Take Bill Gates for example.How much money does he generate for the country?How many US jobs were established  because of his succsess?How much does he give to charity?How many people are working for his competitors just because Microsoft has given everyone a leg up in the industry?Does what Bill Gates have to say mean more than what you or I do?Hell yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
Those of us who earn our money every day,those of us who strive to make more and more because we are better than most,and we have no reason to feel guilty for it. 

Your statements carry an interesting mixture of classic Republican propaganda from the past 20+ years, and classic capitalist propaganda from a far longer tradition.

First off, why are people who make more money "better"? Is this the only measure of individual worth that you consider mentioning?

Second, why does believing that the wealthy should pay a fair share of society's costs necessary equal "hating the wealthy"?
This is a competitive capitolists society.Where those who are smarter and work harder and more hours win more than those who only do the bare minimum.Hard work is a very good measure of worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
Then they know that that all they have to do is lay low until we move out,then they can take over again. 

When were "the terrorists" in charge in Iraq previously? Was that when Saddam Hussein was using American-provided chemical weapons against Iranians and his own people, while Donald Rumsfeld was shaking his hand?
I am not talking about Iraq-Iran war days,only present day


----------



## Gary Crawford (Aug 12, 2004)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Crawford
We are in the beginning of the great Jihad.We think of a war to last one to three years,Islam is commited to one thousand years. 

I have a hard time understanding this statement. Do you mean that, without provocation, the entire world's population of Moslems spontaneously decided to go to war with everyone else on earth? Or something else enitrely? I'm genuinely curious.
You think they haven't been?They don't need provication,all they need is scripture and some radical respected leaders to lead them.Their entire goal is to dominate the world eventually.Take the Isreali-Palestinian ever lasting issue for example.Isreal on many occasions has agreed to all concessions in efforts to establish a Palestinian state,but that was never what they wanted.Palestinians will only accept death of all isreali's.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Aug 12, 2004)

I continue to be astonished by the radically-new, un-American fantasy that it is the Rich People, the guys like Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch, who made this country and who contribute the considerable bulk of significant to human development. What tripe. 

As for the notion that, "Democrats do it too," well, a) please show me where I sang the unvarnished praises of Democrats, and b) where it is that Democrats such as Gore, Kerrey, etc., have closely allied themselves with the religious nutcakes such as Rev. Moon and Hal Lindsey, offered "polls," on sites linked to  flying saucer cults, made appointments in the White House as dictated by their wife's astrologer, and all the rest of this absurd, repressive, ugly claptrap.

And oh yes, please show me where it is that the Democrats have claimed that our current President lied about his service in Vietnam, made up stories about his heroism there, and inflated his claims about his three Purple Hearts...oh dear, my bad. I had forgotten that Hizzoner cannot possibly  be attacked for exaggerating his service in Vietnam, since he employed his daddy's connections to evade any such service. 

Perhaps you could show a set of Democratic attacks on the President's wife and children comparable  to these smutty little harangues that the likes of Ann Coulter seem to find so engaging?

I carry no brief for Kerrey, who I simply consider a better choice that the current Administration. I am simply disgusted by these shabby, mean-spirited and graceless personal attacks--which, I would have thought, conservatives would have been the first to repudiate. 

As for converting anyone to a Bush supporter, perhaps  it's just having worked out yesterday--but I am reminded of the old joke about the soda jerk who finds Aladdin's Lamp, rubs it, and when the genie comes out, says, "Make me a chocolate malted."


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 13, 2004)

MartialArtist68 said:
			
		

> Here's your chance to try and convert me.


I AM FILTHLY RICH !! I am not just in the top 1% ... I am in the top 1% of that 1%.

AND ..... 

I just saw this news report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/



> WASHINGTON - Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.
> 
> The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.


What Is Not To Love !!!!
Go George Go!





:bs:

only the news report in the statement above is true.
Mike


----------



## Deflecting_the_Storm (Aug 13, 2004)

You me being so young I never have thought or really ever wanted to think about who and why they wanted to be the leader of this country. Because of how I see we as the american public act. I am not going to vote in this upcoming election along with the other 200 million who will not vote, and I have plenty of reasons why. First let me say that I have no idea what Kerry supports, and it seems that the democrats have a bash Bush campaign. I have asked alot of people why are they voting for Kerry and they say because they dont like Bush. Wow, thats a great reason to vote for a guy. Because you dont like the other one. What if Kerry has bunk ideas, or wants to change the way this country is run for the next 4 years, I still dont and have no idea what he wants to do with this country if he is elected. Bush on the other hand is a puppet. Like the rest of the presidents. But you can see it more than others. He really seems like he has no idea what he was doing. When his advisor leans over and tells him that we are under attack he just sits there and continues to read with children like nothing happened. I guess waiting for someone or something to come and tell him what to do. No one rushing in to take him to a safe place, him not just getting up and politely excusing himself and then taking care of the nation. The one thing that I really really really thought was disturbing was the satellite feed before he want on to address the nation after the attacks. He looked so scared, like he had no clue and didnt know if he himself could get through this. So why would I vote for either of them? If you want to look at past presidents for your decision well that would be crazy as well. Clinton, well the worst president ever in this country's history. Bush and Reagan, same administration. Reagan was out of his mind, and Bush just took over when he was done. Nixon, another man with clouded with the idea of destroying all other ways of life except for Capitalism. And Kennedy thought to be a great president, may of been a great leader, but got there using mob influence, and slept around with almost anything he could get a hold of. In the end we are just voting for a man, who is not perfect. But one man who has our intrests in mind. But if we all have different intrests, than can we all ever be satisfied?


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 13, 2004)

Deflecting_the_Storm said:
			
		

> You me being so young I never have thought or really ever wanted to think about who and why they wanted to be the leader of this country. Because of how I see we as the american public act. I am not going to vote in this upcoming election along with the other 200 million who will not vote, and I have plenty of reasons why. First let me say that I have no idea what Kerry supports, and it seems that the democrats have a bash Bush campaign. I have asked alot of people why are they voting for Kerry and they say because they dont like Bush. Wow, thats a great reason to vote for a guy. Because you dont like the other one. What if Kerry has bunk ideas, or wants to change the way this country is run for the next 4 years, I still dont and have no idea what he wants to do with this country if he is elected. Bush on the other hand is a puppet. Like the rest of the presidents. But you can see it more than others. He really seems like he has no idea what he was doing. When his advisor leans over and tells him that we are under attack he just sits there and continues to read with children like nothing happened. I guess waiting for someone or something to come and tell him what to do. No one rushing in to take him to a safe place, him not just getting up and politely excusing himself and then taking care of the nation. The one thing that I really really really thought was disturbing was the satellite feed before he want on to address the nation after the attacks. He looked so scared, like he had no clue and didnt know if he himself could get through this. So why would I vote for either of them? If you want to look at past presidents for your decision well that would be crazy as well. Clinton, well the worst president ever in this country's history. Bush and Reagan, same administration. Reagan was out of his mind, and Bush just took over when he was done. Nixon, another man with clouded with the idea of destroying all other ways of life except for Capitalism. And Kennedy thought to be a great president, may of been a great leader, but got there using mob influence, and slept around with almost anything he could get a hold of. In the end we are just voting for a man, who is not perfect. But one man who has our intrests in mind. But if we all have different intrests, than can we all ever be satisfied?


Wow! 

Just, Wow!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Aug 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I just saw this news report.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5689001/
> 
> ...




I'd be interested in what Mr. Mike thinks of this, given that he supports Dubya's tax plan.  Perhaps he's making more than $285,000 a year or has a huge inheritance on the way.   Mike?

The report indicates that the middle taxes after tax income increased 2.3%, whereas the rich had an after tax income increase of 10.1%.  The bottom fifth had a net increase in after tax income of 1.6%.  The gap widens once again.

Two days before this report another report showed the annual deficit had widened 28% to a total $69.2 billion.  

A highly critical Heritage foundation study done earlier this year showed that if you threw out ALL of the extra spending on the War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan...if you threw out all extra military expenditures since 9-11, our government is still spending far more money than it takes in.

Note please, that the Heritage Foundation is a very conservative think tank.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Wow!
> 
> Just, Wow!



Now that is an Uber-Rant!


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 13, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in what Mr. Mike thinks of this, given that he supports Dubya's tax plan.  Perhaps he's making more than $285,000 a year or has a huge inheritance on the way.   Mike?
> 
> The report indicates that the middle taxes after tax income increased 2.3%, whereas the rich had an after tax income increase of 10.1%.  The bottom fifth had a net increase in after tax income of 1.6%.  The gap widens once again.
> 
> ...



I know from talking to other conservatives that many are not happy at all with GW Bush.  If there were a third party on the right, I think we would see the Exodus.  Notice the cancellation of primaries throughout the country by the RNC.  What this shows me is that the Bush administration will squash debate in their own party.  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## MisterMike (Aug 13, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'd be interested in what Mr. Mike thinks of this, given that he supports Dubya's tax plan.  Perhaps he's making more than $285,000 a year or has a huge inheritance on the way.   Mike?
> 
> The report indicates that the middle taxes after tax income increased 2.3%, whereas the rich had an after tax income increase of 10.1%.  The bottom fifth had a net increase in after tax income of 1.6%.  The gap widens once again.



These statements seems to be what the hubbub is about:



> The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
> 
> Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.



So, even though our tax rates went down, the middle class as a whole is paying more of their "share" now while the top 1% pays less than they used to.

BUT, 1% of the population is paying 20.1% of this country's taxes while the middle class (70% of the country?) is paying 19.5%.

1% of the population paying more than 70%. I'd still say there is nothing to complain about - unless you are in the 1%. (Hee hee)


----------

