Challenge: convert me to a bush supporter

[Cryozombie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Flatlander]

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]

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"

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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?

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"?

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?

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.

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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