Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

George Bush

29 (17.3%)

John Kerry

71 (42.3%)

Ralph Nader

4 (2.4%)

I'm not a U.S. citizen but Bush

4 (2.4%)

Not a citizen but Kerry

45 (26.8%)

Not a citizen but Nader

5 (3%)

Other

5 (3%)

Undecided

5 (3%)

Total Members Voted: 163

[JimH]

We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.

[JimH]

Just bumping this back to the top to see if we can get a few more votes.

[Mastiff]

I kind of wonder about the discrepancy between US citizens and others. Heck, Nader gets as many votes as Bush amongst us foreigners!   Is it that you are to close to the issue to see how dangerous and stupid Bush is? Or are we all wrong about him? Anyway, my guess is that for us it's all foreign policy, while you US-ians care more about domestic goings-on, right?

Oh, and I always wonder of the idiotic notion that it's bad to kill something that doesn't have a conciuosness yet, but OK to kill an 18 year old who killed somebody at 17... I'm not against the death penalty in all cases, but it seems to be racially divided and also according to class - few white middle- and upper class murderers gets it, a lot of the others get it. Abortion is a dead issue anywhere but in the Vatican and Ireland! Get over it!  

[JimH]

Tor,
50.0000000 per cent of the U.S. agrees with you.

(Within plus or minus .0000001 per cent.)

Jim

[TimB]

I'll avoid religion this time Jim.

I kind of wonder about the discrepancy between US citizens and others. Heck, Nader gets as many votes as Bush amongst us foreigners!   Is it that you are to close to the issue to see how dangerous and stupid Bush is? Or are we all wrong about him? Anyway, my guess is that for us it's all foreign policy, while you US-ians care more about domestic goings-on, right?

I'm not sure this is true this time around.  For sure the Dems (I'm one) would like to focus on the economy.

Oh, and I always wonder of the idiotic notion that it's bad to kill something that doesn't have a conciuosness yet, but OK to kill an 18 year old who killed somebody at 17... I'm not against the death penalty in all cases, but it seems to be racially divided and also according to class - few white middle- and upper class murderers gets it, a lot of the others get it. Abortion is a dead issue anywhere but in the Vatican and Ireland! Get over it!  

The Death Penalty issue is a non-issue this election IMHO.  Most Americans are in favor of Abortion and Capital Punishment.  Maybe someone can find the stats to support this statement but I'm pretty sure this is true.

I'm pretty Liberal and Capital Punishment only truly bothers me in its irreversability.  No room for error in a process that's riddled with error and inequity.  Not too many rich people on Death Row.  Also maybe life in prison is a worse punishment?

-=Tim=-

[salsbst1]

I kind of wonder about the discrepancy between US citizens and others. Heck, Nader gets as many votes as Bush amongst us foreigners!   Is it that you are to close to the issue to see how dangerous and stupid Bush is? Or are we all wrong about him? Anyway, my guess is that for us it's all foreign policy, while you US-ians care more about domestic goings-on, right?

I think we can trace the strangeness of U.S. government to two things:


a) that each state in the Union gets two Senators, regardless of its population count;

The Senate is composed of 100 voting members, two from each State.  That means that California, with roughly 39 million people, has the same number of Senators as Wyoming, with roughly 480 thousand people.   This strikes me as pathetic.  I think it cries for reform.



b) that almost every state votes for President as a block in what we call the electoral college.

Each state sends a certain number of electors to the elector college based on population.  This is a good thing, as the criminal Martha Stewart would say.  However, almost every State in the
Union does so as a block.  So, if California is leaning heavily toward the Democrats, there is no good reason for a Republican to bother voting.  Likewise, if Ohio is going to the Republicans, a Demotract vote is useless.

This discourages people from voting and distorts the result.  I live in Washington, DC which is a Democrat stronghold.  As such my vote means zero, zilch, nada.  We need reform here desperately.

[Charlemagne 8]

Many of you know me as a wild-eyed, gun totin', liberal Democrat. I'll accept that. For those who don't know me as that, "Howdy".

That out of the way, I have to say that KingSparta is my favorite, Republican-leaning, wild-eyed conservative. I don't know about the "gun-totin" part but I have my suspicions.

A close second in the VERY small list of "favorite Rebublicans" is Colin Powell. Who hasn't had to sacrifice a principle or two to keep a job?

Also, it must be said that Condi has the hardest job. Even harder than Ned Beatty's.  She's a terrible liar but must still somehow carry on with the program. Tough job.

And the award for most clever spin of the week: "Furious George".

I saw the debate in question. I saw the news' spins on it afterwards and still didn't notice much fury. But clever anyway.

Happy Fall, Y'all!!!
Whoever you vote for, just make sure you vote. That is important. Do it.

CVIII

[JimH]

Nice comments, Stuart.  I think the Senate's makeup may have other consequences though.  The fact that each state has two votes gives land a little edge.  In a lot of ways, I look at current politics as a land vs. people thing.  I'm leaning toward land.

[Charlemagne 8]

Jim,
The "modify" button is the fourteenth one.
CVIII

[JimH]

The Death Penalty issue is a non-issue this election IMHO.  Most Americans are in favor of Abortion and Capital Punishment.  Maybe someone can find the stats to support this statement but I'm pretty sure this is true.

About ten years ago, Planned Parenthood's affiliates did a very scientific survey in MN.  I helped in the phone banks.  The question was put this way:

"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?  A woman's right to choose is a decision to be made by the woman, her family, and her physician."

The result in a survey that covered more than 20 per cent of Minnesota, was 67% in favor of this statement.

You can argue with how the question was asked, etc., but the outcome was very clear.

I'm pretty Liberal and Capital Punishment only truly bothers me in its irreversability.  No room for error in a process that's riddled with error and inequity.  Not too many rich people on Death Row.  

When I was in 6th grade, in Lincoln, Nebraska, a young man of about 22, named Charles Starkweather, and his 16 year-old girl friend, Carol Fugate, roamed around the city from house to house and killed 16 or 17 people over two or three days.  I remember my mom coming to school to pick me up (which she never did before).

There are some cases where the death penalty is the clear choice.  There are many others where the facts are less clear.  The verdict just needs to reflect the depth and certainty of the facts.

[Charlemagne 8]

Jim,
The "modify" button is the fourteenth one.
CVIII

Very funny. Really.

One of the major problems with the death penalty is, as has been said, it's irreversability. We are human. We do make mistakes. We don't get a "do-over" on that one. Ever served on a jury? I have. A murder trial. No death penalty, thankfully. Deciding on life in prison was hard enough. But if all jury deliberations were as haphazard as mine, it's amazing that any of them can come to ANY decision.

Another of the problems with the death penalty is the nomenclature. It's not a "penalty". No one learns to do better... there is no rehabilitation. After about 20 years or so, they're dead. Do we shoot rabid dogs as a service to  humanity and to protect the lives and health of our family? ... Sure we do. But that can in no way be construed as a "punishment".

Another point of bad nomenclature: NO ONE is "pro-abortion". We may as well call the anti-abortionists "anti-choice". They're not.
There is "Anti-abortion" and "Pro-choice".
Apples and oranges. That's one of the problems with trying to discuss it.

I'm warming up.

CVIII

[JimH]

I'm just warming up.

That's a good thing.  We're grateful.

[Charlemagne 8]

You added a word. Are you some sort of closet Republican?

[TimB]

I'm pretty Liberal and Capital Punishment only truly bothers me in its irreversability.  No room for error in a process that's riddled with error and inequity.  Not too many rich people on Death Row.  

When I was in 6th grade, in Lincoln, Nebraska, a young man of about 22, named Charles Starkweather, and his 16 year-old girl friend, Carol Fugate, roamed around the city from house to house and killed 16 or 17 people over two or three days.  I remember my mom coming to school to pick me up (which she never did before).

There are some cases where the death penalty is the clear choice.  There are many others where the facts are less clear.  The verdict just needs to reflect the depth and certainty of the facts.

I disagree, when the death penalty is allowed innocent people will be murdered by the government.  The guilty (and rich) will escape and and as I said maybe life in prison is worse.  I know I'd rather die.

-=Tim=-

[TimB]

So does this means that music and PC geeks are more liberal than the US populace?

-=Tim=-

[Charlemagne 8]

So does this means that music and PC geeks are more liberal than the US populace?

-=Tim=-

Quite possible.

[GHammer]

I disagree, when the death penalty is allowed innocent people will be murdered by the government.  The guilty (and rich) will escape and and as I said maybe life in prison is worse.  I know I'd rather die.

-=Tim=-

Maybe life in prison is life in prison. The rich will escape that as well.
The public will pay enormous sums for it.
Better a death penalty trial, timely review, and death.

By your reasoning, even the innocent who are unjustly imprisoned for life would be better off dead.

[TimB]

I disagree, when the death penalty is allowed innocent people will be murdered by the government.  The guilty (and rich) will escape and and as I said maybe life in prison is worse.  I know I'd rather die.

-=Tim=-

Maybe life in prison is life in prison. The rich will escape that as well.
The public will pay enormous sums for it.
Better a death penalty trial, timely review, and death.

By your reasoning, even the innocent who are unjustly imprisoned for life would be better off dead.

No, I'm saying that for me living would be worse and a stronger punishment but reversible.  I also think that life means life, no parole just open to new evidence.

We know that in any system there will be mistakes.  I'm not in favor or murdering the innocent and I believe that any endorsement of a death penalty will cause this to happen in MY name.  I also think that this kind of justice should have no pricetag.



That's all, not complex.

-=Tim=-

[salsbst1]

Nice comments, Stuart.  I think the Senate's makeup may have other consequences though.  The fact that each state has two votes gives land a little edge.  In a lot of ways, I look at current politics as a land vs. people thing.  I'm leaning toward land.

Jim, I think that your argument has some logic to it, but if you want to get technical, it gives people who live in underpopulated areas a big edge.  These are not necessarily the same as people who want to protect the land.  In fact it is sometimes quite the opposite, right?

I think the way to protect the environment is to oust GWB.  It's worth noting that most of these underpopulated states are firmly in the GWB column (and that the first 2 electors are freebies, just like the 2 Senators -- argh).  

Here's what you get when you have one Senator for every 3 people:
http://nytimes.com/2004/10/12/politics/12security.html?hp&ex=1097640000&en=31ac5ce542619c75&ei=5094&partner=homepage
"Security Grants Still Streaming to Rural States"

Suffice it to say I love my country, but I'm very angry at it right now.

[Sam]

I'm a little late to the party, but there's a lot of interesting stuff here.

To all of you that are trying to figure out why we went to war with Iraq, and to those that support the current administration, all you have to do is take a look at the "Project for the New American Century" website.  Just about any page there will do, but this one in particular:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

It's a letter to President Clinton written in 1998.  Read the text of the letter and make note of the signatures at the bottom...   Now do some thinking.

On another note...  The only reason people believe, and accuse, Kerry of flip-flopping, and not Bush, is that the media has done a *horrible* job of fact checking.  For every Kerry flip-flop, there are at least one Bush flip-flop (probably two).

Thanks for the link.  I think everyone should read that letter.  It's easy to forget these days with all the campaign rhetoric the reasons we went to war.  It's also easy to forget that Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Chirac and Putin all agreed on this threat posed by Saddam.

[Matt]

It's easy to forget these days with all the campaign rhetoric the reasons we went to war.  It's also easy to forget that Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Chirac and Putin all agreed on this threat posed by Saddam.

The question isn't one of whether Saddam posed a threat.  The question is how that threat could have been best mitigated.  

The differences here aren't rhetoric.  There are fundamental differences in the candidates' attitudes towards diplomacy and war.

[Sam]

It's easy to forget these days with all the campaign rhetoric the reasons we went to war.  It's also easy to forget that Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Chirac and Putin all agreed on this threat posed by Saddam.

The question isn't one of whether Saddam posed a threat.  The question is how that threat could have been best mitigated.  

The differences here aren't rhetoric.  There are fundamental differences in the candidates' attitudes towards diplomacy and war.

You're right that there are differences in their attitudes towards diplomacy and war.  But there's plenty of campaign BS.  Kerry and Edwards repeatedly argued in favor of war with Iraq.  And Edwards, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, specifically said that Saddam was an imminent threat and must be removed from power.  And now Kerry claims that he only voted to give the President "the authorization to use the threat of war."  Come on...


Today, Kerry has smartly shifted his Iraq position away from whether we should have gone to war (which Kerry has gone back and forth on) to focus on Bush's performance.  He now says that Bush:
1) didn't give UN inspections a chance;
2) went in without allies; and
3) did not have "a plan to win the peace."

He's right about #3.  Bush screwed up post-war Iraq.  Abu Ghraib was the biggest failure.  Disbanding the Iraqi army was a big mistake.  Sending too few troops was another one.

As for allies, the idea that France or Russia would have ever supported military action against Saddam is silly.  We knew they had economic interests in Iraq even before it was revealed that they were in on the Oil for Food fraud.

And the inspections were a long-running joke.  Even according to Hans Blix, Saddam was continuing to obstruct the inspectors and was violating the "last chance" UN Resolution 1441.  


The UN has proven itself ineffective in taking action.  It's not possible to get a global consensus on anything.  Just look at the genocide in Sudan.  Running questions of US national security through a "global test" is dangerous.  Kerry should stick to attacking Bush on post-war Iraq and pointing out differences in domestic policy.  His ideas about being more popular in Europe are dangerous.


As for "mitigating" the threat of nuclear or biological weapons - which could be used to kill millions of Americans - I'll take "elimination," please.  (Perhaps fear of terrorism isn't very high in the midwest?)  There's nothing good or moral about the act of war, but peaceful coexistence is a losing strategy.  

[Omni]

You're right that there are differences in their attitudes towards diplomacy and war.  But there's plenty of campaign BS.  Kerry and Edwards repeatedly argued in favor of war with Iraq.  And Edwards, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, specifically said that Saddam was an imminent threat and must be removed from power.  And now Kerry claims that he only voted to give the President "the authorization to use the threat of war."  Come on...


Today, Kerry has smartly shifted his Iraq position away from whether we should have gone to war (which Kerry has gone back and forth on) to focus on Bush's performance.  He now says that Bush:
1) didn't give UN inspections a chance;
2) went in without allies; and
3) did not have "a plan to win the peace."

He's right about #3.  Bush screwed up post-war Iraq.  Abu Ghraib was the biggest failure.  Disbanding the Iraqi army was a big mistake.  Sending too few troops was another one.

As for allies, the idea that France or Russia would have ever supported military action against Saddam is silly.  We knew they had economic interests in Iraq even before it was revealed that they were in on the Oil for Food fraud.

And the inspections were a long-running joke.  Even according to Hans Blix, Saddam was continuing to obstruct the inspectors and was violating the "last chance" UN Resolution 1441.  


The UN has proven itself ineffective in taking action.  It's not possible to get a global consensus on anything.  Just look at the genocide in Sudan.  Running questions of US national security through a "global test" is dangerous.  Kerry should stick to attacking Bush on post-war Iraq and pointing out differences in domestic policy.  His ideas about being more popular in Europe are dangerous.


As for "mitigating" the threat of nuclear or biological weapons - which could be used to kill millions of Americans - I'll take "elimination," please.  (Perhaps fear of terrorism isn't very high in the midwest?)  There's nothing good or moral about the act of war, but peaceful coexistence is a losing strategy.  

I couldn't have put it better myself.  

[Mastiff]

As for "mitigating" the threat of nuclear or biological weapons - which could be used to kill millions of Americans - I'll take "elimination," please.  (Perhaps fear of terrorism isn't very high in the midwest?)  There's nothing good or moral about the act of war, but peaceful coexistence is a losing strategy.  

OK. I could buy that...if there was any truth in it. But the threat was empty, as both the MI5 and the CIA very well knew before any troops landed. I'm not opposed to the war itself (unlike most of my countrymen - I believe 80 % at the last major poll), but what I'm against is that Bush lied about the reasons (of course he wanted to get back for his father - this was a daddy issue of the old fashioned kind!) and made a total screw-up of the whole ting. If almost all Middle East experts could foresee this, why couldn't his advisors? Anyway to blame it on the weappons remind me of an old Andy Capp cartoon. A Bobby (London copper) is taking his statement, with a bloody nosed guy in the background. "OK, let me se if I got this right. You thought he was going to hit you, so you hit him back first?"  

[Charlemagne 8]

Bush said of Kerry (and of Edwards by extension, I suppose) that "He saw the same intelligence reports I did" when deciding on whether or not to go to war.

I'll concede that that's true. At the time, we were all pretty much behind the action -- even the die-hard liberals here in this forum were swayed.

Kerry could now counter that Bush saw the same additional intelligence reports that Kerry saw. Kerry took this new information (no WMD's, nukes, bios, blah, blah) and changed his position on the war. That's not a "flip-flop", that's a reasonable person adjusting their attitude upon hearing further information.
It should be expected of an intelligent, thoughtful person.

And as far as changing position goes, there has been more than one official reason-of-the-day for going to war.

The thing that really scares me is that we aren't looking at four more years of "more-of-the-same", we are looking at four years of much, much worse. With the mitigating influence of re-election out of the picture, there will be no stopping the loss of our freedoms that we  ALL hold so dear  -- all in the name of security.
There will be no stopping the drilling for oil in our national nature preserves and the logging of our national forests and the loss of any meaningful environmental controls -- all in the name of economic recovery.

It doesn't matter what they say, I remember. The stock market started to fall when it became clear that Bush had a chance of being elected.
He only "inherited a recession" by the strictest of interpretations -- he hadn't yet been inaugurated. There's no doubt in my mind, either then or now, that the threat of Bush caused the stock market to fall, thereby triggering a recession. Our economy is based on "investor/consumer confidence".  If it falls, it's because the confidence went first.

End of current ramble.

[Sam]

As for "mitigating" the threat of nuclear or biological weapons - which could be used to kill millions of Americans - I'll take "elimination," please.  (Perhaps fear of terrorism isn't very high in the midwest?)  There's nothing good or moral about the act of war, but peaceful coexistence is a losing strategy.  

OK. I could buy that...if there was any truth in it. But the threat was empty, as both the MI5 and the CIA very well knew before any troops landed.

I guess you get Al Jazeera in the UK...

...what I'm against is that Bush lied about the reasons (of course he wanted to get back for his father - this was a daddy issue of the old fashioned kind!)...

Al Jazeera again?

[JustinChase]

...but peaceful coexistence is a losing strategy.  

That scares me.  Peacefully is the way I would prefer to coexist with EVERYONE.  I realize that it's not always possible, but it is always the best strategy to pursue first, IMO.

[KingSparta]

I See France, Germany and Russia Got Caught with there hands on the Iraq Oil and other hidden contracts per the latest reports.

So that’s why they did not want the US to go in there and find out what they been up to.

There has been reports of more Chemicals have been found than has been reported in the news. Chemicals found in 55 Gallon Drums not but a few miles away from rounds that can be filled with the mixture and turned into a chemical round.

But I Guess this info wills not Hit C-BS News

I Am Glad W Sent The Troops In There, Not Only To Expose The Countries With A Hidden Agenda, But To Free The People Of Iraq From That Dictator.

Another Mass Grave of 500 Curds Have Been Found By The Way.

Gee I Wonder Where France, Germany, and Russia Would Be If We Did Not Get Involved In WWII

I Would Not Trust Kerry To Protect My Dog, What’s next a Warehouse full of Heinz Catsup?

I Noticed Kerry Only Paid Like 12% in taxes Last Year, And I Paid Almost 35%

[Sam]

Kerry could now counter that Bush saw the same additional intelligence reports that Kerry saw. Kerry took this new information (no WMD's, nukes, bios, blah, blah) and changed his position on the war. That's not a "flip-flop", that's a reasonable person adjusting their attitude upon hearing further information.

I'm sure you want to believe that this is true.  But you're just making up stuff now.  Not even Kerry claims this.

With the mitigating influence of re-election out of the picture, there will be no stopping the loss of our freedoms that we  ALL hold so dear  -- all in the name of security.

Please don't speak for everyone.  I don't want to compromise on our security.

[hit_ny]

I See France, Germany and Russia Got Caught with there hands on the Iraq Oil and other hidden contracts per the latest reports.

So that?s why they did not want the US to go in there and find out what they been up to.

So now Haliburton & co. will make up the difference. They've a got a few years to catch up.

There has been reports of more Chemicals have been found than has been reported in the news. Chemicals found in 55 Gallon Drums not but a few miles away from rounds that can be filled with the mixture and turned into a chemical round.

But I Guess this info wills not Hit C-BS News

It wont because it isnt significant enough.

The US & the UK both feared Saddam had chemical weapons. They know this becase they sold him the ingredients to create them in the first place. (France & Russia might have to).

But given the first gulf war, and the long term sanctions, those stock were far depleted to be of any military value. The little that existed was to counter Iran.

I Am Glad W Sent The Troops In There, Not Only To Expose The Countries With A Hidden Agenda, But To Free The People Of Iraq From That Dictator.

Sure you did the Iraqis a big favor at your expense. Who knows maybe the economy would not be so stagnant now, when all those extra billions could have been used to stimulate it.

Gee I Wonder Where France, Germany, and Russia Would Be If We Did Not Get Involved In WWII

Hypthetical question with a hypthetical answer, the Nazis would have won and come knocking at the door of the US. With the Japanese already pounding on the other end at the time, you would have had to fight a war on two fronts.

Not a good thing, the US entering the war in europe was to protect its interests as well.

I Would Not Trust Kerry To Protect My Dog, What?s next a Warehouse full of Heinz Catsup?

Ok im not too sure about this but didnt Kerry say he wanted more money to be spent monitoring those loose nukes in the former USSR ? i believe this more than anything woudl make everyone safe.

I Noticed Kerry Only Paid Like 12% in taxes Last Year, And I Paid Almost 35%

Your absolutely right, with the big tax cuts the corporates got (who was it that allowed that to happen , Bush me thinks.

I'm glad we see some support for Bush here, the poll seems a bit too skewed in Kerry's favor. Elsewhere the polls show them both neck & neck.

This election is going to be a very close one.

[Mastiff]

I guess you get Al Jazeera in the UK...

Ha-ha! Typical right wing! Jumping to conclusions and attacking without checking any facts at all! Gotcha!   What on earth gave you the idea that I'm from the UK?

1. I'm norwegian, and a very outspoken norwegian. My last two threads are about Norway, one of them about the election.

2. Have you ever heard about the Oslo process? Johan Jørgen Holst, Terje Rød-Larsen, Mona Juul? Norway was the only country able to get Israel and the palestinians talking at all. Of course later sabotage from extremists on both sides (in Israel the later elected government and amongst the palestinians Hamas, Jihad and other assorted nuts) has left it for dead. But the reason Norway managed to get them talking at all was because we have some of the world's most renowned Middle East experts. Not only the ones I mentioned above, but people like Hilde Henriksen Waage. Looking at Al Jazeera to get thruth about the war would be like looking at Fox News to get truth about anything...  

btw I see that Nader has passed Bush in the foreigners poll...  

btw 2: Are the young people of the US as bad as the norwegians when it comes to voting? Here more people between 18 and 22 voted in the norwegian version of American Idol than at the last election... But if they allow SMS votes in the elections I'm sure they can get the numbers up!  

[KingSparta]

Quote from: KingSparta on October 13, 2004, 10:05:01 PM
I Noticed Kerry Only Paid Like 12% in taxes Last Year, And I Paid Almost 35%
 
 
Your absolutely right, with the big tax cuts the corporates got (who was it that allowed that to happen , Bush me thinks.

Bush Paid 30-35%, i forget the exact%

I am wondering how Kerry Got More Cut Off His taxes, I Don't know all the loop holes But H&R could not help me out.

Quote from: KingSparta on October 13, 2004, 10:05:01 PM
I See France, Germany and Russia Got Caught with there hands on the Iraq Oil and other hidden contracts per the latest reports.

So that?s why they did not want the US to go in there and find out what they been up to.
 
So now Haliburton & co. will make up the difference. They've a got a few years to catch up.

They have lost some contracts too, but the way the laws were created the Kerry voted for, that if our armed forces are engaged in a war the company who has the current contract it gets extended so not to put our solders in harms way.

I forget the Number of People from Haliburton & co. have been killed but i think it is 30+. I am sure that cut there profit margin.

[hit_ny]

Bush Paid 30-35%, i forget the exact%

I am wondering how Kerry Got More Cut Off His taxes, I Don't know all the loop holes But H&R could not help me out.

Point is did Kerry withold taxes ?  I have not read anywhere that this is the case.

[JimH]

It's locked because the discussion was tending to be an argument.  But the voting is still open, and that's interesting to see.

Since it's locked, only you and I can post.  I hope you don't mind if my vote cancels yours.

[KingSparta]

I Am Not Voting, In The Forum Or Real Life.

I Prefer Not To Wast My Time, Since I Don't Like Bush Or Kerry

[Matt accidentally erased positive comments about Powell while trying to reply -- sorry]

[JimH]

Unlocked.

[Matt]

I Am Not Voting, In The Forum Or Real Life.

I Prefer Not To Wast My Time, Since I Don't Like Bush Or Kerry

Laugh out loud.  All your instigation and then this comes out

[lOth]

THE US  Constitution and laws are based on our versions of morality

I have to disagree with that. It is based on the version of morality of the people who wrote it up at the time. What's based on your version of morality is that this constitution is perfect, sacred and should not be changed a bit. When you think that mores and morals have changed quite a bit since the constitution was written, the american  thing for the constitution is very hard to understand... Not that I'm not trying.

Heck, Nader gets as many votes as Bush amongst us foreigners!

For those of you who know anything about French politics, I would say that you should understand the issue with Nader as the same thing (well, okay, the comparison is kind of imperfect) that happened in 2002 in France with the far left in the presidential election: it's contestation vote that might have very very nasty consequences (like having a nazi minded guy running in the second round in the country who boasts having invented human rights).

BTW, a note to all of us foreigners who had a good laugh in 2000 when the "best democracy in the world" had that Florida story and who are prompt to criticize the current campaign, I'd like to remind you of these French elections in 2002, the last British and German ones that saw a surge of fascist votes. I mean, look at the result, and look at the populist campaigning ("insecurity"? isn't it playing on voter's fears?) That being said, I think criticizing Bush, Kerry and Nader is a very wise move, but try to be careful to always remember that american voters have to make their decisions within very specific and different political, social, and cultural settings (does anyone besides the French understand the islamic veil ban in public schools?). So let's think twice before giving lessons to our american friends.

A note to those Americans who criticize the French, German, Russian (and others) position on Iraq because of oil related motivations: you've got some guts... Halliburton anyone?

[GHammer]

As for "mitigating" the threat of nuclear or biological weapons - which could be used to kill millions of Americans - I'll take "elimination," please.  (Perhaps fear of terrorism isn't very high in the midwest?)  There's nothing good or moral about the act of war, but peaceful coexistence is a losing strategy.  

OK. I could buy that...if there was any truth in it. But the threat was empty, as both the MI5 and the CIA very well knew before any troops landed. I'm not opposed to the war itself (unlike most of my countrymen - I believe 80 % at the last major poll), but what I'm against is that Bush lied about the reasons (of course he wanted to get back for his father - this was a daddy issue of the old fashioned kind!) and made a total screw-up of the whole ting. If almost all Middle East experts could foresee this, why couldn't his advisors? Anyway to blame it on the weappons remind me of an old Andy Capp cartoon. A Bobby (London copper) is taking his statement, with a bloody nosed guy in the background. "OK, let me se if I got this right. You thought he was going to hit you, so you hit him back first?"  

Could you show me where anyone in the world knew what was going on in Iraq, except Iraqis?

"He wanted to get back for his father". Um, sure. That's why the countries that didn't have monetary interests in Saddam signed on. Why the Senate voted for the war. Etc, etc.

You don't like Bush, cool. But living in fairy land to justify your dislike is annoying.

As for waiting until any country either uses WMD or gives them to terrorists to use is ludicrous.

My usual question. You think Saddam needs an apology and to be restored to his office?

[GHammer]

A note to those Americans who criticize the French, German, Russian (and others) position on Iraq because of oil related motivations: you've got some guts... Halliburton anyone?

And is there another reason for those countries' positions? Who benefited from the "Oil for Food" program? Shoot, for that matter, whose military hardware was in Saddam's armory?

As for Haliburton, can you name the other companies who have the ability to do what the contracts are for? It's not like there is a huge list of potential contractors.

I disagree with the US military contracting out so many of the needed functions of war. You want to run a war? Have the ability to supply the troops.

But the idea that Haliburton would benefit more from a contract in Iraq than a contract in Alaska is silly. And GWB would have a lot less trouble with a contract in Alaska than by going to war to 'enrich his friends'.

[lOth]

Could you show me where anyone in the world knew what was going on in Iraq, except Iraqis?

No one knew. And that's why there were weapons inspectors. As the last US report shows, these inspections worked since Saddam was getting farther away from being capable of making these weapons again. I'm not suggesting that Saddam wouldn't have liked to have these weapons (although it looks like he would have used them to attack Iran, not the US, as the same official report suggest), but that the inspections had the best results possible: they didn't find wmd (because there were none...), and they hindered Saddam's potential move towards trying to make them. I know the report suggests that Saddam was also trying to end the inspections (one can always speculate about the reasons why he would have wanted that) but 1) inspections were getting tougher 2) the US unilateral decision to go to war ended them, not Saddam's fooling the UN.

"He wanted to get back for his father". Um, sure.

Ever heard of the Carlyle group? You should look into that: George Bush (the father) is sitting on the board (as well as James Baker and John Major). I'm not saying that W simply went to war againt Iraq because "this is the guy who tried to kill my dad" (these are his words), but that the fact that Bush is the son of Bush might have less obvious implications when one looks at the motivations for starting that war.

You think Saddam needs an apology and to be restored to his office?

The destitution of Saddam is not at stake here. Everybody has made clear that it's what they wanted, even those who opposed the war on Iraq. The question is whether it was worth waging a war at that time against the Iraqi people to get at the result we se now and that traditional allies of the US had tried to warn against: the Iraqi people is not safer, one might doubt that they are any closer to enjoy democracy, the Middle East is a much more unstable region than it was 2 years ago. When I say worth I don't mean to imply that a free democratic Iraq isn't worth a dime, I'm asking about the pros and cons of waging a war and invading that country in the current global context. Why should we think of Iraq in terms of removing a tyrant and put an end to a genocide and think in terms of investment when we talk about Sudan for instance (both Bush and Kerry said there was a genocide going on there but that it was better to let African troops act). Now, if the goal was to prevent Saddam to get wmd (after all, that was the explicit goal before the war right?) see what I've just said about inspections.

I disagree with the US military contracting out so many of the needed functions of war. You want to run a war? Have the ability to supply the troops.

I guess you can supply the troops without charging the meals of the GI's twice what they are worth. However, it seems that it's what Haliburton did.

But the idea that Haliburton would benefit more from a contract in Iraq than a contract in Alaska is silly

Why is it silly? Maybe because there is more oil, less American voters, and less corporate regulations in Alaska then in Iraq. I don't know...

As for Haliburton, can you name the other companies who have the ability to do what the contracts are for?

Honestly, I can't. But I'm not American. Maybe others can name a few. As for providing lunch to the US soldier, I think Heinz would do a better job

Who benefited from the "Oil for Food" program?

Who's benefiting from the current "Oil for Nothing" program?

[hit_ny]

Latest CNN poll[/u] shows among registered voters, Bush is ahead 52%-44%.

Earlier polls showed them neck & neck.

still a cpl of  weeks left  

[JimH]

Latest CNN poll[/u] shows among registered voters, Bush is ahead 52%-44%.

Earlier polls showed them neck & neck.

still a cpl of  weeks left  

That poll is a month old.

Most current polls show the race to be within the statistical margin of error -- a tie.

The electoral college predictions are shifting back and forth.  

[Sam]

Latest CNN poll[/u] shows among registered voters, Bush is ahead 52%-44%.

Earlier polls showed them neck & neck.

still a cpl of  weeks left  

That poll is a month old.

Most current polls show the race to be within the statistical margin of error -- a tie.

The electoral college predictions are shifting back and forth.  

That article is a month old, but he's right about the current CNN #s: 52% Bush v. 44% Kerry.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/polls/index.html


You're right that there are other polls that say they're even.  Here's a NYT article that addresses the wide range of poll results:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/politics/campaign/19poll.html


If you're a Kerry fan, you'll like the New York Times electoral college "analysis" which shows him ahead, by assuming that swing states Pennsylvania and New Jersey are in the Kerry column.  (There are more objective sources of information out there than NYT.)
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/

[Jaguu]

JimH,

just wondering your interpretation about poll results: While it is evident that most Europeans and Non-Americans don't like Bush at all, the Interact poll of the Americans shows a completely different result than so called official polls. Here Kerry seems to be in big favor. I always had the impression that most forum users in the past were more pro-Bush. Did you wake up to some new enlightement or was my impression wrong?

By the way, there are countries (such as Switzerland, maybe the Scandinavian countries too), where people hardly know the names of those that govern their countries. I feel those are quite nice and peaceful countries to live in, although I have to admit that Switzerland has recently developed a bad habit to personalize politics far too much. Or did you ever hear about the presidents of Switzerland, Sweden, Danmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Finland?

I definitely prefer to live in a country where people talk more about where their president puts his cigars than all this war cries.

Kerry might not be the most charismatic figure in the world, but is not better to have a bore as president? At least he seems to make more use of his brain than his revolver!

[JimH]

That article is a month old, but he's right about the current CNN #s: 52% Bush v. 44% Kerry.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/polls/index.html

That poll was announced on Sunday and it was a bit of an aberration.  Other recent polls have been within 2 to 3 per cent.

Here's the best site I know about for polling information:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

The results have been shifting back and forth there, too, but the momentum now seems to favor Kerry.

[JimH]

JimH,

just wondering your interpretation about poll results: While it is evident that most Europeans and Non-Americans don't like Bush at all, the Interact poll of the Americans shows a completely different result than so called official polls. Here Kerry seems to be in big favor.

I can't explain it.  Matt thinks I chased a way a few Republicans, but that isn't enough to explain the big difference.  Something about people who use computers for music?

[hit_ny]

That article is a month old, but he's right about the current CNN #s: 52% Bush v. 44% Kerry.

Phew..was so sure i heard it on CNN today.

Something fishy about these polls ...lol

Only hope the elections will be cleaner this time around.

[TimB]

JimH,

just wondering your interpretation about poll results: While it is evident that most Europeans and Non-Americans don't like Bush at all, the Interact poll of the Americans shows a completely different result than so called official polls. Here Kerry seems to be in big favor.

I can't explain it.  Matt thinks I chased a way a few Republicans, but that isn't enough to explain the big difference.  Something about people who use computers for music?

That's my theory and I'll stick with it.

Clearly nerds are smarter than the average voter.

-=Tim=-  

[lOth]

Hey JimH,

I seem to recall you're from Nebraska or that you live there, no?
Is that how you ended up sitting in front of a computer? Because you were too afraid to go out?   (for those of you who don't know anything about Nebraska, in the 2000 election it was the one and only state in which every single county voted for Bush)

Did you chase these republicans from the forum (I take it this didn't occur in so-called "real life") out of pure and cold revenge?