American Election Poll

[Rat Faced]

As requested, a widening of the other Poll....

I hope Kerry gets in.

Not because i even know what his policies are, however I believe GW Bush is the most dangerous person on the planet at this moment in time.

[Rocktron]

I'm not American but I don't want either to win... yep i voted for that one.
I don't like politics.. especially the American one's.

It's 1 big show.

:ph34r:

[fkdup74]

YES, I VOTED FOR BUSH!!!
(dont let the locatin in my profile fool you, I am a southern republican)
was raised by em, will always be one :P

[Busyman]

Originally posted by FKDUP74@3 April 2004 - 10:19
YES, I VOTED FOR BUSH!!!
(dont let the locatin in my profile fool you, I am a southern republican)
was raised by em, will always be one :P
Oh good lord. <_<

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by Busyman+3 April 2004 - 13:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 3 April 2004 - 13:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FKDUP74@3 April 2004 - 10:19
YES, I VOTED FOR BUSH&#33;&#33;&#33;
(dont let the locatin in my profile fool you, I am a southern republican)
was raised by em, will always be one :P
Oh good lord. <_< [/b][/quote]
Hey, just because he voted for Bush doesn&#39;t mean you have to bow to him. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Lamsey+3 April 2004 - 11:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 3 April 2004 - 11:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@3 April 2004 - 13:59
<!--QuoteBegin-FKDUP74@3 April 2004 - 10:19
YES, I VOTED FOR BUSH&#33;&#33;&#33;
(dont let the locatin in my profile fool you, I am a southern republican)
was raised by em, will always be one :P
Oh good lord. <_<
Hey, just because he voted for Bush doesn&#39;t mean you have to bow to him. ;) [/b][/quote]
Good one Lam. :lol:

[j2k4]

I don&#39;t mind this poll at all; in fact, it should be somewhat revealing.

I would like to know, though, what rationale non-Americans would proffer as justification for a vote by an American in favor of their "candidate" (whomever that might be)?

Do they think Americans ought to be swayed by foreign preferences, and why? :huh:

[Biggles]

I think it is fair game to have a preference of one over another. I don&#39;t believe it is unusual for the left or the right of any particular country to prefer to see parties of their colours do well elsewhere.

Also, regardless of issues regarding wars and rumours of wars, Mr Bush has tended to be disruptive with regards international agreements - including, surprisingly, those concerning free trade - the latter having resulted in rulings against the US.

My only concern is that I know nothing of Mr Kerry, as I suspect is the case with many Americans too. I guess most are working on the principle that he can&#39;t be any worse.

I know the Republicans got their fingers burnt once by having an intelligent candidate in Richard Nixon, but surely GW is an over-reaction by anyone&#39;s standard. Almost all of GWs cabinet are more capable than he (although the one that looks like Fester from the Adams family is a bit worrying - Armitage, I think).

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@3 April 2004 - 16:54
(although the one that looks like Fester from the Adams family is a bit worrying - Armitage, I think).
I believe you may be thinking of Secretary of Energy Seth Abraham, Biggles. ;)

[Yogi]

ralph nader. :P



Yomooohhh

[Busyman]

The problems with polls in general is honesty.

What non-American would want Bush re-elected.

What bullshit&#33;&#33; :lol: <_<

[ilw]

Spencer Abraham:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/images/300-abraham_lrg.jpg

Armitage:
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/Armitage_Richard__bio_200.jpg

I think biggles was right, second guy does bear a striking resemblance, though the first one has an endearingly mad glint in his eyes

[shn]

I voted neither.

http://www.cf.ac.uk/suon/cu/Hilary_Clinton.jpg http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/music049.gif


http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/tails.gif

[BigBank_Hank]

I to am intrigued by the non American&#39;s of this board wanting Kerry to win. What does everyone see in him? Or is it that he isn&#39;t named George W Bush?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@3 April 2004 - 17:57
Spencer Abraham:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/images/300-abraham_lrg.jpg

Armitage:
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/Armitage_Richard__bio_200.jpg

I think biggles was right, second guy does bear a striking resemblance, though the first one has an endearingly mad glint in his eyes
By golly, I think you&#39;re right, ilw. ;)

Hank-

You have it exactly right.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 00:38
Or is it that he isn&#39;t named George W Bush?
Yeah...he can at least string a sentence together and doesn&#39;t need to take regular "banana breaks".

I voted for neither btw (non-American)

[BigBank_Hank]

J2 I bet the majority have no clue as to where Kerry stands on most issues.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 April 2004 - 21:38
I to am intrigued by the non American&#39;s of this board wanting Kerry to win. What does everyone see in him? Or is it that he isn&#39;t named George W Bush?
Obviously non-Americans don&#39;t like Bush for obvious reasons.
They happen to be the same reasons that I don&#39;t like him.

It&#39;s not intriguing at all.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by 4th gen+3 April 2004 - 21:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 3 April 2004 - 21:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 00:38
Or is it that he isn&#39;t named George W Bush?
Yeah...he can at least string a sentence together [/b][/quote]
......not with correct grammar. :lol: :lol:

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Busyman+4 April 2004 - 01:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 4 April 2004 - 01:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by 4th gen@3 April 2004 - 21:51
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 00:38
Or is it that he isn&#39;t named George W Bush?
Yeah...he can at least string a sentence together
......not with correct grammar. :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
I meant that Kerry could string a sentence together :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by 4th gen+3 April 2004 - 22:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (4th gen @ 3 April 2004 - 22:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@4 April 2004 - 01:08

Originally posted by 4th gen@3 April 2004 - 21:51
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 00:38
Or is it that he isn&#39;t named George W Bush?
Yeah...he can at least string a sentence together
......not with correct grammar. :lol: :lol:
I meant that Kerry could string a sentence together :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
Sorry brain fart

[4th gen]

Originally posted by Busyman@4 April 2004 - 01:21
Sorry brain fart
Don&#39;t call me a brain fart :angry:

:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@3 April 2004 - 19:52
J2 I bet the majority have no clue as to where Kerry stands on most issues.
Kerry has his own trouble with issues, yes?

He limits himself to only two stances per issue: "for" and "against". :blink:

[BigBank_Hank]

:lol: Great Point.

[LIPSTER]

FACE IT, DUBYA SHOULDN&#39;T HAVE BEEN PRES. IN FIRST PLACE. IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME & ELIMINATE RALPH NADER. WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED??

[lynx]

Originally posted by j2k4+4 April 2004 - 03:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 4 April 2004 - 03:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@3 April 2004 - 19:52
J2 I bet the majority have no clue as to where Kerry stands on most issues.
Kerry has his own trouble with issues, yes?

He limits himself to only two stances per issue: "for" and "against". :blink: [/b][/quote]
As in "you&#39;re either with us or against us"?

Oops, sorry, that&#39;s GW. ;)

[LIPSTER]

POLITICAL CHANGES IN CANADA&#33; WE LOVE OUR AMERICAN BIG BROTHERS & SISTERS&#33;&#33; 9/11 STOPPED US COLD & WE CRIED & CRIED WITH YOU & WE DON&#39;T
FORGET, ESPECIALLY IN WESTERN CANADA.
PLEASE NO MORE CANADIAN BASHING. BRITAIN PROBABLY IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.
BUT CANADA IS FAMILY&#33;&#33;

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 April 2004 - 20:58


Do they think Americans ought to be swayed by foreign preferences, and why? :huh:
Well, there are a number of countries that have been "swayed" by American preference... why not look at it as "Whats Good for the Goose, is Good for the Gander".. :P

I gave my reasoning in the 1st post.

Pure and simple:

A guy with invasion plans for Afganistan and Iraq on his desk already, uses the largest and most most terrible terrorist outrage for his own political and personal profit of his family and colleagues. This resulted in 10,000&#39;s of Deaths, with more to come.

He has taken the USA from the covert to open "change the world in US favour"...(with the &#39;US Favour&#39; being his family and colleagues business interests, not the US people)..

In his homeland, he uses his power to curtail the Freedom&#39;s of its citizens, and to block attempts by various commisions to investigate anything that could harm him and his, inc 9/11. Tell me...why has he blocked 75% of the information that Clinton made available to the commission investigating Al Queda and 9/11? Why has he and his advisors got "No Time" to answer questions from that commission, while at the same time being "On Vacation" for over 25% of his Presidency?

He is, in my opinion, the most Dangerous man on this planet since Hitler (and no, im not claiming he is putting people in Gas Chambers etc..)



Besides which, he wasnt elected President by the American people, but by the Supreme Court....a Bad Precedent for the USA, and made a laughing stock of any claim to be trying to introduce "Democracy" anywhere.....

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 April 2004 - 06:17
He is, in my opinion, the most Dangerous man on this planet since Hitler (and no, im not claiming he is putting people in Gas Chambers etc..)

That is absolutely absurd. You are comparing a dictator who killed who knows how many innocent people with a President going to great lengths to protect the people of his country. Ridiculous.

You call him a dangerous man because he is willing to do what it takes to keep Americans at home safe, I call it doing his job. The President knows that we just can sit on our hands and expect the problem of terrorism to just go away something has to be done about it.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 16:50
That is absolutely absurd. You are comparing a dictator who killed who knows how many innocent people with a President going to great lengths to protect the people of his country. Ridiculous.
He seems to like to execute a lot of them. Children too...

[BigBank_Hank]

The military is practically bending over backwards not to harm civilians in Iraq. And I have yet to see where American soldiers line up innocent Iraqi people and slaughter them just for the hell of it. Perhaps you may have seen the news where AMERICAN soldiers were executed in Falluja. The body&#39;s were desecrated and dragged through the streets. <_<

[4th gen]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 17:15
The military is practically bending over backwards not to harm civilians in Iraq. And I have yet to see where American soldiers line up innocent Iraqi people and slaughter them just for the hell of it. Perhaps you may have seen the news where AMERICAN soldiers were executed in Falluja. The body&#39;s were desecrated and dragged through the streets. <_<
I&#39;m talking about in Texas <_<

Oh, also, perhaps you might have seen the footage where Saddam was shown on TV after his arrest, breaking the law :rolleyes:

[BigBank_Hank]

Are you referring to the death penalty?

[4th gen]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 17:23
Are you referring to the death penalty?
Yes

[BigBank_Hank]

The criminals that are sentenced to the death penalty have been convicted by a court of law, beyond a shadow of doubt that they have committed a crime so gruesome that they are sentenced to death. They are sentenced to death for a crime that they committed, not for their religious beliefs.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 17:45
The criminals that are sentenced to the death penalty have been convicted by a court of law, beyond a shadow of doubt that they have committed a crime so gruesome that they are sentenced to death. They are sentenced to death for a crime that they committed, not for their religious beliefs.

So, innocent people are NEVER sentenced to death then?

How many american states have a child death penalty?

[BigBank_Hank]

I&#39;m not saying that it isn&#39;t possible but it is unlikely.

There isn&#39;t a state where a child can be executed. A person to be executed must be at least 18 years are older in which your are in the laws eyes considered an adult.

[4th gen]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 April 2004 - 18:08
I&#39;m not saying that it isn&#39;t possible but it is unlikely.

There isn&#39;t a state where a child can be executed. A person to be executed must be at least 18 years are older in which your are in the laws eyes considered an adult.
Right...so you&#39;ve just said that they&#39;re only sentenced to death "byond shadow of a doubt", then admitted it&#39;s possible that they may be convicted and killed if they&#39;re innocent. Sound policty there... <_<

"Napoleon Beazley&#39;s government executed him on 28 May 2002 for a murder committed when he was aged 17. If he lived in China, or Yemen, or Kyrgyzstan, or Kenya, or Russia, or Indonesia, or Japan, or Cuba, or Singapore, or Guatemala, or Cameroon, or Syria, or almost any other of the diminishing number of countries that retain the death penalty, Napoleon Beazley would not have received the death penalty. But he lived in the United States of America, a rogue state as far as capital punishment is concerned. His government believes that it is above the fundamental principle of international law that no one be subjected to the death penalty for a crime, however heinous, committed when he or she was under 18 years old. As a result, the United States leads a tiny number of countries which flout this prohibition. Within the USA, Napoleon Beazley&#39;s home state of Texas - where under 18-year-olds are considered too young to drink, vote, or serve on a jury - is the worst offender.

Texas accounts for 53 per cent (nine of 17) of such executions carried out in the USA since the country resumed judicial killing in 1977. Of the 25 worldwide executions of child offenders in the past 10 years, seven were carried out in Texas. Only Iran comes close to this, with six in the same period. In other words, while Texas has less than half of one per cent of the world&#39;s population, it accounts for 28 per cent of the executions of child offenders documented worldwide in the past decade."

[ilw]

Hank i think you&#39;re technically correct, but you can still be sentenced to death as a child, they just wait till your older before flipping the switch, which imo is even more stupid

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGACT500012004

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/juveniles.html



Stop Child Executions&#33;

As a step towards the total abolition of the death penalty around the world, Amnesty International has launched an international campaign calling for an end to the use of the death penalty against child offenders.

GET INVOLVED&#33;

Since 2000, only five countries in the world are known to have executed juvenile offenders: China, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Iran, Pakistan, and the United States. Pakistan and China have abolished the juvenile death penalty, but there have been problems in nationwide compliance with the law
...
The United States and Somalia are the only countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Twenty-one* U.S. states allow for the execution of people who were 16 or 17 at the time of the crime. Out of the 38 death penalty states, 16 have abolished this punishment for juvenile offenders.

[BigBank_Hank]

Well I have been proven wrong. I didn&#39;t think that juveniles were eligible for the death penalty. I thought as ilw stated that if you were convicted that you had to wait until you turned 18. My mistake.

4th gen this is a very interesting topic and I would like to continue it in another thread with you, but I think that we may have strayed a little far from the original thread thought.

[Biggles]

An interesting fact is that the young Serb nationalist that shot the Arch Duke and started WW1 could not be executed as the Austro-Hungarian Empire did not execute minors (under 20). That was back in 1914. He actually sat out WW1 in prison, although I believe he died of TB after a few years in prison which was not an uncommon illness back then.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 April 2004 - 17:50--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 4 April 2004 - 17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@4 April 2004 - 06:17
He is, in my opinion, the most Dangerous man on this planet since Hitler (and no, im not claiming he is putting people in Gas Chambers etc..)

That is absolutely absurd. You are comparing a dictator who killed who knows how many innocent people with a President going to great lengths to protect the people of his country. Ridiculous.

You call him a dangerous man because he is willing to do what it takes to keep Americans at home safe, I call it doing his job. The President knows that we just can sit on our hands and expect the problem of terrorism to just go away something has to be done about it. [/b][/quote]
I am not comparing him to Hitler, i specifically stated that i wasnt talking GAs Chambers etc..... although if the shoe fits....

I said he was the most dangerous man since Hitler....big difference.


And we have seen footage of how the American Troops "Bending over Backwards"...

The footage showed them laughing as they shot an unarmed man... American Footage i believe.

Im not saying all American Troops do this, Troops of all nations are probably as guilty at times.... but they arent stupid enough to do it playing up to the TV camera&#39;s....


Bush took the world into 2 wholley un-necessary wars.


He had plans for both invasions before 9/11.

That attrociaty merely gave him a conveniant way to sell them.

If he had taken the Taliban up on their offer, most of the Al Queda hierachy may be dead or in jail. They offered to extradict, just not to the USA, as they believed he wouldnt get a fair trial. Cuba has shown they were correct in this.

If they hadn&#39;t done what they offered, the option of invasion was still there.

But good old Dubya wanted that oil pipeline built so he invaded.

Iraq, he has virtually admitted that he lied to Congress and the Senate... as have half of the people involved.


The man is a Warmonger and shouldnt be in charge of a water pistol, never mind Nukes.

He is my worst nightmare, a fanatic with his own agenda in charge of Nuclear Weapons.

And as for abuse of power.....


This Isn&#39;t America

By PAUL KRUGMAN



Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, "This isn&#39;t America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."

So even in Israel, George Bush&#39;s America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration&#39;s reaction to Richard Clarke&#39;s "Against All Enemies" provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.

The truth is that among experts, what Mr. Clarke says about Mr. Bush&#39;s terrorism policy isn&#39;t controversial. The facts that terrorism was placed on the back burner before 9/11 and that Mr. Bush blamed Iraq despite the lack of evidence are confirmed by many sources — including "Bush at War," by Bob Woodward.

And new evidence keeps emerging for Mr. Clarke&#39;s main charge, that the Iraq obsession undermined the pursuit of Al Qaeda. From yesterday&#39;s USA Today: "In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures."

That&#39;s why the administration responded to Mr. Clarke the way it responds to anyone who reveals inconvenient facts: with a campaign of character assassination.

Some journalists seem, finally, to have caught on. Last week an Associated Press news analysis noted that such personal attacks were "standard operating procedure" for this administration and cited "a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit Richard Foster," the Medicare actuary who revealed how the administration had deceived Congress about the cost of its prescription drug bill.

But other journalists apparently remain ready to be used. On CNN, Wolf Blitzer told his viewers that unnamed officials were saying that Mr. Clarke "wants to make a few bucks, and that [in] his own personal life, they&#39;re also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well."

This administration&#39;s reliance on smear tactics is unprecedented in modern U.S. politics — even compared with Nixon&#39;s. Even more disturbing is its readiness to abuse power — to use its control of the government to intimidate potential critics.

To be fair, Senator Bill Frist&#39;s suggestion that Mr. Clarke might be charged with perjury may have been his own idea. But his move reminded everyone of the White House&#39;s reaction to revelations by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O&#39;Neill: an immediate investigation into whether he had revealed classified information. The alacrity with which this investigation was opened was, of course, in sharp contrast with the administration&#39;s evident lack of interest in finding out who leaked the identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame to Bob Novak.

And there are many other cases of apparent abuse of power by the administration and its Congressional allies. A few examples: according to The Hill, Republican lawmakers threatened to cut off funds for the General Accounting Office unless it dropped its lawsuit against Dick Cheney. The Washington Post says Representative Michael Oxley told lobbyists that "a Congressional probe might ease if it replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican." Tom DeLay used the Homeland Security Department to track down Democrats trying to prevent redistricting in Texas. And Medicare is spending millions of dollars on misleading ads for the new drug benefit — ads that look like news reports and also serve as commercials for the Bush campaign.

On the terrorism front, here&#39;s one story that deserves special mention. One of the few successful post-9/11 terror prosecutions — a case in Detroit — seems to be unraveling. The government withheld information from the defense, and witnesses unfavorable to the prosecution were deported (by accident, the government says). After the former lead prosecutor complained about the Justice Department&#39;s handling of the case, he suddenly found himself facing an internal investigation — and someone leaked the fact that he was under investigation to the press.

Where will it end? In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate," John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, "I&#39;ve been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy."&nbsp;



Source... New York Times

[j2k4]

Rat-

Perhaps you&#39;ll grant our variety of media isn&#39;t as fair as Auntie Beeb.

I&#39;m going to look around for something that should surprise you just a bit; I&#39;ll link it when I find it.

As to the New York Times, keep your salt-shaker handy when reading it.

As to other major media here in the U.S., there is a school of thought that proclaims a liberal bias, and another which denies such could be the truth; journalists at the "Big Three" television networks as well as most of the print media would defy Auntie Beeb operates with a greater degree of integrity or fairness.

I found the following on the ABC news website, for all (who care to look) to see; the link follows the excerpt.

If you care to go to the link, rest assured you won&#39;t find any context that would alter it&#39;s meaning.

Okay here it is:


NEWS SUMMARY

The first version published of yesterday&#39;s Note included what was intended as a SATIRICAL report of a fictional ABC News/Washington Post poll. No such poll was conducted. The questions and results listed were not from a real poll.

But on this day when John Kerry has a chance for wins in Tennessee and/or Virginia that just might get the Southern monkey off of his back -- and take an opponent out of the race -- and after two full news cycles in which Kerry&#39;s transient upper hand over President Bush doesn&#39;t seem to have been removed by the "Meet" appearance -- on this day, let us tell you again what we tried to say yesterday.

Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation&#39;s problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don&#39;t have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.

More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow.

The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush&#39;s justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies.

It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending.

It remains fixated on the unemployment rate.

It believes President Bush is "walking a fine line" with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between "tolerance" and his "right-wing base."

It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush&#39;s base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base.

Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press&#39;s scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process&#33;).

The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.

That means the President&#39;s communications advisers have a choice:

Try to change the storyline and the press&#39; attitude, or try to win this election without changing them.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politic...te_Feb1004.html (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.html)

The New York Times has a similar cant to it&#39;s philosophy.

[BigBank_Hank]

Jim Angel from Fox News pretty much shot Richard Clarks creditability when he recorded their conversation.

And as for the New York Times and their reporting, they along with other media giants were in a meeting with John Kerry "advising" him on how to answer questions. Could you imagine if The Wallstreet Journal met with President Bush and "advised" him in the same way? The press would be up in arms.


And RF I would like to see some evidence that supports this:

He had plans for both invasions before 9/11.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 April 2004 - 22:22
"This isn&#39;t America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack."
Ha :lol: ha :lol: ha :lol:

That really is not funny at all.

J2k4 - The reason a lot of people who don&#39;t live in the US want Kerry to win is, as was said before, because he is not George Bush.

Seriously, as a nation you guys have shitloads of money, weapons, intellectual property, trading power and diplomatic influence. You guys have a lot of power and after the reign of George W(aste &#39;em&#33;) Bush we don&#39;t have much confidence in your ability to look after OUR interests.

Ok, John Kerry may not have a hell of a lot of wonderful and imaginative policies, but he could hardly fuck up any worse than Bush.

We&#39;d like to play it safe for a bit (just until you can safely walk around most places in the world without having to cover up your English or Australian accent).

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@5 April 2004 - 03:32
...we don&#39;t have much confidence in your ability to look after OUR interests.


Any positive effect on your interests is being safeguarded by your troops, Alex.

Any positive result emanating from our actions which also accrues to you should be considered to be collateral.

Your statement gives the impression the U.K. normally operates under the auspices and protection of the U.S., sans autonomy.

You may wish to re-examine that sentence, eh? :P

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@5 April 2004 - 02:23


And RF I would like to see some evidence that supports this:

From people "in the loop" do?

Iraq..... (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)


Not only did O&#39;Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

“Everything&#39;s there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that&#39;s sensitive,” says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. “You don’t get higher than that.”

And what happened at President Bush&#39;s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O&#39;Neill&#39;s most startling revelations.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.



For Bin Laden, the Taliban offered to extradict him in 1998...yes thats right 1998 to Saudi Arabia. The offer was withdrawn after the USA started bombing Afganistan. Letting him stay there bacame overnight "a matter of honour".

3 Days after 9/11 they offered to extradict to Pakistan, as he wouldnt receive a fair trial in the USA (and the USA has, as i said, proven them right there)

The background to Afganistan is Oil & Gas, just like Iraq.

The Taliban wouldnt let Unicol build an Oil Pipeline, and it has huge Gas reserves.



Meh, there is no talking...You have Google, look it all up yourself.

As usual, just cut out the Far Right and the Far Left versions and the Truth is usually in the middle <_<

[j2k4]

Rat-

For all the earth-shaking content of Mr. O&#39;Neill&#39;s story and documentation, aided by Suskind&#39;s platform, Mr. O&#39;Neill&#39;s story isn&#39;t getting much traction these days.

Do you wonder why?

I do.

Why don&#39;t we wait until Dr. Rice has testified on Thursday, then we can revisit the issue? ;)

[lynx]

Originally posted by j2k4+5 April 2004 - 13:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 5 April 2004 - 13:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@5 April 2004 - 03:32
...we don&#39;t have much confidence in your ability to look after OUR interests.


Any positive effect on your interests is being safeguarded by your troops, Alex.

Any positive result emanating from our actions which also accrues to you should be considered to be collateral.

Your statement gives the impression the U.K. normally operates under the auspices and protection of the U.S., sans autonomy.

You may wish to re-examine that sentence, eh? :P [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t think he was talking about collateral benefits.

I think he was more worried about collateral damage. <_<

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lynx+5 April 2004 - 13:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 5 April 2004 - 13:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@5 April 2004 - 13:39
<!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@5 April 2004 - 03:32
...we don&#39;t have much confidence in your ability to look after OUR interests.


Any positive effect on your interests is being safeguarded by your troops, Alex.

Any positive result emanating from our actions which also accrues to you should be considered to be collateral.

Your statement gives the impression the U.K. normally operates under the auspices and protection of the U.S., sans autonomy.

You may wish to re-examine that sentence, eh? :P
I don&#39;t think he was talking about collateral benefits.

I think he was more worried about collateral damage. <_< [/b][/quote]
Ah, sarcasm, eh? ;)

Difficult to tell with Alex. :)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by j2k4@5 April 2004 - 19:22
Rat-

For all the earth-shaking content of Mr. O&#39;Neill&#39;s story and documentation, aided by Suskind&#39;s platform, Mr. O&#39;Neill&#39;s story isn&#39;t getting much traction these days.

Do you wonder why?

I do.

Why don&#39;t we wait until Dr. Rice has testified on Thursday, then we can revisit the issue? ;)
She has decided to testify?

Tell me...is she swearing that she will tell the truth like most other "witnesses" (an Oath)..... I heard that the administration was not fond of appearing before the commission if they had to do this :)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+6 April 2004 - 09:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 6 April 2004 - 09:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@5 April 2004 - 19:22
Rat-

For all the earth-shaking content of Mr. O&#39;Neill&#39;s story and documentation, aided by Suskind&#39;s platform, Mr. O&#39;Neill&#39;s story isn&#39;t getting much traction these days.

Do you wonder why?

I do.

Why don&#39;t we wait until Dr. Rice has testified on Thursday, then we can revisit the issue? ;)
She has decided to testify?

Tell me...is she swearing that she will tell the truth like most other "witnesses" (an Oath)..... I heard that the administration was not fond of appearing before the commission if they had to do this :) [/b][/quote]
Yes, she will testify Thursday.

There was no objection to testifying under oath, merely an assertion of executive privilege Bush was hanging onto as a matter of form; she literally does not have to testify, but having won a written concession that Dr. Rice&#39;s appearance before the commission does not constitute precedent, she will be allowed to testify at GWB&#39;s discretion.

There was also the political swashbuckling on display; Bush wanted it to be clear that a large part of the commission&#39;s aim was to take another opportunity to grand-stand before the American public, as Dr. Rice has already testified before the commission in closed session.

There is actually nothing new to be discovered.

So it goes.