Slashdot Mirror
Bush Website Blocked Outside N. America
acey72 writes "The BBC News are
reporting that George W Bush's re-election website (don't bother if you aren't in the USA) is blocked to people accessing it from outside the USA. Netcraft spotted the change on Monday, and have a report on the matter. Oh well, at least John Kerry's site still works for us outlanders." At least some Canadians can access the Bush campaign site, but Europeans cannot (without going through a U.S. proxy).
though it's a little off-message.
From the article:
On 21 October, the George W Bush website began using the services of a company called Akamai to ensure that the pages, videos and other content on its site reaches visitors.
Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision was taken to cut costs, and traffic, in the run-up to the election on 2 November.
He said the site may see no reason to distribute content to people who will not be voting next week.
Managing traffic could also be a good way to ensure that the site stays working in the closing days of the election campaign.
And:
However, simply blocking non-US visitors also means that Americans overseas are barred too.
Ok, yeah, that's the ONE thing that might be pertinent, and might be arguable.
Otherwise, there's always this, and this, and this, and, um, the whole rest of the internet and every other available source of information in print, television, radio, and so on, on Earth.
This is a political campaign site with political campaign propaganda. And since there are still an extremely wide variety of ways to get at its content and information from outside the US, it's obviously not some kind of "international censorship". (C'mon, slashdot! I know you can come up with some crazy shit!) Even the Netcraft guy realizes that. It's not like the New York Times, or critical news information, is suddenly blocked. Hell, within the last week, they had to start using Akamai! That alone should prove to a normal person that there are clearly traffic concerns at play. They have little to no obligation to serve anyone outside of the US, with the statistically negligible exception of US citizens outside the US.
Ok, slashdot, let's see who can come up with the best off-the-wall looney conspiracy theories to twist this around as a malicious, underhanded tactic, and some kind of "proof" that Bush is evil incarnate! While you're at it, explain to me how it's right for the Guardian to encourage its UK readers, i.e., not US citizens, to start a letter writing and email campaign to Ohioans encouraging them to vote for John Kerry, or, better yet, calling for the assassination of the sitting US president! (Even as a "joke".)
In a regular column in The Guardian newspaper's Saturday TV listings magazine, Charlie Brooker described Bush in scathing terms, and concluded: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"
3... 2... 1...
Go!
How much of a solid foreign policy this guy has.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Works from Montreal, Canada... Are we considered the 51st state? Can we vote? :)
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
and
whoever thought of this didn't think people would find out?
Now he can safely discuss security issues!
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I know that Bush's standings aren't that good with the rest of the world, but I didn't realise that he was that disliked...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Does it have a forum, or a feedback system? It could be that they were getting a lot of, ahem, abusive messages from non-US citizens and decided this was the best way to curb them. Has anyone actually asked the admins?
Either way BFD. Political websites are almost entirely content or truth free. Why bother reading them?
Given the previous attacks by Cyber-Terroists (eg: those few odd groups protesting the RNC) I'm not surprised. If they limit the connections to US only it'll be alot easier to track them down.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Does anyone see this as anything other than stupid? I mean, he's blocking all overseas absentee voters, and he's not exactly making himself look good to the rest of the world. Of course, come to think about it, he really hasn't done that in the past either. ;^)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
For those of us with non-US IPs, and who still have some hankering to actually visit the site, then Proxify will let you view. Be warned though, it shows NSFW text ads as well.
Then he's going to get blocked on my site in reply.
What's George W. Bush's IP? Anyone know?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
So the US has Censored the Bush website and deemed it a waste of time Hence blocking it to the outside world of America and saving the rest of the world.
shame. ;)
"Sweet llamas of the Bahamas !"
We're so nonexistant to our southern neighbours they even forgot to lock us out of their websites.
globalization, globalization, globalization.
however, despise the U.N., disregard foreign opinion, and smirk at the desires of other nations whose actions we affect.
just your money please.
people actually read the lies on any politicians re-election or election web page? i'm a bush fan, but i've taken a look at both bush's and kerry's web pages, and they are both so full of crap it's unreal. so honestly, who cares if you can't read lies? go on a search (google) for the truth, and make up your own mind on what you believe to be true, not what you are told is truth.
President Bush Supporter
Bush gets no love outside the US.
Big suprise...
"Sir we have to take your website offline outside the US because of all the foriegn hackers who hate you."
Bush: "What is a website?"
Likely because anybody wanting to access the website from outside the US simply does not matter to Bush. Look, this is a guy who if you do not share his opinion or can help him out in any way, you become a non entity. Classic example is the Philadelphia Enquirer reporter who was talking to Bush telling him that he did not exactly agree with his position. The response from Bush? "Who cares what you think." Classic.
Look, from the perspective of Bush, anybody accessing his website from another country (and he has alienated so many in other countries) can 1) not have any impact on his re-election and 2) Likely will not be a fan of the man because you are in a demographic who likely does not support him.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I mean, passively not carring who visit the web site , and only have content for US is fine, after all it is a political web site. But actively blocking the rest of the world... That comming for our world cooperator "pres. Bush"... I am strongly wishing that this MUST be an error of the net admin, not on purpose...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision was taken to cut costs, and traffic, in the run-up to the election on 2 November.
He said the site may see no reason to distribute content to people who will not be voting next week.
They did this to cut costs?! Are they that hard up?!
Good thing there aren't any American voters outside the country.
Like say... stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, etc. etc.
Geez, at least put up a sensible message like "To reduce traffic load non-US visitors will see blah blah blah". Despite the fact that non-Americans aren't voting you should at least have some half decent PR.
How will they live without accessing POTUS site? There will be riots in the streets I tell you.
What else do you expect from fascists? The current administration are not Republicans, they are neocons! They are the new fascist party of the United States and are working toward global domination. www.newamericancentury.org to find out more.
But how will Tony Blair know what to do next?
I bet that the Saudis still have access to the site. I mean, he has to get campaign contributions somehow, right?
Isn't this like a textbook example of institutional racism?
There's been a spat of vandalism on
Bush campaign offices. The folks who
run the campaign are probably calculating
that a DoS attack on the web site is likely,
and mostly like to originate from foreign
countries where Bush is very unpopular.
Not having the web site available for the next
few days could be devastating.
Though I've never felt the need to visit Bush's re-election website, it seems to be quite available through Coral even for us europeans. Dog slow, though.
Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
Here is a list of open proxies you can use to get to Bush's reelection site.
Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
Is it any wonder when us limey sons-of-two-strangers are running campaigns such as this?
Well, at least they didnt block the voter registration sites too. Oh wait...
I live in Guam, and I can't access the site either. It's a US territory, so the citizens aren't allowed to vote in presidential elections, but it's still part of the US and, as it happens, I'm from VA so I'm eligible to vote. Although by absentee ballot wouldn't be counted until after the results are tallied anyway, so what's the point.
Not that I'd vote for Bush. Or Kerry. May they both Rot in Peace.
I'm in Ottawa, ON, Canada, and I got in just fine.
have more than likely already voted...
This is for those of you calling foul for them...
Works from Toronto, or atleast my companies IP
Are US Military members overseas able to access the content? Or are they lumped into the 'statistically negligible' count? I think they have a HUGE vested interest in who our next president is. Forget taxes and erosion of rights. It's their LIVES at stake.
Well, the hackers will never think of using this one https://georgewbush.com/
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
So what?
There are already enough anti-Bush people that will take ANY change as some sort of big fuck-the-world gesture from the Bush camp. And of course despite that fact that nobody knows for sure WHY this has been implemented there will 1000 conspiracy theories posted, and dozens of pro-Kerry propaganda garbage as well.
Until there is enough information to actually discuss the topic with facts I'm not really interested...
-This sig intentionally left blank
The website has obviously been shut down to prevent terrorist attacks on it, as indicated by credible inteligence reports. Don't be surprised if the Alert Level is raised to red in the next few days!
My guess is this was implemented by some firewall admin as a security measure to protect the site from foreign hackers.
Quite frankly, this kind of measure really does not work for a high-value target like this one. Any well organized hacker group is going to have control of plenty of cable modem boxes on US soil.
You'll slow them down a tiny bit, but not by much.
The IP-range restriction might help slightly against syn-floods, but really you're not reducing the potential IP space by all that much. The US is pretty heavily populated with IPs.
*shrug* more clueless security measures by someone net admin with a bright idea but not much deep thought about it. It happens all the time, like those sites blocking all emails with the word "vulnerability" as porn spam. yeah, not so useful.
-Matt
Netcraft has confirmed.
"Bush Website Blocked Outside N. America"
"The BBC News are reporting that George W Bush's re-election website (don't bother if you aren't in the USA) is blocked to people accessing it from outside the USA."
Some conflicting information there, no? The subject states it is blocked outside of NORTH America. Yet the content of the posting says it does not work outside the USA. Well, here I am in Canada (note: to those without brains, that is part of north america), and it works fine.
Get your facts straight, I know this is slashdot and hell i've come to expect the most blatant and stupid journalistic mistakes, but you'd think if the editors had brain cells they would learn from said mistakes. Maybe not. *shrug*
...most of europe is left-wing anyway. Don't need the unnecessary traffic wasting server time and bandwidth just to send data to people who are gonna do nothing but bash whatever the site says.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
http://www.georgewbush.org/
Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision was taken to cut costs, and traffic, in the run-up to the election on 2 November.
Sadly, a link was then posted to Slashdot, increasing costs and traffic.
The excuse not to bother RingTFA we've all been waiting for. Sorry, US friends, your days of getting f1rst p0st are over!
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Bush uses Microsoft IIS + ASP and only recently has switched to Akamai
...
...
Kerry uses LAMP and has been on Akamai for sometime now
We already know which IT dept has won
Sunny Dubey
Are we considered the 51st state?
No thats the UK is.
Ths site works fine for me at 15.08 GMT in the UK using British Telecom broadband and no proxy.
wouldnt people outside the US be able to access the google cache of Bush's website?
if not, someone should just mirror the site right?
It would be different if they were censoring something important and unbiased. "Censoring" their own content from those abroad isn't exactly something I could give too shits about.
Yay, no more political propaganda overseas via www.georgewbush.com.
It's not a big deal.
Who are out of the country? I'm in the UK and there's been quite a bit of fuss from American organizations trying to get Americans-abroad to vote.
Now, if there's a reason for George Bush to have a website, then there's a reason that US Citizens should be able to view it, no?
I just don't see what is achieved here, has anyone tried it via proxy?
So if I go down into our NOC and rip out our Akamai servers I will be doing my part to support Kerry?
If it won't boot, Fsck it!
... why not visit this list, which includes country of operation.
Unlike the hoodwinked American public, I think the Saudis know quite well what they're buying.
both on my Telus ADSL connection and the LAN extension (provided by Bell) to Ontario that we have at work.
It also works on my friends Shaw cable internet, so I am not sure what netblocks they are restricting but three of the major Internet providers in Canada are not affected it seems.
I have a theory this has to do with people defacing the site in the last week of the campaign. It's probably nothing personal, and besides, to be blunt the world has no say in the American president so this really isn't an issue. People shouldn't take offense to this, because if some 17 year old kid defaces the site in the last days of the election it is going to be broadcast around the world and make W look bad.
By limiting access you are only allow 1/24 (300,000,000/6,000,000,000) of the world to see the site and thus limiting the chance of attack by 23/24.
This doesn't surprise me since most of Europe has let it be known that they don't like W.
It's not like any of them visit the site. And why should anyone outside the U.S. care for the same reason. It's not like they are using Bush's site as a reference. They should be more concerned if Moore's or Soro's site is blocked.
Will the United States be setting up its own "Great Firewall" if Shrub steals another election?
I first heard about this at the Fifth H.O.P.E conference in NY over the summer. During the Cult of the Dead Cow Hactivism panel, one of the panelists - a hacker-researcher from Toronto - reported that many foreign countries blocked the URLs of legitimate political sites due to the sexual connotations of the word "Bush."
Similarly, sites containing the words "teen" in their URL were being blocked too. All in all, it was pretty amusing.
What happens to Americans who live or work outside the USA? How are they supposed to read all the candidates' opinions first hand before making an informed decision?
Many non-US citizens living in the US will still have access to the site, but many thousands of Americans living abroad won't. Great move, folks!
They're actually only blocking georgewbush.com, not the IP 65.172.163.222 which the domainname points to.
So http://65.172.163.222 works fine abroad.
Silly ISP.
I am in the UK, and I am not using any proxy, and neither is my ISP. I can see the site perfectly fine, and even watch the videos.
/. front page worthy news exactly?
There is nothing special there for non-US voters anyway, so what is the big deal exactly. Aside from US voters living abroad, who does this ban/block really affect. I don't care much about American politics, but even if I did, I could just as easily get the same information elsewhere, and if I were determined enough, I could even use a proxy. Why is this
From alexa.
l s? &y=t&q=&url=georgewbush.com
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_detai
Traffic Rank for georgewbush.com
Today 1 wk. Avg. 3 mos. Avg. 3 mos. Change
1,249 1,640 3,368 up 2,471
So they're probally just trying to cut back on bandwidth so they can spend more money on things like attack ads.
OK, but seriously now, this should give you some idea of just how much this guy cares about world affairs and international politics. He doesn't care if any of his policies make sense anywhere but in his own private little playland, and even then he really doesn't care as long as he gets reelected.
I'm really not trying to sound like an extremist, but Mr. Bush has continually demonstrated apathy toward world opinion toward the US, and his supporters are often the kind to post "US out of UN" signs in their front yards. It's this kind of isolationalist arrogance that got us in trouble before, and it's going to come back to bite us in the arse again if we keep it up.
You know, Hitler was pretty good at distributing literature to only people within his country too
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Ebay should have done this instead.
So to get rid of fraudulence from Romania, Africa...etc.
As much as I'd love to speculate that it's part of some grand evil scheme, the website's probably just got a DDoS attack running against it from mostly outside the US, and this was the quickest way to keep the site online.
Josh Woodward
Can't access it from Japan.
Quite interesting that they would bother blocking the web site from an EX-PAT LIVING IN JAPAN, who sure as hell will be voting. Of course, I won't be voting for GWB, so I guess I don't count.
It doesn't work in australia. For a land with so much supposed freedom why is informaiton such as this being blocked from your allies? what do you have to gain from doing this?
http://www.whitehouse.org/ (no, not the porn site)
Mozilla 1.6 dies when trying to view www.georgewbush.com. Tried it 5 times. I guess that's cause only terrorists use mozilla. Everyone knows that!
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I'm in Indianapolis, but I work for a Swedish company so my net traffic looks like it's coming from Sweden. "Access Denied"!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
This URL works even from Europe.
How stupid can you be, if you want to shut out the rest of the world at least do it right, Jesus!
It's official. Netcraft confirms! George Bush is going down! George bush is down!
Someone on Dubya's campaign simply realized that his campaign goals look incredably stupid to most of the world. So, to prevent crazy foreigners (and terrorists. And Canadians) from explaining this to the residents of the united states, they blocked it.
-->Crazy consipiricy theory: Not positive, but it involves a donkey, a tube of K-Y jelly, ralph nader and Sadam. The FBI has the tapes hidden, but Micheal Moore will be making a documentary about it soon.
Oh, and I can access the site from Telus' network in BC
Does this mean that Netcraft confirms, *GWB's campaign is dead?
(karma to burn, baby!)
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I'm going through a local gateway, no proxies. Can other Non-US located people can confirm the "not authorized" message?
> 1) not have any impact on his re-election and
> 2) Likely will not be a fan of the man because you are in a demographic
>who likely does not support him.
Like his own troops ?
At least some Canadians can access the Bush campaign site
Is there a chance that this is accidental? I mean I'm living in Helsinki, and both Bush and Kerry posters are appearing at bus-stops, probably for expats who are eligible to vote...
Seems silly to spend money on an poster campaign, and then block your website...
Why should those overseas be given special treatment? The Bush campaign should offer this same service to U.S. visitors as well.
There are no votes in Leipzig
And most expats will vote for John Kerry anyway
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
George Bush's website is dead (to non-US Citizens).
When setting up a site on Akamai you have to set the origin (I've done many of these!).
This still works, ripe for a DDOS... origin.georgewbush.com
the attacks would be harder to stop, but I'm guessing there are plenty of people in the US who would love to DDoS Pres. Bush's website. Why would people outside the US be the only security threat to his website?
...everything's pre-emptive with this administration!
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
It's nothing but parinoia. As long as you're willing to sign a Loyalty Oath you should have no problem accessing the site. They'll probably even mail you an absentee ballot.
I haven't read the article yet, but I just want to say that this is awful for the rest of the world to block the Bush web site! What terrible censorship! I was leaning toward Kerry, but now I'm going to vote for Bush out of protest!
-- Boycott Shell
It's a political campaign site, and any decisions as to how it's being run are made by people working on the campaign, not Bush himself.
The election is in 6 days, I wouldn't be too shocked if they decided it was time to pull the plug on the site completely. It's served it's purpose. They have limited funds with which to campaign (albeit not limited enough, IMO).
Seems to me to be a preemptive move against DDOS attacks from foreign dopes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
If I were a despot, I'd probably do the same thing. Hell, why does the rest of the world even need to know anything about what a despot is doing? That takes away the novelty of announcing a new trickle-down wealth-redistribution 5-year plan: slowly take all remaining possessions away from those in the lower tax brackets, boost the CEOs' incomes, and profit for the whole country!
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
But this? It makes me realize that no matter what the other guy might be, he is neither a demagogue (or not as much so), nor stupid (or at least not as much so), and so my new choice is to find me an absentee ballot for my first overseas ballot (first voting ever actually) and to pick which of the other guys it will be.
I was entranced by the coldly mathematical yet interesting libertarian candidate (he strikes me as wonderfully fresh and honest, though I am starting to think he may be at least partially insane). Most interesting there was I only know about him from slashdot and a one hour stream (I think it was maybe a torrent) from his interview on I think CNN.
I guess I have a responsibility to look for sites of other candidates (preferably torrents of interviews so I can get a good idea of what they are like) and try to get some diverging opinions from people so I can make up my mind.
I think you're missing the point. "They" censoring anything is not a good idea. What's next for "they"? Maybe they'll start censoring other sites that seem inappropriate, like China does.
He did it himself.
The Bush site thinks I'm a terrorist! Everytime I view the site my browser crashes(firefox 1.0pr).
I hope Mr. Bush doesn't think I'm some kind of outsider, terrorist, or even worse...Canadian!
Maybe the reason it is blocked is to prevent DDOS attacks from outside the US (like 1000's of hacked boxes in Asia, etc).
I'm sure the Bush site is a prime target for many of those types.
The REAL George Dubya Bush was blocked from the rest of the world.. we'd be fine!
I am the maverick of Slashdot
That citizens of the US living overseas can file absentee ballots. (Although it may be too late for that now, not sure.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Site quotes "He said the site may see no reason to distribute content to people who will not be voting next week." . Well, i guess all our troops are going to vote for kerry and assume george dropped out of the race, /w his web site down and all.
Since everybody is throwing stupid flame bait around I should mention that Iraqi insurgents today said they are stepping up attacks so they get Kerry instead of Bush. Arafat and North Korea have already backed Kerry.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Everyone should read this before voting for Bush, or if they need help telling their friends why they shouldn't vote for Bush:
y A.shtml.
http://www.algore04.com/news/gnn/EpAlEukuZEoWoQli
Yes, it's from Al Gore, but don't let that fool you. Al Gore isn't who he came across as during the 2000 debates. He is very, very intelligent and educated.
This speech is right on the money when it comes to why Bush is such a threat to America and Americans.
I've never voted anything but Republican my whole life (including voting for Bush in 2000), but I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush now. He has shown his true colors by his actions in office.
And before you go off about Gore being a liar and claiming to invent the internet, realize that his comment was completely spun by the Bush campaign. He never claimed to invent the internet. He claimed to have been the sole senator responsible for the funding that led to its invention, which is completely accurate, and supported by those who actually did invent the internet.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
example: google:
www.georgewbush.com News ID=4061
1 search result...
now go to cached version...
voila! lol
>THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming today. (Applause.)
wow! he said something!
God Bless Google
It'll be a big hit. I promise.
I'm actually a little concerned reading the comments thus far. If this many people are relying on either of the campaign websites for real information, we're all collectively dumber than I thought.
You know what?
They're actually only blocking georgewbush.com, not the IP 65.172.163.222 which the domainname points to. So http://65.172.163.222 works fine abroad.
Regardless of whether people outside the US should have any influence our elections... they SHOULD be able to follow the campaigns.
Aren't we the model of democracy we're hoping Iraq and Afghanistan follow? Waht would we think if Iraq banned US reporters from reporting on their campaigns?
We have information that Al Quaeda operatives are planning a DDOS attack on our site. We have instituted this measure in advance of our preemptive DDOS on their sites to preserve freedom and democracy.
They hate us for our freedom.
- GW
We already voted. Most of us anyway. Absentee ballots are either mailed in or delivered to our local embassy.
Besides, I'm so sick of the locals here acting like they have a say in the US elections. So good for Bush, it's nice to see someone with a grasp of reality.
PS. To anyone who may be offended by saying that that I'm sick of your comments on the US election (you know who you are): DEAL WITH IT! I don't get to vote in your petty little elections so stay out of mine. My country, my vote; I don't care what you or the rest of the world thinks. After you solve all of your problems then you can comment on ours.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
From RT Mark "The satirical website GWBush.com has received several million hits since a press conference Friday at which Texas governor and probable presidential candidate George W. Bush called its owner "a garbage man" and said "There ought to be limits to freedom." The outburst followed two separate attempts by Bush campaign attorneys to shut down the site."
:-]
/. comments and numerous newspaper articles.
Wonder if GWBush site got it's revenge
Seriously wtf will blocking non-us people from seeing the site do other than cause massive publicity, many
Jaj
Sometimes you REALLY couldn't make it up.
When I try to go to http://www.georgewbush.com/ in Firefox, the browser immediately crashes. I just noticed this now (it was fine a couple of days ago). The site works fine in IE and Konqueror. Anyone else having this problem?
Does this mean that the people that control George W. are selective in their globalist libertarian views?
Google cache and Archive.org
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
If he's re-elected, then your assessment of the American population is correct. However, I think the world will be pleasantly surprised that most of us have stopped (or never started) drinking the kool-aid.
Thanks GW!
Britphone
He never claimed to invent the internet
Bull. I listened to the interview and still have copies of it sitting on my hard drive. Al Gore clearly took credit for creating the internet.
He claimed to have been the sole senator responsible for the funding that led to its invention, which is completely accurate, and supported by those who actually did invent the internet
No, Al Gore said he created the Internet. He may have meant otherwise but that is what he said.
The only spin doctoring here is from the revisionists who want to hide what Al Gore really said.
First: I get spam on a regular basis from georgewbush.com, and it's *not forged*. Dubya's a spammer.
Now this.
Way to alienate users, Dubya.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Now I can read all about the wonders of Bush. Yippie!
I haven't probed the details of the 'site block' but it seems extremely stupid. If the intention is to block """terrorists""" from attacking the website, it's very lame. It's probably a combo of dumb ideas that further demonstrate their "ostrich head in the sand" mentality. foriegn countries might refute the lies on the website and report it, although I think we got a pretty good handle on that. they probably don't want foreign people laughing too hard at the bullshit being fed to half the country (while they happily eat it and ask for more). but of course, all one needs to do is check out google cache or find a SIMPLE proxy server inside the USA. It's kinda like how Ashlee Simpson asked on her website "Ok you people know the internet, I'm going to get rid of all these videos posted on other websites, how do i delete them?". kinda the same thing, except the fate of planet earth is a hanging chad...
I know I'm going to be modded up on this
Boy, I'm sure glad of that! My nipples were all soft at the thought of losing that glorious access.
SQUICK!
Oops. Sprained my sarcasm gland.
Outlander? Where are you? Barter Town? Did you guys get the pig shit generator running again?
Anyway, friends, geek, countrymen, it's a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum yet again. Just accept it and stop pretending the election matters. It's depressing enough without otherwise smart people gobbling up the manure and pinning their hopes and dreams on ideologues in expensive suits surrounded by teams of droids. It's all just money, be it Halliburton or George Soros. None of these people give a hanging chad about any of you. Most of them pine for the days when it was acceptable to spit on us, run us down with their horse drawn carriages or hunt us down for sport.
That's why I'm voting Kerry. I have a job/career that's Administration proof, and I will enjoy the whining and excuses when, under Kerry, things are precisely as fucked up as they are now, if not more so. And it is time for a change, and if an orange version of Herman Munster in the White House isn't change, well, then I don't know what is.
Although a Bush win would be fun because it would send a huge number of self-righteous, egotistical ideo-whores into apoplectic fits. I'm hoping strokes will permanently debilitate the less healthy ones. From bloviating autoimportant politicosluts to glassy eyed droolers who require regular diaper changes. Now that's some mighty hubris! Chris Reeve's horse was a divine warrior guided by the smiting hand of Baby Jesus sent to punish him for Superman IV! Yee-haw!
And a Bush win might spark riots. Cool! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
See? Fun times ahead regardless of the result! :-)
--- Ban humanity.
"Works from Montreal, Canada... Are we considered the 51st state?"
not YET........
The War on Terra, coming soon to a country near you.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
What are you hiding George?!!
(yes, this is partially sarcastic and partially serious. Laugh)
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Please tell me what's on the site now?! ;-)
I bet George took the opportunity to talk about foreigners on his site today and doesn't want us foreigners hearing about it.
- Erwin
You think the world was wrong to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?
lets hope he gets the same message in november
I can confirm that the site is blocked in Romania, which is ironic, because Romanians have the second-highest opinion of America (and I'm willing to venture to say Bush, too) in Europe, second to the Albanians. Is the site blocked in S. America, Africa, Asia, and Australasia, too?
Does that mean George Bush is Dead?
moo.
Saving bandwidth? The Bush campaign has raised hundreds of millions of dollars--who cares about a couple hundred or thousand more a month spent on bandwidth when you're buying in multi-gb blocks anyway?
I'm living in the UK and have been for years. It would be nice to be able to view his site, if only because he has a chance (against my vote and wishes) of becoming president so it is important I know about his views, and I be able to see, for example, copies of the ads that I cannot view because I do not get US TV.
If I was undecided, like some of my collegues, I as a NJ resident are entitled to waive my secret ballot and vote by fax up until election day (some states allow this). If you are living abroad I encourage you to do this asap by going to http://www.fvap.gov/pubs/onlinefpca.pdf and following the instructions on the form. As long as the fax is received by 2 Nov, and the real ballot is received no more than I think 1 week later, that vote is valid and will be counted (well, possibly, given past experience). The fact that actual voters both civilians and potentially military personel (even if all on-base traffic went through US proxies, which is dubius, as people might feel more comfortable using the net at a cafe or otherwise off base) will be denied valuable information that is needed to make an informed electoral decision. Given that US citizens via taxes and other means provide matching funds for those candidates, what this essentially means is that we can't see the fruits of something we helped, however indirectly, fund, and by extension, create(georgewbush.com).
Also, we need to understand that whomever is elected US President has a great deal of influence not only on Americans--so it would be a positive move, in the spirit of liberty and transparency, for those abroad to be able to view the information surrounding someone's candidacy, even if those persons cannot vote.
The bottom line is that actively seeking to prevent the dissemination of information about candidates for an election as important as the US Presidential election, when we know that cost is not an issue for the campaigns, speaks volumes about the candidate and his views. It is in keeping with the tradition of the Patriot act, fingerprinting and photographing even those US vistors from countries that do not require a visa to enter the US.
I don't know why the Campaign is doing this; it's an idiot decision that can only produce severely negative PR outside the US (as if more of this was needed--we're not the most popular team in town even in the UK) and probably within the US as well. Perhaps the reason is that Bush is writing off the expatriate vote anyway (military aside, it's overwhelmingly democratic / liberal) and feels that his views are providing too much ammunition to anti-us views abroad. Blocking access, though, is a childish, counter-productive, and heavy handed solution.
But from George W.--who would expect any less?He's actually using this time to tell a racist joke involving the pope, a frenchman, and a japanese lady on his website. It's quite funny. I'm sure the site will be accessible as soon as he is done, and will be back up shortly.
I live in Canada and I can see www.georgewbush.com Does that mean they consider Canada to be another state?
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
Sorry to burst your bubbles Bush Haters:
s p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1681230,00.a
NEW YORK (AP)--Web sites for President Bush's campaign and the Republican National Committee suffered outages for several hours on Wednesday.
It was not immediately clear whether a systems failure or a hacking attack was to blame. Campaign and committee officials would only say they were investigating.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
[dpilot@slashdot dpilot]$ whois whitehouse.gov
.GOV domain. For information for other domains please use the whois server at RS.INTERNIC.NET.
[Querying whois.nic.gov]
[whois.nic.gov]
% DOTGOV WHOIS Server ready
Domain Name: whitehouse.gov
Status: Active
Please be advised that this whois server only contains information pertaining to the
[dpilot@slashdot dpilot]$
Plenty of information there. At least the IP (reported by someone else) reverse-resolves, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
...but I don't particularly like Bush, and didn't say that I did.
hahahahaha
... that Eminem would have something to say about this:
b b2 .mov
http://www.archive.org/download/Mosh2/GNN_Mosh_
Who cards! It's a US election, you whiny french assholes!
Why not just send the bill to the RNC? I would not view this as money loss - I would view this as a business opportunity.
Love sees no species.
http://georgewbush.com./
Works. (notice the dot)
The US has not banned foreign reporters. Thus, your comparison is not valid to the point of silliness. The President's campaign web site is simply not serving pages to overseas viewers. There is no shortage of US-based political news sources available to foreign readers.
Nuclear war would certainly set back cable--Ted Turner
And I can easily access http://www.georgewbush.com. Note I use no U.S. proxy.
(And it doesn't crash my firefox).
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
...So this has no bearing on the election, and thus is a non story.
What about the troops, and other us citizens who are living in other countries, who have a vote?
I should point out that it is a lie to say that Kerry only served for four months.
Technically, you can still get to the information on the site through the google cache, even if it is a day or two old.
If the rest of the world blocked Americans from international websites, how long do you think it would take most Americans to notice?
-Colin
While I make no defense of this move, do you think Bush actually made this decision himself? While his web PR people should have their employment questioned, I seriously doubt the President himself has much to do with this. You cannot micro-manage like that and expect to get anything done.
from one country and to another
that it came to this. I'm sure this was a response to the unhinged Kerry apologists who keep attempting to DOS this website.
I checked it 10 minutes ago and it was still blocked for non-americans but now it works Like I care...
Well I'm in Holland but using the following links, I can still visit it. Not that I want to, but anyway.g ewbush.com
http://65.172.163.222/
http://proxify.com/p/011110A0000110/http/www.geor
You mean the thingy for that thing call the internets?
Now, run off and finish your altars to BushKerryKrishna, and stop pretending you believe in diversity and free speech.
--- Ban humanity.
telling everyone who isn't the US to go F*ck themselves.
Shocked? I think not. I'm suprised it took this long.
Moron.
No he's just describing his new policies. About how the US needs more "Living Space", and that we need a "Final Solution" to end terrorism.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Sorry to burst your bubble ... but that document is from 10/20/2004. The Amsterdam, London, etc. outages are happening right now ... by intention. RTFA.
KARMA TAG! You're it.
I would think this is a means to keep foreign hackers from DDOSing the site.
Seriously, since outsiders cant vote, does it really matter that they cant see the pages?
Its no different than 'targeted marketing': i.e. not wasting resources on 'non customers'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
While your arguments are valid (as are others' arguments about PR), I think the reasons given in the article for blocking non-U.S. IPs are just an excuse that hides a possible major concern for the Bush campaign: hackers (crackers, really, but I'm sure they don't know the difference).
By eliminating traffic from outside the U.S., they block malicious hacking from countries whose populations dislike Bush (lots of countries). Those populations don't need the information as much as Americans do, and it may be harder to find and prosecute international website crackers after the fact.
isn't it this one??? he's been a pornitrineur for a while as far as i know.
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: www.whitehouse.com
Addresses: 65.214.50.143, 206.65.191.203
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
please, use your brains ... vote kerry ... have you seen the world latelly?
And why should anyone outside the U.S. care for the same reason.
This is just a wild guess, but maybe they want to learn more about Bush's policies?
You don't need to be a Bush-worshipper to want to look at his website. In fact, those who believe that Bush is God have very little need to do any research at all. But those who have an open mind tend to want to make decisions for themselves.
That entire post was completely irrelevant and the attitude you displayed in making it is a prime example of the reason more rational people are afraid of the generally clueless, incoherent, and ignorant folks who are voting for Bush next week.
Regardless of whether the Iraqis are happier, angrier, sadder, or just completely disinterested is irrelevant. You would have to be a singularly brainless individual to argue that the U.S. election is not affecting them, which is where the grandparent post's point starts and ends despite your rather sad attempt at turning it into a giant partisan pissing match.
You need to be modded offtopic for that post at which point I'm sure you will whine that you are being "repressed" by "evil liberals" on slashdot.
Ok, now it's official: Netcraft confirms it. George W. Bush is dying! Or his website is. Or something.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
The rurmor was started by Declan McCullagh of Wired Magazine.
http://www.sethf.com/gore/
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
China can teach GWB alot about censorship. (personally, if this is the kind of shit the Bush regime is going to be censoring, then I'm all in favour).
How about some non-US sources that have proof that the drug export business is larger than it was before the war and proof that women are still not allowed to work and girls are not allowed to go to school. I'd also like to see some satellite photos of ongoing terrorist training camps.
Let's /. King George's site so Americans can't look at either!
It's well known that he doesn't read.
Read the paper. 2,700 something. Hardly representative. Do you have any clue who those 2,700 were? What kind of education they had? How they were chosen. It's pathetic when people assume the moral high ground based on some ludicriously inaccurate statistic. It doesn't need a genius to figure that the Iraq has gone up in flames, now burning.
Don't worry: your brain will eventually work inspite of you.
"Regardless of whether the Iraqis are happier, angrier, sadder, or just completely disinterested is irrelevant."
How enlightened of you.
He had to block his site from the Evil Doers!
They can afford to alienate the overseas voters! I mean there are only what? Maybe a couple thousand of them? When has a couple thousand votes ever influenced an election?!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Trouble them not with your facts. After all, those deaths were internationally sanctioned. The resulting smaller death toll of the uncalled for, unsanctioned actions of the US are so much more horrendious than the larger UN Sanctions deaths....
Its just not an argument that they are willing to listen to.
so this is a problem?
That survey was taken feb 2004. Things in Iraq have gotten much worse since then and If you took the same survey today I bet the results would be a lot different.
BTW I think it's awful that people present these kinds of "statistics". How can you pretend that the situation in Iraq is the same today as it was in Feb of 2004? There is no difference between presenting irrelevent and outdated stats and outright lying.
evil is as evil does
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH. html
Use this to get in
http://www.bugmenot.com
I am amazed that we haven't yet recognized that this is just another campaign trick. The idea behind doing it was very simple - they do it, then leak the info, and revel in the publicity that follows.
At this point, it is highly unlikely that Bush is going to GAIN any NEW votes. However, an action such as this, especially if it gains widespread attention, will thoroughly reinforce Bush's image as someone who doesn't give a shit about anything other than USA (not saying that he cares about the US).
So please stop playing along in this last-minute campaign trick.
And I suspect that even if Jesus Christ came out of the sky escorted by angels playing harps and trumpets, and said "I support John Kerry", 50% of republicans would still say "bah, liberal messiah bias" and vote Bush anyway.
Seriously... "Blessed are the Peacemakers" ring any bells? No? Okay, then let's bomb the only country in the middle east that isn't in bed with al Qaeda. Check? wow, we don't have enough jobs, but we're leading the world in screwing ourselves. Great, great.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
> and wasn't discharged until 1970
And by all appearances wasn't HONORABLY discharged until President Carter's general amensty in 1977. Of course we can't be sure since Kerry still refuses to sign the release for his military records to be made public.
Democrat delenda est
If W really wanted to limit his bandwidth bill, I'm sure the page served to foreigners would have been smaller than 31k.
Those Iraqis?
How about these Iraqis? Is their life better since being "liberated"? Do they count?
Speak truth to power.
I was on the sight yesterday and I noticed it was running extremly slowly. I assumed that someone who was not a big fan of Bush was running a DOS attack. Maybe they weren't domestic and this move is to prevent further attacks.
What signature defines me as a person?
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
According to Betavote (global simulation (for fun) of how netizens would vote in US presidential), the country most favorable to Bush is... Niger. :)
And in return, all these Nigerians cannot access the web ? So unfaithful
> I don't care what you or the rest of the world thinks.
Then you might feel very alone when the next plane crashes into some of your buildings.
Actually ignorant bullies like you now are perceived as the prototype of the typical USAmerican in wide parts of the world; even in those parts of the world where people froze crying in front of the TV on 9/11.
You actually WILL be very alone if you go on like this.
k2r
Unipeak proxy link
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Republicans are evil. News at 11.
The topic and every post should just be moderated -1 Redundant.
OK. I GET IT YOU JOBLESS BASEMENT DWELLERS, YOU HATE BUSH. WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE?
As the Zoidborg would say: "We are the slashmind. You will be assimilated, why not?"
I know domestic companies that blackhole traffic from overseas IP spaces for security reasons. Not "security" as in "we don't want you reading our page", but as in "quit trying to login to our ssh daemons and run http://../scripts/cmd.exe 200 times a night from .kr and .ca and .jp". Folks, this is not news. If anything, they're safeguarding the site against intrusions. I'm surprised people overseas can even PING it.
.ru can't get off of a dozen other places on the web. There's nothing a foreign visitor needs from the website a week before the election. The five undecided American citizens who are overseas can get to a proxy or an embassy to read the site, and they've all voted absentee from both Florida and New York, anyway. Let it go. This is a technically and financially sound decision. Has nothing to do with the election.
Anything the GWB campaign wants to be public can be distributed in 10 minutes through other sources. George can say it, and John can say what a catastrophic error in judgement it was. My Yahoo! page headline will update (with Kerry's quote and "Bush optimistic"), and it'll be out there. There's nothing at the campaign HQ page that someone in
-j
That's my point. 50,000 Iraqis died as a direct result of sanctions each year, according to HRC and Amnesty International estimates. 50,000, each year. For 12 years. Over half a million Iraqis dead. That's where all the "X00,000 Iraqi children dead for oil" posters came from in the 90s.
INCLUDING all of the people killed by the US action on your precious iraqbodycount.net, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, WHEN COMPARED WITH the lives lost each year under sanctions.
But don't let that interrupt your bashing.
http://tinyurl.com/4ucvt is topical, I think. La la lah....
RinkRat
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Nothing to see here... move along...
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
oops, no, they got Poland too.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
http://www.trespassers-w.net
GeorgeWBush.com. 172800 IN NS a.ns.trespassers-w.net.
GeorgeWBush.com. 172800 IN NS ns1.cha.smartechcorp.net.
I wonder how many American citizens would be better of being "liberated" from Bush? Can we do a survey and get some stats? Maybe we should just intervene and do some "Regime change", especially if Bush wins, as it is then clearly a perverted, rigged election. Maybe a Lee Harvey Oswald will save us. Surur
Information is the location of things. Computation is moving things around.
I hae yet to meet the person that does not have a strong opinion one way or the other about Bush. Those that like him know his policies. Those that don't get their information form other sources.
You tell Tony Blair he can't view your site, mr president!!!
The Farewell Tour II
I find it hard to believe that there are people who read this site who support the Chimp. Must be Windows users.
The word is "emigrate", if you mean that they should leave the U.S.
link
American children under 18 can't vote. Why not block them?
Resident aliens can't vote. Should we block them, too?
Technically, blocking a range of IPs is far easier than blocking a demographic. I'm just trying to make a point:
IMHO, it's just plain arrogant to block those who can't vote. To me, it makes the statement that those who can't vote don't matter.
I know it's just a website... but how many people get >80% of their information from the web. Me, for one (I know that's sad.. but...)
ljfrench
We Canadains demand equal treatment - please block site immediatably!
At least the addendum to this article shows that some people realize that Canada IS part of North America and NOT part of the USA (yet).
What is this, the bumper sticker quoting spot?
Oh well, shameless plug then:
Hate Freedom? Vote Bush!
Fight Terrorism - Oust Bush!
I'm in Sydney, and noticed about two months ago that georgewbush.com wasn't accessible. I tried from several different locations over the course of a week with no luck.
It seemed suspicious at the time, but I thought perhaps it's become standard practice for US political leaders to totally ignore the rest of the world.
I did read the article, mostly speculation, very little facts.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
They went to all this effort, maybe to lower traffic bills, who cares what the real reason was... but now the site will get Slashdotted so any money saved on avoiding international viewers, is pooched. :)
If americans are voting based off the propaganda from a website(s), its a sad state of affairs.
Regardless of any 'need' for outsiders to 'understand the reasoning', viewing some silly websites is not the way to do it in the first place.
Personaly i dont care what 'outsiders' know or want, its not their country. Nor do i care who is running theirs.. thats their problem, not mine. ( unless one comes here and does something stupid and bothers us, then they can be 'unseated' with force on the spot. )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It seems like some of the Bush campaign staffers have accidentally sent emails to colleagues at name@georgewbush.ORG instead of the correct name@georgewbush.COM. Fortunately, the georgewbush.org mailserver had a "catch-all" mailbox in place, and you can read the contents of this "Dead Letter Office". There are some gems in there, like memos intended for Karl Rove, a weekly report from "Pennsylvania Evangelical Outreach", and even apparent evidence of illegal suppression of black votes (check out Caging1.xls).
Interesting ... very interesting.
Yea and all liberated countries self/assisted have had a grand time setting up an effective government. I mean hell it only took us several hundred years to be effective. Oh wait your telling me our government is still not effective?
The US is one of their problems. Really want them to get together and "fix" us?
It seems some of them have already tried to. And I have no doubts that they will keep trying whenever they get the chance.And by the way, even if Iraq didn't have ties to terrorists you can bet that they now are using the situation to make the US look bad and incite more of the Muslim world against us. Our politicians aren't the only ones who know how propaganda works you know
I would be better off - I hope someone would 'liberate' us.
If Bush "wins" again, I'm moving to Canada.
But only the front page, anything else gets the famous "access denied" messages /
http://www.georgewbush.com.nyud.net:8090/ContactU
We had now problems accessing the site from Alberta.
"Kerry sucks less"
Of course the subject was truncated. It should have read:
NorthAmerica.contains("Canada") && Canada != USA
Those sausage suckers just didn't like the direction the post-selection agenda was going.
1) More unsustainable tax cuts
2) Holy war
3) Declare self President For Life, or until we defeat Terror!
3) Take Poland
NBC News
And that guy Bin Laden. It turns out that Bush isn't really that concerned about him.
LA Times story on Yahoo
That's how you get tough on terrorism, Bush-style.
Surely he's not afraid of showing the world what he really think in matters? And even so, he do realise, of course, that we still get information about what he's doing, through other channels?
Boo hoo! I don't care about other countries politics, so stay out of my countries!!
a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, WHEN COMPARED WITH the lives lost each year under sanctions
Excellent news... so long you're not one of the lives lost.
At least they have oil. God help you should you live in a country that doesn't have oil and you're getting slaughtered. No help for you!
But don't let that interrupt your bashing.
No one else seems to be stopping it. Unless of course you have WMDs^H^H^H^Hoil.
Speak truth to power.
so.. i guess that if i was an US citizen living/working in say... Iraq... i couldn't see what Georgie is up to...
thats a good thing, right?
1) The Iraqis that died during the sanctions died due to a lack of medical care, the collapse of the sanitation system, war debris scattered across the country, etc. Well, guess what? The situation on those fronts hasn't changed; the US has shipped in a lot of medical supplies, but some hospitals were completely stripped during the looting (and a couple burned to the ground), and the continuous fighting has had doctors publicly complaining about how thin their resources are. The postwar violence "brain drain" has also had a catastrophic effect on the quality of medical service in the country.
- 28 -poll-cover_x.htm
/ us atoday/20041021/ts_usatoday/pollmoreiraqisdoubtnat ionsdirection
2) Net electricity production is *down* - not just in the cities, but overall. The cities are in especially bad shape because they've had the net loss of power combined with the power re-routing to rural areas.
3) Polls in poor or devastated countries are notoriously bad. For example, any non-door-to-door poll in such a place is little more than propaganda right off the bat, because the poor and those in damaged neighborhoods have little/no phone service.
However, if you want polls, let me toss you one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04
"BAGHDAD - Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group."
Want a recent poll?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=
A couple of excerpts:
"Wrong direction: Forty-five percent of Iraqis said the country is headed in the wrong direction compared with 39% when the United States transferred political power to a caretaker Iraqi government in June. Sixty-three percent blamed "poor security" as the reason. "
"Concerns: Asked to name the most important issues to them, every Iraqi surveyed named security; 80% said the economy; 58% said quality of life; and 38% said politics. When asked to rank specific issues, they listed unemployment, crime and infrastructure in the top three. More people singled out crime as their first concern"
"Violence. Seventy-eight percent said their households had not suffered a loss of a family member or major economic damage since Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was toppled; 22% said they had."
These numbers, if you want to believe polls i Iraq, are staggering. 1 in 5 people in Iraq have suffered a loss of a family member or major economic damage since Saddam Hussein was toppled? That's insane! Of course, those numbers are backed up by what you get from the Iraqi bloggers; Riverbend's cousin had her husband kidnapped, and had to pay a huge ransom. Faiza Jarrar (the mother of Raed, of "Dear Raed" fame) was carjacked a month or two ago, and had a bomb explode on her street last week (blowing out their windows and damaging their door).
These poll numbers are made all the more dramatic when you consider the fact that the Kurdish region was (and still is somewhat) autonomous and pro-US, which skews the statistics in favor of optimism.
I would sure like to see what the number of US citizens who live oversees and use their right to absentee voting is. In the military absentee voting is almost a forgone conclusion because military leaders make it a priority to extend servicemen and women every opportunity to cast a ballet and from personal experience not voting in a Presidential election will cause you more than just a little bit of grief from your bothers in arms.
Does this apply to all of the Internets? Or just one?
(I'm just surprised to see that a third world country like Canada can still read it. I'm gonna go on now and order some wood.)
If Bush wins, it was because the election was rigged? Do you seriously think that Bush doesn't have support from the people of the US? Just where do you live?
So this web site nonsense is probably more of the same. "Non Americans? Who needs 'em!"
It is ironic that poll results show the lowest approval of Bush in Quebec, relative to all Canadians. The word "moron" has been known to be used, even amongst high-level Francophone bureaucrats.
I believe that the highest rating came from Alberta, but every Canadian knows that Albertans are right wing fanatics!
This puts them at the left-centre point on the political scale, by USA standards!
This could backfire. There is something like 3 million or more americans eligible to vote living overseas. Normally the vote turnout is low (30% or lower) due to the extra trouble of having to do an absentee ballot, and heavily slanted towards the republicans due to the large number of military personal that are stationed overseas. Interestingly there has been a massive upswing in voter registration and requests for absentee ballots for overseas voters due to how close the last election was, and how important overseas votes became (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6342710/). Expect a large increase in overseas voting this election, and so a need by the candidates to attract that vote. So it isn't really smart to actively snub those voters by blocking them from your website.
But what about US Citizens over seas? They still have a right to vote, but can't look at Bush's "views".
From the article: "Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision might have been taken to cut costs, and traffic."
I'm sure that's working well for them now.
1 - Make questionable decision to save bandwidth
2 - Get posted to Slashdot
3 - ???
4 - Profit!!
But a Supreme Court case is not the same as something that was passed by both houses of Congress and that is by far not this biggest story to come out of the US in the last year. I guess you could argue that the oil for food scam was a bit bigger story than banning muslim's from wearing headscarves even though it recieved much less coverage in the news.
that US citizens who happen to be abroad cannot access his site...lets see that includes US soldiers, US envoys, business people, vacationers, etc.
Well good job Dubba-yah
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
-
How Overseas US Citizens Can Register to Vote
Unfortunately its too late to register for most states, but if you register now, you'll still be registered in 2006.Request your free CD of my piano music.
"...if Bush wins, as it is then clearly a perverted, rigged election."
Nope. The people I know that are voting for Bush are doing so for one single reason: he lowered their taxes. A lot. You have no idea how much difference that makes to some people.
hmmm I wonder what that means?
through http://65.172.163.222/
stupid asses
I know you'd like to ignore the facts that don't fit your prejudice, so please just ignore this post also.
Yes, I hate freedom...
The freedom to choose my own healthcare insurance and providers.
The freedom to choose my own retirement plan.
The freedom to choose which schools my kids can go to.
.
.
.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"I'm invested with a divine mission: to promote the biblical world view in the policy carried out by the USA". - George W. Bush
:)
Maybe God told him to make his website unavailable for foreigners
Who would Jesus Torture?
Although some "Christians" might argue the following logic:
God allowed Jesus to be tortured.
God = Jesus.
Therefore, Jesus allowed Jesus to be tortured.
Golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Jesus says: Do unto others as I (God) would do unto (others) Jesus.
Therefore, Torture others, coz Jesus says it's okay.
When leaders in the Pentagon and Justice Department failed to take the high road and walked away from the Geneva Convention at Abu Gharib and Guantanemo Bay, they began walking the morally dubious path.
Bush's moral certainty excuses immoral activity. Some could compare it to bin Laden's moral certainty that calls for innocent slaughter. Committing crimes in the name of God doesn't make it less wrong.
I live outside the US. Don't I get to see what useless cack they want to pump out? A more important question, what are they afraid of? Oh, yeah. The World.
From then article: "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam"
Words fail me.
Hello! There are already 648 comments on this article. How on earth could you think it isn't news?
Hint to those whose mothers dropped them on their heads when they were very little: it is not necessary for something to be wrong for it to be news.
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
..to make it easier to remember for people outside the US to get to the site without having to remember the IP of georgewbush.com
Alas, they are all the same ones who will vote for him this time!
Maybe a Lee Harvey Oswald will save us.
As entitled as you are to your opinions, statements like that get you a visit from the Secret Service regardless of who is president.
http://theinquirer.net/?article=19301 :) Nice to know that /. does research before it posts things like this.
But that's just speculation on my part
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
That US politics is moving toward world politics. Bush can't win international support for the US presidency, but the fact that there is a general world opinion about him means that the position of the US president is becoming an international position.
/. - sonow I would like to know how we move toward a reasonable international body. I know the UN is out there, but I'm guessing their 'marketing' and such are not so well developed, as I have met few who had anything more than a curcory understanding of it.
I can see both sides of the arguements made here on
.
-shpoffo
hahah European bigotry? um have you looked at your own country? talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Good greif, get a life your only an American get off your high horse.
when in doubt press enter and we'll figure it out later..
All that post does is show why conservitive scum must die.
That is all.
The USA is a sham "democracy". It is a country where you get to choose any president you want, so long as he is a rich right wing white guy. Yeah, I'll keep throwing my vote away by voting for a third party candidate, like it will make any difference.
Forgive me if I'm redundant, there's a lot of crap to filter through here. Dubya blocks his own site. So what's the problem. Who's complaining? Undecided people abroad won't get some info they need to vote for him. But his own organization did it. But ... but ... but ... who ... who ... cares?
Do you seriously think that Bush doesn't have support from the people of the US?
;) )
Oh, Bush certainly has support from the people of the United States.
Just not the majority. (Cue rant about the Electoral College, and their lack of a good football team.
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
I totally agree, plus I don't know why anyone outside the US should give a rats ass. I sure don't
when in doubt press enter and we'll figure it out later..
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
INCLUDING all of the people killed by the US action on your precious iraqbodycount.net, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, WHEN COMPARED WITH the lives lost each year under sanctions.
And something else important to note is that the U.S. never bought/used Iraqi oil. I believe Russia was the biggest consumer.
You wouldn't happen to HATE AMERICA, "moronikos", would you? Why do you hate America?
--
make install -not war
That last one really get me. How can you even watch Fox News and come up with that?
Oh yeah, there's an interview at the end of "To the Point" with the director, Steve Kull.
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Anyone care to guess how many "temporary proxies" will go up between now and election day so people overseas can see what Bush is really up to?
This may have been a good financial decision, but it's a lousy political one. It just invites "what do you have to hide" backlash.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
To be fair, you ought to read this as well:
Election determines fate of nation
Published in the Daily Record on Oct. 6
By Mathew Manweller
Due to the high demand for this column, the Daily Record has decided to post it online. It is normally not the paper's policy to post opinion columns or editorials online. This column will remain on the site until Oct. 27. Should you want to purchase a print copy of it, please call (509) 925-1414. This content is owned by the Daily Record.
In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.
This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence.
Down the other lies a nation that is aware of it's past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations.
The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from whom we are.
Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well-learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.
It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great depression and hardened in the fire of W.W. II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.
This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment Ameri
Yeah, Too many hackers from outside the U.S. were trying to take that propaganda machine -www.georgewbush.com - down.
http://65.172.163.222/
summoning the daemons of slashdot...
I wonder how'd you feel if the Chinese now decided to 'free' the US. Your religion is not correct, by their views. Your democracy is not correct, by their views. Your set of freedoms is also not correct, by their views.
Bush supporters (and Bush himself) don't realize the greatest error in the Iraq war was this one. The US could have built a post-cold war international law effort (as father Bush and Clinton were doing), and instead behaved like any dictator: Made up an excuse and invaded.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Who the hell is saying that foreigners should be able to vote in the election? Give me a link to a comment saying that (which is NOT obviously written by a nutcase or troll), or shut the fuck up.
A government's obligations (in *any* nation) are only to its own citizens. No one else. Don't like it? Migrate off planet earth
Ahh yes, the "Like it or Leave it" comeback. The most disgusting, anti-Democratic sentiment that can be expressed in so few words. It demonstrates that you are actively opposed to the advancement of the human race, the betterment of society, etc. "If things are screwed up, well, tough. If you don't like it, why not just kill yourself?"
You are a fascist.
You can just use a public proxy server in the US and get into the site fine.
At least he wasn't dishonorably discharged after starting a string of purple hearts with a self inflicted wound and having his superiors point out an obscure regulation and asking him to apply for reassignment.
Bush may not be great...but Kerry is absolutely worse for the US no matter how much the rest of the world may prefer him.
I note the Kerry supporters like to ask questions without providing the answers in order to make you assume the worst...
It is established fact that Kerry's "honorable" discharge came from a review board. This is not normal. It is possible he had an administrative separation, but more likely (I admit I don't know - because he won't release his records either) that it was a less-than-honorable discharge.
His doctor has stated that his first "injury" came from a fragment that was (barely) lodged in his skin and removed with tweezers (forceps), no anesthetic, and was patched with a bandaid (yeah, he had a boo-boo. Reminds me of Frank Burns in mash when he put in for a purple heart because he got a "shell fragment" in his eye - it was an eggshell fragment.).
An honorable man would not have accepted a purple heart for this.
Frankly, the fact that Europe (and, unrelated, the terrorists) supports Kerry is one more reason for me to vote for anyone-but-Kerry.
Should we have gone into Iraq? Maybe not. By the same token, maybe (in some cases, definitely) the US shouldn't have gone into Yugoslavia, Somalia, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Korea, WW1 and maybe even the euro theater of WW2. _All_ of which came under Democrat US presidents. Notwithstanding whether we should have or not, I believe the world is a better place because we DID get involved in all of the above (except the bay of pigs. That was beyond stupid) - including Iraq.
For what it's worth, I haven't always held the views I do now. I grew up spoon fed the liberal line in school and believed it...until I hit the real world after school was over, and my eyes were opened.
There are things I strongly disagree with the Republican party on...stem cell research and abortion to name a couple. However, my disagreement with the left runs far deeper.
Funny, I know several American Servicemen on the ground in Iraq and to a man they say things are better. You won't believe that of course, but it's true none the less.
Compared to who? Kerry? Why do you support Al Qaeda?
nohup wget -o bush.out --cache=off --mirror --follow-ftp -t inf www.georgewbush.com &
An American that believes in Free and Anonymous Speech, and a Patriot against The Patriot Act!
I Blame George.... George Soros.
the war on drugs is wrong!
Not that Kerry isn't a tool, but that kind of statement is just BS. Here's a sampling of propaganda from his campaign site:
sourcesource source
Sounds like he's really pro-communist, pro-terrorist, pro-palestinian. right. Sure it's campaign fodder, but there is no way in hell any of the three people you just mentioned have any love for Kerry.
I'll give you that Arafat probably wants to see Kerry elected, as Bush has embraced Sharon like no other US leader. Maybe even Castro, though I don't see why - he doesn't have any better history dealing with Democrats than with Republicans. I'd bet Zarqawi (who is not a "world leader" by the way, just a two-bit terrorist the Bush administration has hyped up to all hell) wants Bush to win so he can get more recruits.
Anyway, the Mullahs in Iran have endorsed Bush. Guess they recognize their own kind when they see it.
The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from whom we are.
a difficult, yet unpopular decision isn't necessarily a right decision.
Thank you.
I have my hands over my ears and I'm screaming. I can't hear you I can't hear you I can't hear you
The US invaded and took over Afghanistan. Regardless of if it was a good idea, justified, etc, the US did it and basically took control. Thus the US does have a say, the final say really, in their elections. The US could, if they wanted, wimply instate a dictatorship. Now I'm not saying any of this would be a good idea, or allowable under international law, but the fact of the matter is they could.
Europeans, however, have no direct control over the US elections. They can try and influence their friends in the US to vote a certian way, but they can't vote, and they certianly don't have any direct control via military means or anything like that.
While you can argue that the US SHOULN'T ahve any control in Afghanistan, it's hard to argue that they DON'T.
Troll? Ok - I guess others can quote bumper stickers without any issues.
But I go ahead and quote my open source stickers and get flagged as a troll.
Sigh.
Just how many countries do you claim citizenship in?
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
If the taliban is still in control then how can they be growing poppy?
Why bother with W's IP? In the future, you'll be able to track him by his RFID tag!
What about the American Citizens who live outside of the United States? Why should they not be allowed to view Bush's campaign site? What about the soldiers in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Korea?
More votes for the opponents, I guess . . .
BTW, this info came by way of the American popular press.
What about freedom of speech? Press? Religion?
You do know that a fair number of Bush's so-called base (to which he panders constantly) want to knock down the barrier between church and state? This isn't just some whack-job...it's the Texas GOP platform, which includes other goodies, such as invading Panama to retake the canal (because it seems that 6 years ago, a Chinese firm was interested in a management contract, though this was turned down), abolishing the teaching of any kind of evolutionary theory in public schools, and much, much more.
I'd honestly prefer the following freedoms:
The freedom to get the health care I need at a reasonable cost
The freedom to retire
The freedom from having to worry about paying through the nose for a good education for my children (good private schools are the exception, not the rule--I don't want to send my kids to school to be taught about Jesus...I'll send them to church for that)
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
So you polled 1000 of your closest friends? The Saudis and Iranians are both backing Bush, who's backing them in terrorizing the American people. Welcome to their club!
--
make install -not war
Yeah you go.... ...of course you dont need to have any obligation to any other country, especially not your ALLIES. No allies are there to blaim when your plans dont work.
GET A LIFE AC
[Ac 'cause some modd will be stoopid]
I've seen more accurate counting in preschool classroom. IMO someone fucked you. BTW, your post was bang on and desires a 5, Insightful.
You are either an unfortunate sucker, a subtle humorist, or a pointless troll.
The Internet was not invented by any one person, and it happened without Senator Gore's participation.
Here's a timeline. The script can be slow for some reason (probably related to a recent IP change), so be patient.
The Internet started in 1969, when Gore was a senior at Harvard. He wasn't involved in the ARPANet project. By the time he got to Congress in 1977, it already had over 100 hosts at dozens of sites, and was already showing exponential growth.
Gore supported the technology when he got to Congress, especially in the Senate in the early 90's. Claiming he invented it is just a lie. Claiming he funded its invention is also a lie. Claiming to fund its growth is semantically null; nothing could have stopped it. He was just grandstanding, and doing it so badly it became a joke.
sigs, as if you care.
You may not realize this, or you may just be using your "faith" to ignore painful realities. But a vote for Bush is a vote for another 9-11. It's a vote for strengthening alQaeda, and for making us less safe.
Why do you support alQaeda, moronikos? Does it have something to do with your poorly chosen but totally apt moniker?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
that was low (even by my standards.) Must be all of the political ads from both candidates/parties that are on the Radio/TV/Web every time I turn around doing the same. I have to admit that when I pressed submit I couldn't help but think "gosh. that was so much easier than spending the time to come up with an argument." I'll be glad when all the campaigning is over so we can start arguing about other things (think recount).
Time to change the server name. Maybe usw.georgebush.com might be more appropriate?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Well, since everyone outside the US are terrorists it stands to reason that he wouldn't want them getting their dirty hands on his infoz.
Thing is you're comparing apples to oranges. Iraq body count only counts casualties from sources that
It doesn't count anyone who starved to death, didn't get medicine, those who died and were not reported, etc. The sanctions-related death count is an estimate including everything related to the sanctions. Iraqbodycount.net ignores indirect casualties of the war.Though I would like to say you had a very good point earlier in the thread about the sanctions themselves - why do people think the war was wrong and the sanctions were o.k.? Them being internationaly approved didn't mean much to the Iraqis they killed.
What's the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind. -Zappa
And requires schools to turn over the complete school record of any student to any US Military recruiter upon demand.
Fuck bush. I am truly embarassed to be an american. I've already started to make plans to move to Canada (scored 98 on their test!) if he is reelected.
I'm French (and patriotic) and I hope Bush will win. And I read that Al Qaeda "leaders" also want Bush to win (source : aljazeera).
Bush is screwing up big time. In only four years, he had made wonders. Now, everyone hates Americans, which is good news for people like me who want the US out of their lives. People are now asking their government to give the finger to the US and are beginning to buy local products instead of supporting US companies. As for Al Qaeda, you can be pretty sure that as long as Bush will be in power, they won't have any problem to recruit new people. I wouldn't be surprised if there was now a waiting list to be a member of Al Qaeda.
4 more years of Bush and the US will be in a shape so bad it will lose most of its influence over the rest of the world. The US dollar is already falling like a rock (3 years ago the canadian dollar was at $0.62 american now it's at $0.81 and still rising). The US depends more than any other country on oil and I'm sure I don't have to remind you the price of oil right now (altough I guess some friends of Bush in Texas are quite happy with a high price). I could go on and talk about debt, outsourcing or other subjects but I guess you already know them.
Anyway, please, vote for Bush.
BTW, this is not reverse psychology. It's obvious you're a moron and the more fear and anger you'll have, the more you'll be a Bush supporter (and yes the insult is to piss you off even more).
I assume, and hope to god, USA military sites accross the globe still have access. I can understand filtering traffic, i.e. attacks from foreign domains, but I sure hope american soldiers can still get there.
Although, as I'm thinking about this as I type, what about Americans currently in foreign countries? Students studing abroad? Vacationers? This is odd.
"The freedom to get the health care I need at a reasonable cost"
So you think you have the right to low cost health care at the expense of doctors and people who make more money than you?
"The freedom to retire?"
Good luck. Social security will not fund a retirement. Kerry's policy is a joke.
You have this absurd belief that you can claim a freedom at someone elses expense. That's called slavery.
Parent is informative, not to mention insightful. I'm not surprised that conservatives abuse the moderation system, I'm just confused as to why they keep getting mod points. Maybe republicans are leeter than I thought?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
well said
Transistors and Beer!!
if you really must view it outside US http://www.the-cloak.com/
------ you'd think so wouldn't you ?
and as long as we continue to have (somewhat) open borders, the NKs (or people paid/allied with them) can come over and use US computers to DDoS W's website. The 9/11 people had valid ID - there is no reason to expect that a foreign gov't with malevolent intent for our election couldn't get a few people into the US to nuke his website.
Denying access to W's website from abroad might be likely to protect against spammer-type attacks from abroad, but it isn't an effective defense against gov't-sanctioned attacks on his website.
Really...I don't see much difference between them...except I truly think JK will raise my taxes. I'm not rich, but, I don't see anyway he can do what he says without hitting me for more taxes...
So...I think possibly that's where a lot of GB's support comes from...hell, probably many of JK's support is the same too...lesser of two evils...with only one or two issues to swing you one way or the other.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That drill sound familiar. Didn't we have something like this in europe a few decades ago...?
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
Yes, that's basically it.
Exactly. That's why we shouldn't be the world's policeman. We're just another kid on the playground and, hold your breath: there is no teacher.
If the U.S. acts like a playground bully, to continue the analogy, then the other kids will eventually gang up and put a stop to it. I'm not advocating we act like a bully.
If instead we look around the playground for people ready to throw rocks our way, why would the other kids care if we pummel the rock-throwers and take away the rocks?
sigs, as if you care.
the biggest difference between european and u.s.-american poltics is religion.
just today, the european parliament rejected the whole new eu-commission (the european administration) because one of the new secretaries is close to the pope, ultra-conservative and believes that homosexuality is bad).
i am very proud of the european parliament that they rejected this guy. i so much prefer living in a non-religious country/continent. i wouldn't wanna be ruled by a guy called bush, who reads nothing but the bible and frequently ponders his religiousness. disgusting...
I don't think what you said is true, so much as the majority of people in the US don't CARE who other country's want to be come the next US president. I know we don't generally care who is elected in other countries, and even if we do..we know it isn't our business who they elect for themselves. I'm sure a lot of countries have a favorite to win our election..but, it isn't any of their business who we, like other sovereign countries, elect as our country's leader.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The funniest instance I've found of this phenomenon is the website for the Denver, Colorado city government.
Instead of the no-brainer www.denver.gov they use www.denvergov.com and www.denvergov.org.
No, really.
One: Marx, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin is years ago, not 2004. :Marx, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin is not representative of Europe.
Two
Three: Horrors of Marx?. Read his fucking works first. Read the history first.
never mind, lets use your logic.
Given that the USA idea of democracy is a nasty concept of "enforcing democracy*", this is a sensible move to assinate Bush. Coming from the same country that gave the world the horrors of hypocrisy on slavery, hypocrisy on womens rights, hypocrisy on racial equality, the ONLY country to use an atomic bomb bla bla bla..
Unable to deal with adversity? Quite funny coming from a country populated with the most obese people in the world, astounding lack of literacy, the dumbest person in the world leading them,bla bla bla.
You really think the US population is able to deal with adversity?. Sure, if adversity is a 3 pound hot dog.
I'd won't be worried to bet France and German will continue to be a superpower even when USA is not.
I won't comment on the rest of ur comments. I don't know much about them. I'd wager, they are as stupid as your other comments though.
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
"If Bush "wins" again, I'm moving to Canada."
If every liberal weenie who said that actually would do it we would be so much better off.
I tell you what, I will even pay for your plane ticket. You just need to live there for 20 years. Let me know: email me at tocanada30@hotmail.com
Show me one case where any freedom of speech, press, or religion was denied in the U.S.
The freedom to get the health care I need at a reasonable cost
Unfortunately, that's neither a freedom nor a right. That's like saying I want the freedom to by a Mercedes for the price of a Honda.
You can retire right now. You may have to live in a box. But that's another thing you want the big government to take of... it's YOUR responsibility, which is why it SHOULD BE our right to decide how we save for retirement.
W.r.t. education; in fact, I don't want public schools to end, I want them to improve, but I also want freedom of choice. You want freedom to leech off of everyone elses hard work.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Oooh CENSORSHIP....oooh... Bush hates the world!
/.er's and John Kerry like to point out how much everyone around the world hates GWB, then how unreasonable is it for the Bush campaign to block their ability to even access his site?
Or, it could be just to pre-empt the general asshattery and shenanigans that we've all come to expect from the unwashed good-for-nothing leftists across the world.
Let's look: how did the "I don't have a job so I'm going to throw bricks instead" demographic behave at the last few WTO conferences?
Since
People who support GWB will understand, and people who oppose him are unwelcome there anyway. For the 0.0001% of true 'undecideds' out there, I hope they're bright enough to get their political information from some other sources than the candidates' websites.
In any case, I still have my login to the vastrightwingconsipracy.org, so I can still get my marching orders and think in lockstep with all the other Right Wing nutjobs, can't I?
-Styopa
It's a pitty only his website is blocked at the border. It would be a much safer world if his policies were blocked there too ;-)
That's true, though he doesn't seem to acknowledge that fact. When Americans continually talk about the POTUS being the Leader of the Free World, how can they not expect the free world to voice their opionions of their so-called leader?
How many of the people bitching about this actually went to that site before this article came out? Why do they suddenly care? Because it gives them a reason to bitch about Bush some more and pretend that he's "ignoring the rest of the world."
This wasn't a bad move really. Hackers took a shot at the RNC website when that was going on, what makes anyone think they won't try something like that again, or haven't been doing so for some time? If you're really that obsessed with seeing the site, then go see it next week. You have no influence on the election if you don't live in the US so your desire to see it is really just a desire to bitch about how you can't see it. If it came back online for those of you outside the US you'd just shrug and find something else to do, not go to the site.
The problem with much of the Slashdot crowd and much of the script kiddie hacker community is that deep down the reason they're really upset about this is because they want hackers to take over the site right before the election to try and influence the election. That's why they like Michael Moore's drivel and garbage like it. Those of you pretending to be upset have lost nothing and simply gained another reason to bitch. I'm sure the Republicans are crying over their loss of your support.
www.georgewbush.com was the subject of a DDOS attack today from ... readers of ./
SNAFU
Personally I think a google bomb is in order, who's up for it? flip flopper
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
John Kerry made a pledge to not raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. You've got two candidates who can win this thing. One, Pres. Bush, who has proven himself to be fundamentally dishonest, and one, Sen. Kerry, who has been straight with the American people and supported balanced budgets for the last twenty years. It's going to take some effort, but if you try, then you can stop just absorbing the Republican talking points, and get back in contact with reality again. Try it. You might start to really like it.
I can't believe how much you apparently grossly misunderstand this issue.
This is a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SITE for a POLITICAL CANDIDATE.
It is NOT a government site, and therefore has zero to do with "governments" being open, or the US being a "business".
This is not whitehouse.gov, or any other US government site.
I didn't say Bush was "running low on cash". But the whole site is one big advertisement, and they want to insure that eyes that can actually vote see it. In the week that remains before the end of the election, the've even gotten Akamai on board. There is no reason to waste money on paying Akamai to serve non-US customers with a non-governmental political campaign site.
And Ralph Nader's site probably will get the same amount of traffic, in sum total, than Bush's site gets in a day, or likely even a matter of hours. So that argument is also BS.
When they arrive on an airplane to visit, he takes them aside and fingerprints them like criminals. In his debate, he suggested that their low-priced prescription medications would 'kill ya.' Now, he is blocking them from reading his website. He needs to get out more. There's an entire world beyond those Texas borders, Mr. President, that we need to get along with. We all share the same little planet, after all.
I'm not sure where you obtained that bit of information from, but the Vatican did nothing of sort:
Bush-Kerry: For the Vatican, the Odds Are Even
Quite the contrary, there is a bit of controversy surrounding an "unofficial" response from Vatican officials to the question of Kerry being guilty of heresy:
About that Kerry Excommunication Thing
- pel
Pres. Bush argues that his Administration's policies (particularly the foreign policies, but presumably the domestic ones as well) are intended to strengthen the cause of freedom and democracy in the world. While the people abroad shouldn't choose our President, they are an important part of W's policies abroad - democracy doesn't work with slaves or droids, only with people capable of thinking and choosing for themselves. Since W needs their help to make this happen, shutting them out from information on his intentions, motivation, and means doesn't exactly help to convince others in the world that we view them as people rather than as objects of our will or that he has their best interests at heart. Since the "go it alone" plan is probably not going to be effective on a larger scale than the at which is currently employed (one might argue it isn't effective now...), W needs the help of the world to make his goals reality. Shutting them out only tells them that they don't matter, in opposition to W's stated goals and to the interests of those whose help he needs.
So, while non-US citizens are irrelevant to who is elected President, they aren't irrelevant to how he fares if he is reelected, or whether his goals are actually achieved. If W believes what he says, their opinions do matter, because if they don't, his goals are either lies or doomed to failure (or both).
Some people are able to look at more than one issue when choosing a candidate for the presidency. I can understand if it is a hot enough issue for you personally that it completely turns you off of the guy (and consequently his entire political party) but for others it may not be quite so important as to make their entire decision for them.
Sounds like you made this crap up. Got any sources? A search on that site as well as Google didn't match anything regarding your tax claim or the 10 years thing.
Site is fully accessible through its IP
"It would be wrong to refuse to face the fact that everything is fundamentally sick and sad."
Sure, people outside the US don't have the right to vote in the US, just as US Americans don't have the right to vote in other countries. But I'd say considering that the USA is a very important country in the world (among other things THE major military power), it is quite natural that many people actually have a strong interest in the US elections. People worry about which countries have access to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Why shouldn't they worry about which *government* has the power in a country with access to all of that?
...the idiot is the one who modded that flamebait insightful. Naturally one who refers to an entire party as "morons" and "neocons" (whatever the fuck that is) couldn't possibly be biased.
It is simply the right to life. Or does the right to life stop after birth?
Do I think it should be the government's responsibility to pay for my retirement? No, but I do expect them to make sure that it's possible for me to retire. Social Security is dead, I'll admit that. It was okay for the Depression, but it's a dinosaur now. However, Medicare is still quite needed, as most HMOs don't cater to individuals when trying to get insurance, because there's no profit in individual contracts, especially for the elderly, who have a limited income and high health care bills. It goes back to my right to life argument.
Re: Education: Vouchers will draw funding from public schools, unless the money comes from some other source. As for freedom of choice, my recommendation would be an Iowa-like system, where you can choose which school district you wish to send your child to, as long as you provide the transportation if it's not the one that you live in. That would foster the same competition, yet not drain money from public schools.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
There is an Internet2, in case you didn't know.
i'm not able to see bush site. well... THANKS
guess what might happen to your brain if someone spoof a link to there. one goatse.cx is enough already
Show me one case where any freedom of speech, press, or religion was denied in the U.S.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
Perhaps you could have phrased your question better?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm guessing it's a paranoid move to prevent any possible DDOS attacks from ... well anywhere outside the US.
There's been a reasonable amount of US election coverage in the UK so far, hence why the BBC have picked this up already.
That's the sweet smell of capitalism in the morning, my friend. :)
So what? Kerry lies, what makes you think that is anything more than campaign smoke? When was Kerry straight with the American people? When he lied about Bushs service record? When he lied about missing weapons in Iraq? When he lied about voting for the war, before he voted against the war? When he lied about throwing away his medals? When he either lied about atrocities in Vietnam or didn't report them as an officer should? When he lied about being a hunter? When he lied about supporting gun rights? When he lied about balancing the budget, which the REPUBLICAN house did, not Kerry?
Kerry will say anything to get elected - period.
I agree that Kerry is WAY less than ideal as a president. In fact, the ONLY reason I am voting for him is to stop Bush. I resent that I have to vote for Kerry, but my conscience will not let me vote any other way.
Bush is a man of words, and a man of action. Unfortunately, his words and his actions seldom have anything in common.
Bush's decisions, over and over again, have been made by his ideology IN SPITE OF the evidence at hand, evidence given by his own experts.
Over and over again the FBI and the CIA begged the Bush administration to pay attention to the massive amount of chatter and the repeated discoveries of terrorists learning to fly 747's with no desire to learn how to land.
The fact that we were so caught with our pants down on 9/11 is completely Bush's fault. He created an environment full of informed experts, and refused to listen to them. His top leaders actually asked people to stop reporting to them about all the chatter and evidence that a strike was EMINENT.
Kerry is bad, Bush is WAY, WAY worse. He has proven it time and time again by his actions, in spite of his words.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
We don't need to give a fuck to what anyone says. We just need to pay attention to what the folks in power DO. Like give big $$$ in tax cut to the richest (are you one of them?), point our biggest gun at the wrong target, run up the biggest deficits ever, let shit happen like Abu Gareb Prisons, Al Ka Ka missing explosives, letting poor Iraqies that work for us get executed on the side of the road, START A WAR WHEN THERE WERE NO WMD, etc. SHALL I GO ON?
The sooner we get rid of president DumbAss the better.
Well, I've been catching bits on the news (I try to watch them all, CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC...etc)...that seem to cast some doubt on this pledge of JK. This one quote "The $200,000 figure was plucked out of the air, maybe because polls found that most Americans thought that $200,000 was reasonably rich enough to tax," he said. "But there are a lot of dual-income families in high-cost urban areas throughout America, mostly in the [Democrat-leaning] blue states, who believe they are middle class but who will be hit by these higher rates." It is an interesting article...one of many to be found out there. While I'd say I lean conservative on many issues...they are mostly fiscal...and socially (like abortion rights) I'm slighly liberal. I vote for who I think supports my views the best, I don't care which party they are with. I support no party. I don't believe that GB has lied to the US about anything...certainly no proof. While I do think we were justified in going into Iraq for many reasons other than WMD, I don't beleive he lied...I do believe he acted on faulty intelligence and made decisions based on that. Most of the world for years had the same intelligence and believed it. right or wrong...Bush does seem to stick to his guns on issues...and agree or not, you can see what he stands for. Kerry...I don't see this. Right or wrong, I'd wish he'd pick an issue and stick with it. He seemed quite the pro-war candidate...till he started getting beat by Howard Dean...and changed his tune to win the primary's. Trouble is...he's having to stick with that somewhat in the main election...but is still trying to find wiggle room.
While I don't like the size of the deficit we have...I understand part of it comes from war expenses...and recession. I don't like the fact that GB hasn't seen a spending bill he didn't like. I want more govt. cuts...
I just have to disagree...I don't think Kerry is a straight up person. I think he will say and do anything based on the audience he is with. If I perceived he was more honest and would express his opinions on issues and stick to them...I'd be more apt to listen to him and possibly vote that way. He does have issues I like, (increased fed stem cell $'s, cut tax cred. for outsourcing)..etc.
It is still awhile till Nov. 2....but, at this point...I'm still leaning with Bush as the lesser of two evils...and the main tipping point is taxes. I not only want to keep the cuts...I want more. I don't like the wealth redistribution system the tax system is today. And Bush did indicate he not only want to cut taxes...but, to greatly simplifiy the tax code.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You could have your oil deals with Saddam back and he could use your food-for-oil money to buy more arms. That would be sweet.
Cue rant about the Electoral College, and their lack of a good football team
;-)
Well the Electoral College thing is debatable, but if you mean the national team, it led England in the FIFA rankings for a good part of the last year or so, and it still leads Germany. You may argue that the rankings are no exact measure of how good the teams are, but you have to admit the top 15 or so have to at least be considered 'good' teams.
-Chris (one of the 10 U.S. Soccer fans
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
It would be nice to not give a shit about other countries and focus on the well-being of our citizens.
Build up the star wars defense network... funnel money into it to make it reliable... work on our defenses at the expense of giving a shit outside the country.
I'm tired of having the governemtn take my money and give it to you foriegn fuckers only to have you bitch and moan about the US.
Two words for you: Fuck you.
Thank you, drive through.
He hears dissenting views from some of his advisors on a regular basis, he just doesn't listen. Those advisors are generally asked to resign or are transferred to another post if they keep it up though.
The key point is that it doesn't matter what people say, his path is that of Christian Rightiousness and if he ever has a doubt he merely needs to ask God for guidance. No messing around with memos and reports. Once he knows his path, he can have the reports of those who agree with him combined into a strategic plan.
Sort of like Bill Cosby and the Angel (*Prang* You are well, go out and play!) who told him he was well after being too sick to go to school. He knew his mom had to belive the angel. If your a good Christian, you'll belive in GWB, because he takes his orders from the same god that you do.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Show me one case where any freedom of speech, press, or religion was denied in the U.S.
Well, American and foreign prisioners are being held at Guantanamo bay without charge or trial. The press are being granted only very limited access to the goings-on there. And one of the persuasion methods being employed there is to prevent detainees from practicing their normal religious duties.
This site will never be blocked! Uh... unless the two sides of the one major party decide that it's a threat... "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost" - John Adams
Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill.
Sounds somewhat like the Nazis with their "arien superrace", if you ask me... what happened to "all are equal" as beeing the base of democracy?
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
Because of this article...
Just how comes there are so many of them left? Uh .. no .. wait .. it is where all the WMDs went, right?
The U.N. knew the location of, and was keeping tabs on, those hundreds of tons of high explosives. The knew right where they were, and exactly how much, and had pictures of them. Ditto the WMD manufacturing precursors ("dual use") that were reported several weeks back.
The U.S. invasion led directly to such chaos that all of this stuff was able to be trucked out. As you say, moving this stuff requires a massive effort. It's amazing the amount of incompetence and understaffing that had to be going on that this could happen. Even with full knowledge of the exact location and inventory of all sensitive materials before the invasion had even begun, they still couldn't keep the bad guys from hauling off truck after truck full of stuff. Hell, in the case of the WMD manufacturing, they even dismantled and took off with the buildings!
Before the invasion: a very bad guy had lots of conventional explosives, and was wishing for WMDs but probably wouldn't have been able to get them unless the sanctions were lifted (per the inspection group). He was an egomaniacal dictator, hated in the region, and jealously guarded what he had. It is not apparent that he would have sold his stuff to others. He was a bad guy, but was not a direct or apparently indirect threat to the U.S.
After the invasion: it's almost certain that a large chunk of the stuff we went to war so that Saddam wouldn't sell it to the terrorists is, well, in the hands of the terrorists.
I personally believe that this is NOT the fault of the troops, who did the best they could; it was the fault of the administration only seeing what they wanted to see, ignoring intelligence, estimates and requests they didn't like, and George W. "we're not going to have any casualties" Bush trying to do the job on the cheap because he thought he could get away with it.
Thus, as a direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there are now hundreds of tons of high explosives, plus entire buildings full of specialized WMD manufacturing machinery and tools in the hands of we know not who.
Feel safer?
If you are right about the US populace not caring about leaders outside our borders (and I suspect that you are -- partially) then its yet another example of the idiocy of our populace.
Maybe we should have thought a little when we backed the Shaw if Iran and backed Saddam. Our foreign relations have been a mess for years and Bush just keeps the same thing moving ahead.
Break the cycle of poor planning and ideas, VOTE KERRY
This tells me that George Bush is so morally confident of himself, what he's doing, and his chances for re-election, that he doesn't want his actions observed by the rest of the world.
We all know why George doesn't want the rest of the planet to be able to see what he does...it's the same reason why he doesn't want ANYBODY anywhere to be able to see it. He doesn't want to be accountable to anyone...and think about it...if a person is *really* confident that they're doing the right thing, you would think that they wouldn't have a problem with explaining/justifying it to anybody who asked, because they'd know that they'd be able to. The only real reason that I can think of for a person wanting to keep themselves and their activities secret is because deep down they know they're doing something wrong.
I normally refrain from starkly dualistic labelling, but George W Bush meets my own personal definition of an evil man...and I believe that deep down, in the quietness of his own mind, *he* knows he is, too.
Is it me, or does the picture on the main page "whatever it takes" look extremley photoshopped? Like not just a "oh, that is nice" kind of photoshop, but a "my god, that looks totally fake kind of photoshopped...
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
It took me all of two seconds to view the site from the UK.
...
http://www.georgewbush.com.nyud.net:8090/
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
You sound like a fanatic
"Falacious" has too positive a sounding word for the content of your statements here, so I'll stick with the ever reliable "bullshit."
o taft1st_010600.html)
r _action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawk s
A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.
"The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003)."
(Feel free to argue the bias of the source, I'll find another: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/ab
STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT, but propaganda-wise it's a goldmine. Your graphic description is just an emotional ploy, totally unrelated to the actual facts of the debate. However, this seems to be a successful trend with the current administration, so I can't fault you for jumping on the rhetorical bandwagon.
Let's face it, the fundamental issue is when someone becomes a person. Since there is a fair percentage of us who don't buy the bible's explanation, and some others who don't buy the doctor's explanation ('cause you know, they're only doctors), we have to discuss it in the middle. The plan that the anti-abortion team has is to get anything they can into law that talks about the life of the fetus near the edge of the current grey area so that they have a beachhead to argue from. Same argument as killing a pregnant mother counting as a double murder. Certainly not supported by current abortion law, but they figure if they can sneak it into criminal law they can work it around eventually.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
B) Ok, the Kerry thing has to be just trolling but I'll bite.
First, no one can deny that the situation in Iraq after the invasion is totally borked, most especially the total lack of international support.
Second, no one can deny that John Kerry's military service, whatever it is, is orders of magnitude more real than George Bush's, whatever it is. The guy actually carried a gun and shot people he could see. I'm pretty certain that gives a person important perspective on the concept of war.
The current administration is so full of chickenhawks they had to build a database to hold them. http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?use
C) Here's the most important thing you're missing. Iraq and abortion aren't that important issues in my mind. A president who consistently lies to the American public about important issues (jizz in the oval office being a not-important issue, for instance), and who surrounds himself with people who do the same, is not qualified for the job. People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy.
Hey, this is my first angry slashdot post! Now where's my ribbon?
dea9
Try talking to soliders in Iraq, who support Bush at least 3 to 1. Things in Iraq are nowhere near as bad as they were a year ago, or two or 10. The only ones claiming they are worse are people who benifited by Saddams dictatorship and the subversion of the UN.
I'm a Republican, and I haven't been to church since my parents forced me to go when I was a little kid, way back in 1991. I vote Republican for one big reason - Democrats are big cry babies. They proved that with the 2000 election. I'm not one of these guys that votes down party lines, though. For example, I'm supporting the Democratic candidate for Mayor Parish-President, because the Republican just can't get results.
And I suspect that even if Jesus Christ came out of the sky escorted by angels playing harps and trumpets, and said "I support John Kerry", 50% of republicans would still say "bah, liberal messiah bias" and vote Bush anyway.
I love the little tounge-in-cheek reference to the liberal media bias. Believe me, its there. Anyways, if Jesus came back, he'd probably support Badnarik. ;-)
...but I do expect them to make sure that it's possible for me to retire.
How are they not making it possible now? I mean, that's a really loaded question... in the first part, I don't agree that it's the government's job to make sure it's possible for you to retire. In the second, you really need to qualify that... retire by what age? Under what conditions do you think you are able to retire?
Again, by letting people decide how to invest their retirement money, the government gives them freedom of choice. By insisting that they do so, they are creating the "safety net" that all the socialists whine about.
W.R.T. education, I like the Iowa idea, but there are two points I want to make: 1) vouchers take money away from school, but not on the same order as required output from the school. In otherwords, schools in my district spend around $9k/year per student. If I took a voucher instead (for say $5k/year), they'd have one less student to worry about and still have $4k left over. If one student leaves, it hurts a little, but in the balance there will be less burden on public schools and there will be MORE money per student to spend. Point 2) The same complaints the far left have about vouchers (only wealthy people will be able to take advantage) can be used against the Iowa system... only wealthy people with a) one working parent (the other can drive the children) or b) enough money to pay for alternate transportation can take advantage... it's the same argument I've heard the left whining about vouchers.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Doesn't the media do a good enough job of telling us how to think?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Just not the majority.
Right. And all the polls that show Bush ahead are ALL made up. He clearly has no support what so ever in the US. The polls by Time, Newsweek, NYT are all bought and paid for by the vast right wing conspiracy.
Clinton couldn't even get close to a majority vote, but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you.
I'm sorry, I didn't know those freedoms granted by the U.S. constitution carried over to foriegn combatants...
Besides, where is your censorship of the press? They can (and do) say anything they want about it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You misunderstand the arguments against the war. While there are many arguments for the removal of saddam, there are too many reasons not to go to war. Our military is overextended and besides there were better targets regardless.
Lastly, those 300 tons were likely looted after the invasion, don't let the right wing spin fool you. Wait, you're reading drudge, you already have been fooled. Seriously the man's a master of selective facts. The real story is that while the troops didn't see all the explosives they didn't search the vast compound either.
And if they discovered that there were no explosives there so long ago how come it took so long to report it? Condoleeza rice said she hadn't heard this till 12 days ago. Oh yeah, no one was on the ball during this war. That alone is a disgraceful shame. So, looted before the war or not, incompetence is still there.
Photos.
...why the #&%! should we even bother to look at that site anyway? Dontcha think we've had enough of that guy already?
Hmmm...
And do they also go as mute and solemn when you descibe the unbelievable terror that a Death Row inmate goes through for weeks leading up to thier execution? Do you also describe the ways in which they are gassed, injected, and until recently shot? Or is one kind of killing good and the other bad?
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
no my friend, i'm not ... i really like US, as i said, been there many times, and have many friends there ... take a look here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3640754.stm
I went to the website you link to and I saw no proof for terrorism link to Irak. Lie.
Human rights violation ? Ok, the US violates the human rights too with the Guantanamo camp. W should invade the US too.
The 350 tons of explosives didn't disappeared under the UN's nose but under the US's nose. They disappeared in April 2003. Check it now.
You are too stupid to admit that there are simply no WMDs in Irak despite that even GWB himself and his administration admitted this fact. I believe you are definitely lost.
Iraq: war to save the U
The summary of it is that Bush supporters haven't seen the world lately.
Yeah, because why drink W's kool-aid when there are so many other flavors that Kerry wants you to drink?
Wow. This is incredible. I cant believe that John Kerry didnt harp on this aspect.
I look at Bush & Cheney and see the epitome of the 'good-ol-boy' network. Back door deals, friends of Enron, Halliburton, & Suadi Arabia.
I find it hard to ignore that the 2 times we've been at war with Iraq, it's been with a Bush in office. The cost is still rising, another 70 billion just been asked for. With this kind of money, we could have searched every inch of Afganistan twice.
As far as taxes go, I have NEVER had a problem paying my taxes when the economy is great, and my paychecks roll in. There are more taxes to COLLECT when more people are working and spending.
Bush should have kept my $300 check. It pales in comparison to the bonus check we get on good years. The year I got a $300 check from Bush, not only did I get no bonus, we had to fire 100 people. It could have been me.
I'm not going to be able to change your mind. So I'll just point out again that I think people see what they want to see. I know during the debates, I sure did. Talked to some Republicans the next day who loved Bush's performance. !!?
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
I'd honestly prefer the following freedoms:
... by taxing others
... by taxing others
... by taxing others
The freedom to get the health care I need at a reasonable cost
The freedom to retire
The freedom from having to worry about paying through the nose for a good education for my children
Doesn't sound like freedom to me. Whatever happened to personal responsibility??
The freedom to get the health care I need at a reasonable cost
Jesue, I don't think I'd like to live somewhere that I don't have the right the health care I need at a resonable cost. Here in Ireland I have that right.
No matter how much I earn I am entitled to free healthcare. However, I also have the freedom to purchase health insurance (which gives me a private room rather than a public one, when in hospitals, and shorter waiting lists). For any Irish people out there: I'm not saying the health system works perfectly but at least we got the theory right!
Those tons of weapons went missing right out from under the Bush Administration's nose, you moron! In case you forgot, we left the UN out of our little obsession with invading Iraq. And that dreamops site you link is a great source of selective information filtered for the dittohead, but get real; there was no Iraq-alQaeda connection, there were no WMDs, and there was no threat to the US. Saddam was an evil thug who the world should be glad to be rid of, but the war has made al Qaeda stronger and the US more vulnerable. That is what we should be concerned with, not still gloating about the sight of a miserable old man climbing out of a hole in the ground.
it's the Maple Leaf State.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.geor gewbush.com
n kerry.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.joh
He is not saying that the christians should like Kerry. He is saying that the christian people should not like Bush.
There is a huge differance.
Now it becomes clear: Bush's debate gaffe (calling the net "Internets") wasn't a mistake because he didn't know there's only one; it was a mistake because he "let the cat out of the bag". This is just the first step in creating two Internets: the one "with US" and the one "agin' US".
Don't even get me started on the Iraq war. John Kerry should be thrown in jail for aiding the enemy.
This "insightful" comment is the reason I distrust Republicans and won't vote for Bush. Too many seem to equate reasonable dissent and constructive criticism with treason.
Every time I ask self-proclaimed democrats why they support abortion, they say they believe in a womans right to choose...
There are many here in the US without the hubris to proclaim that they know the mind of God and who do not wish to force their religous beliefs down the throats of others. Abortion is a difficult personal choice that only a woman and her own conscience can make. I find it particularly disturbing that the religious zelots on the right would outlaw late term abortions with no provision for protecting the life of the mother. By doing so, they will surely kill some women whose pregnancy has developed serious life threatening complications. It must truly feel rightous to have such moral clarity that you know that the fetus's life is always more important than the mother's.
FreeSpeech.org
"The U.N. knew the location of, and was keeping tabs on, those hundreds of tons of high explosives. The knew right where they were, and exactly how much, and had pictures of them. Ditto the WMD manufacturing precursors ("dual use") that were reported several weeks back."
What about 380 tons don't you understand? We're not talking something that can be done in a night. Or two nights. We're talking a major undertaking of logistsics. We're talkin at least 10-30 trailers worth of explosives. We're talking during a time when our airpower was romping all over the place bombing anything on the roads! Incompentant invasion? We were in Bahgdad in less than a month! The first unit US military unit came into contact with the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility April 10, 2003! Do you realize how much that strains the bounds of credibility????
Whatever. Any excuse will work.
*M872 US Military Semi-trailers can carry 34 tons
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Figures.....
The website solicits campaign donations. If it's accessible from overseas, one might argue that they're soliciting donations from foreigners. Perhaps they're concerned about the legal repercussions of that.
Your post is exactly my reasons for being against this war and Bush's policies. The crusade to "spread freedom to Iraq" only came about because there were no WMD found, and there was no terrorism reason to pre-emptively attack them in the first place. Bush just needed a diversion to get the American public's minds off the fact that bin Laden wasn't found, and figured that "Hey, no one likes that Saddam guy anyways and it should be an easy victory and make me popular". This is why he went ahead and attacked, because he needed this war to save face. Unfortunatly for him it did not turn out how he planned (which was partly due to poor planning and a weak understanding of that part of the world) and it blew up in his face.
Very few people would say that Iraq was a great place under Saddam and I am sure many of the Iraqi people are happy to not live in fear of his policies, though with the anarchy and fear of terrorism they might not say it is much better. I don't know, I'm not over there. The point is however that if the removal of dictators is now America's job and this war was entirely about freeing oppressed people, then we'd be in wars all over the world, and would never stop being the world's police force. One of Bush's campaign promises in the 2000 election was to not go into nation building, to not try to police the world. It was also a big theme that year that he was a uniter, not a divider, and yet he does such a great job uniting the world today... yeah.... And to think Republicans attack Kerry over flip-flops.
The problem with the cuts is that we simply can't afford them, especially not with Bush's increased spending.
That said, I find Bush to be incompetent, and find his extreme social conservatism frightening, especially considering the prospect of several Supreme Court justices retiring within the next four years.
I recommend reading conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Kerry for an endorsement of Kerry coming from a viewpoint similar to yours (Sullivan regards Kerry as the lesser of two evils).
Bush scares me. He's not particularly competent, and is ill equipped for dealing with adversity. I don't necessarily agree or believe everything that Kerry says, but I believe that he is a far more intelligent and capable individual.
Idealogically, I feel that taxes are inevitable and needed. The government needs funding, whether it needs to pay for wars on foreign soil, nation building, or social programs. Neither candidate is likely to reverse the fiscal problems (record deficits) within four years, but Kerry seems much more likely to take the problem seriously. (Bush already has a track record of not taking it seriously, as evidenced by the record budget deficits, whereas Kerry's senatorial record indicates that he is much more of a budget hawk - he has a significantly better understanding of budgetary issues than Dubya)
Most people aren't entirely satisfied with either candidate. However, in the long run, Kerry will prove to be the better choice for the good of the country. At the very least, I feel he is willing to acknowledge mistakes and change course to correct them. This is something that the incumbent seems constitutionally unable to do.
"You can take our lives, but you can never take our Flerbage!!!!"
be looking.
Kerry has no intentions of discontinuing the operations in Iraq
Of course he can't discontinue operations in Iraq. That would hurt America much more than staying in and correcting the situation. But having to stay in Iraq and fix what went wrong because your predecessor screwed up the situation in the first place is a very different thing. Bush hasn't shown that he will change what needs to be done so that the Iraq mess can be fixed. Kerry has to keep the US in Iraq but his approach to the occupation will be different. And again, let's not forget who created the mess in the first place.
repealing PATRIOT
Once again, who used 9-11 as excuse to create the Patriot Act? Which administration has since used the Patriot Act well beyond the scope of its original intent? I don't know if Kerry will repeal the Patriot Act or not but I doubt he will direct his attorney general to use it as often or abuse it.
fixing MediCare
I'm guessing you really mean the massive health care problems in this country. Kerry's health care plan would cover over half of those now without health insurance at a total cost of $600 billion because it allows people to BUY into the federal health care plan. Bush's medical savings account proposal would cost over $900 billion while insuring less than half of Kerry's plan and provide less protection.
Social Security
You're right that neither adequately address the looming Social Security problems. Kerry is essentially saying that there's nothing wrong now so lets wait until something does go wrong. Bush is trying to privatize SS without any real plan to pay for it. Both are bad.
etc.
Bush is trying to tear down the separation of church and state. Kerry would uphold the separation. That's a real and meaningful difference right there. Bush has been trying to appoint theocratic and neo-segegrationalists to the federal courts for his entire term.
Bush is trying to fight a war against a tactic (terrorism) without understanding what the reasons why those people resort that tactic. He has spent billions in the creation of another federal agency (Homeland Security) without making the nation any more secure. He has increased the federal deficit by hundreds of billions and added enormously to the federal debt through unnecessary tax cuts primarily to the very wealthy. (You might argue that Kerry is a tax and spend liberal but you'd be wrong. Kerry has stated that if their is no money to pay for his programs, they will be cut. That is certainly better than Bush's borrow and spend policies which will burden our kids with massive economic problems.)
Kerry's record and stated policies are certainly better than Bush's actual record. So while I agree that most non-USians only think they know more about the US than they do, they're not wrong to prefer Kerry in this instance.
You're actually trying to claim a moral equivilence between the death of someone who has been found guilty of taking life, and the death of an innocent fetus?
For the record, I don't agree with the death penalty these days, but not because people who murder others deserve to live, but because it's become to burdensome on the system - it's easier to just let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Yes, we should have just lobbed a few cruise missiles at Zarqawi. After all, we know how well that worked when we lobbed some at Osama after the embassy bombings in the 90s. Or was the article saying we should have sent troops into Iraq after Zarqawi sooner?
No thanks. Even though I'm a liberal I could still afford my own plane ticket - but I would drive anyway. I even have a willing sponsor. :oP
And you make it sound like 1) that I was joking and 2) that it's a radical idea.
They have more freedom than we do at this point. And after 4 more years of Bush who knows how bad the United Police States of America will be.
If you are not afraid you are not paying attention.
Clinton? attacked Iraq first on the very same premise of WMDs.
After this line, I just couldn't believe another word. The first Persian Gulf War was started by George H. W. Bush back in 1990 and '91, not by Clinton, and the reason was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
Learn your history. I mean, I know I was alive and socially aware at this time (I was in like 4th grade or something), so unless you're like eight years old, you have no right to be unaware of this history: you lived through it!
The previous sig has been removed due to
There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester.
;-).
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
I don't think grossing people out is necessary in the abortion debate. I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
I was totally incensed this past April or whenever when CNN had the Pro Choice march on. All these woman would come up to speak about the virtue of a Woman's Right to Choose(tm) and then they bring up their daughters and tell them how they're doing all this for THEM!!!! If given the microphone for a moment, most of them just said something along the lines of "go pro-choice!", I was waiting for one to say, "I'm glad mommy didn't abort me!".
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
As long as it's legal, I'd have to say it should be okay until they move out
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
I have three pillars for you too..
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and the Truth is a Lie.
The site crashes Mozilla 1.7.3, at least on my machine.
Anybody else?
Apparently there are at least 3 million Americans living overseas who can potentially vote in the upcoming election.
I wonder how they feel about not being able to access George W. Bush's web site?
Why is it religious zealots all the time? I'm not a religious zealot - I don't need god to tell me taking an innocent life is wrong.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I can see you've been completely brainwashed by Karl Rove and Fox News. Your above statement is an outright, vicious, republican lie.
They do not drill a hole in the baby's skull. They insert a pair of scissors, then open it to enlarge the hole.
I hope this will teach you not to swallow wingnut propaganda in the future!
Why would anyone want to visit Bush's website?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Sure... show me one case of freedom of speech, press, or religion was denied because of something Bush did.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
This from the same campaign that applies loyalty tests to people who want to hear the President speak in person. Not a Bush supporter? Go away.
Come on, use your brain. The same is true for any presidential candidate in modern history. There are a lot of freaks out there on both sides and it doesn't matter if your last name is Clinton, Gore, or Bush- you don't need one of those freaks showing up and yelling absurdities, setting themselves on fire, or worse. There are also a lot of people who would like to harm or kill an elected official or a candidate. Knowing this, I'm perfectly fine with "limited access". Unfortunately a few have ruined it and now it is just indicative of the world we live in.
Well Iran and Tony Blair endorse Bush.
I disagree with the crybaby thing on the basis that we swallowed the supreme court thing without nationwide riots. But I haven't walked a mile in your shoes and maybe the dems in your neck of the woods whine more than the ones I know.
I can barely follow the news over the past week because NPR and WMHT/PBS always put Bush before Kerry even though those are *supposed* to be the liberal outlets.
However, I am going to send out a big kudos, or a hug, or something to you, because reading your post didn't set off my "wtf" alarms. If the republican party were running its campaign along realistic lines maybe I wouldn't have to do anger control excersizes every night (not your fault, MrBrown).
You didn't go to bizarroville to get my blood up or harrass me just for chuckles. That puts you comfortably into the acquaintanceship zone for me..
Damn, I do ramble don't I? Basically I'm saying that: although I stand by what I have said in the past, I believe a discussion with a person like you would be more agreeable than with Rayonic or Cynic. Kind of like, no offense, I guess. But specifically to you, because you're firmly grounded in reality.
Wow, it's really complicated being nice to people who deserve it without encouraging the rest. Maybe I'm a simpleton trying to encourage cordial and mature relations across party lines. Meh... it seems right. dare I *Submit*?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Your point is irrelevant. This isn't a censorship issue or giving the world the finger, it's an economic question. Should the Bush campaign slow down their servers so international people can view their campaign ads (no one knows why) or, should they focus their bandwidth to help get their message to Americans?
This mornings WSJ, Wall Street Journal, had an article about how large numbers of American's living over-seas have not recieved their absentee ballots, also I just stumbled across this story about how even people living localy haven't recieved ballots.
My Magic Eight Ball says "outlook not good", 60,000 missing absentee ballots, in one county. Imagine what it must be like nationaly?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
*nods* And if you have faith in Iran's leadership and in that great humanitarian/statesman Vladimir Putin, vote Bush.
Sorry, chap, two can play it.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
Are you suggesting that there are people who don't know whether they make $200,000 in taxable income? I'm curious who these people are. Do they never look at their IRS forms? I know exactly how much taxable income I had last year. I wrote it on a line on my tax form.
Feel safer?
Only peace will make me feel safer. A strong dose of nuclear disarmament would help in a big way too.
OK... if you're after stupid, emotive arguments, here's a nice example of the opposite kind for you:
Summary: She's 19 weeks pregnant. She discovers her baby is dead. Very dead. She's bleeding. The baby's skin is starting to slough off inside the womb, its skull might be collapsing. The corpse needs removal. The safest way for the mother is to remove it in pieces.
But the years of angry debate (this means you!), restrictive state laws and violence targeting physicians have left very few institutions willing to do the job - meaning that she is advised to go through delivery. Comparatively unsafe and traumatic. So she chooses to look for a doctor willing to do the procedure, phones around, and finally finds someone after a long hunt. But he's busy. She spends days in a motel room feeling her dead baby inside her and watching herself bleed, until finally, someone condescends to remove it.
The moral of this story, in case you didn't know, is that for every bleeding-heart emotive story you can contrive, there's a counterexample. I don't really care how you feel about Kerry, but you do want to watch that tendancy to sensationalise.
Some of the people held in Guantanamo Bay are American. Although there have been attempts by the US government to render the constitution unenforceable because Guantanamo base is located in Cuba, an inital ruling in favour of the government was overturned by the US Supreme Court.
The legal concept of a "foriegn(sic) combatant" is largely fiction. Prisioners taken on a battlefield are classified as "Prisioners of War" and have rights under the Geneva Convention -- which the US, despite being signatories of the Convention, are not respecting.
Prisioners taken in a foreign country *outside* of a state of war outside of normal extradition channels are called "hostages".
Strawman argument. I never said they were being censored, merely given very limited (read: zero) access to the base and its occupants.
"The fact that we were so caught with our pants down on 9/11 is completely Bush's fault." So not going after Osama after the first world trade center bombing was Bush's fault too I suppose? What exactly should the President (who had only been in office for 8 months) have done to stop the attacks? Do you honestly believe that Gore or Kerry would have done anything differently before 9/11? We have too many armchair quarterbacks in this country. The problem is most of them (like Kerry) offer no alternative but only say, he screwed up and I would have done it differently.
If you believe that foreigners' opinions about the US election are irrelevant, wait until they start dumping these securities and our dollar becomes worthless.
I think you both over estimate the power of the US President, and the real differences between the two candidates.
While Kerry claims he will do things differently, the biggest difference is that he wants to do it instead of Bush. Anything else is going to have to go through Congress where it'll be a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Right! Why would the U.S. stick their nose in an election in some pathetic third world country?! *sticks head up ass and finds a clue* oh... our government has been doing *just* that for decades. hmmmph- go figure...
sigs are for fools and trolls. no signature is *always* appropriate. you should turn them off in your preferences.
"And if they discovered that there were no explosives there so long ago how come it took so long to report it?"
Why was it useful to report? We already knew that Saddam had sents many, many convoys of trucks over the border to Syria in the months before the war. I don't see why this is a national story at all. We know that Iraq was giving weapons to terrorists. One of the reasons we went to war was because a huuge amount of Vx gas just "disappeared" off of his weapons declarations with no explanation. Did he destroy them? Give them to terrorists? Use them? What? He offered no explanation.
Then you have the truck convoys to Syria, and an attempted WMD attack from Syria on Jordan shortly after the war.
It's not that hard to put together the puzzle pieces. We should have acted sooner, but Bush tried to put together a coalition. Eventually, we just had to go in and do the deed. We had already waited too long.
Engineering and the Ultimate
"After the invasion: it's almost certain that a large chunk of the stuff we went to war so that Saddam wouldn't sell it to the terrorists is, well, in the hands of the terrorists."
It was already going into the hands of terrorists. In the months leading up to the war, large convoys of trucks were sent across the border to Syria.
In addition, one of the reasons for war is that in Saddam's weapons declarations, a lot of his arsenal just "disappeared" with no explanation. Since we know he has been funding and training terrorists, we feared he was giving it to them.
What this means is that we probably should have acted even sooner. Like the first time the inspectors were thrown out.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Out of the three video steaming formats, which of them allow you to put them on repeat? ;-)
I've got a whole lab of hosts sitting here doing very little for the next wee while...
You're not advocating criminal activity, now are you?
A Bush vote is 12,000 peoples' blood on YOUR hands
Here's a better link for body counts in Iraq. It almost seems like you're advocating support for a guy who voted to allow Hussein to conquer Kuwait and extend his body count across the Arabian peninsula.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
A super majority believe there were WMD in Iraq or programs to produce them;
Perhaps that's due to the findings of the Iraq survey group that there were programs to produce them.
What group do you think of when you hear "likely voting US citizens overseas"? Anybody else think "military personnel"?
And how do military personnel vote? In 2000 in Florida, the GOP thought they were pretty heavily Republican, judging by the way they made out military absentee ballots to be a partisan issue.
Nothing would please me more than to hear that the georgewbush.com people had a technical or abuse-based reason for cutting their site off from non-North-American sites - because the alternative is that they're tin-eared idiots, and the USA should not have a 50-50 chance of being run by people like that.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
- "[moving the explosives was] a major undertaking" (i.e. more noticeable, easier to disrupt than minor looting)
- "[we had the capability to] bomb...anything on the roads" (which seems to imply the U.S. had the capability to stop the "10-30 trailers worth of explosives" in transit)
Yet, your tone implies that you disagree. Sir, I must then ask you, what is your point?Also The Register reports that Bush campaign volunteers were instructed not to talk over the phone to anyone outside the US regarding the campaign.
We had the "iron curtain" but hopefully I will go into history coining the following expression:
"political intranet".
The Interenet was already showing signs of regional divisions but this example may go for the records.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
If you are denied access to this site, perhaps you can see it through Rinkworks. Just be sure to select the "Redneck" translation, as it is the most accurate. Here is a link to the translation page.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
It's not viable, even with serious equipment.
Now the intersting thing is that "serious equipment" is a moving target. But the basic argument is that it can't develop outside the womb if it were, for instance, born that prematurely.
I think this is the definition of viability for fetuses, but I'm getting a little murky on the terms. Of course that's a grey area too, which is why doctor's have to consult with women to determine that a fetus is not viable before a regular abortion takes place. Please disagree with this if I'm wrong.
However, I do agree with your point that it is the snuffing out of a potential human life. It just doesn't bother me, what with the overpopulation and AIDS killing a zillion people a day.
Shit, starving people all over the world who have kids are basically sentencing a certain percentage of them to death. Where's the outrage about that? At least abortion is a well reasoned choice, where you take responsibility for your own action when it matters: before you make a mistake that leads to years of easy-to-measure human suffering.
To really clear the air, I'd even let you say life began with conception, and that abortion was actually killing a real live person. I just wouldn't call it murder, with all the punishment attached. If we're gonna have penicillin, clearly a human invented way of choosing which people to keep alive, I can't see the moral dilemma in choosing which people to prevent from being alive. The same could be said about distribution of food and medicine on a world wide scale. The Catholics are at least consistent on this one, they're pro-life for everything.
Interesting point about the not-aborted daughters, but I totally disagree. Certainly some of those girls are happy and have an excellent life and relationship with their mothers because they were born at the right time. How many too-young unwed mothers produce children that will go with them to political rallys? So I think their sentiment does make sense, choosing to end a pregnancy through abortion allows you to provide the best life for your eventual child.
"I had a dream the other night that all the babies prevented by the pill came back.
They were pissed."
- Steven Wright
dea9: Visualize your mailing lists to actually SEE trolls!
I think it has something to do with being a WMD (Weapon of Mass Deception)
One of the landmark court cases on censorship involved Adolf Hitler's attempt to prevent Mein Kampf from being published in the US. He lost and his plans for world domination were made public. Apparently with web based media it's now easier to to enact censorship to conceal your intentions to potential enemies (like Europe and the rest of the world) than with print media.
Completely wrong. Try going to a Kerry rally. Now try going to a Bush rally. Take notes how you are treated when you ask for tickets while wearing a button for the other guy at the time. Then you'll see that what the Bush crew is doing is totally unprecedented and scary.
"There are many here in the US without the hubris to proclaim that they know the mind of God and who do not wish to force their religous beliefs down the throats of others."
Law, by its very nature, is forcing one group of people's beliefs on another.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Maybe you missed this part?
Well, American and foreign prisioners are being held at Guantanamo bay without charge or trial.
I'm not sure what point you are getting at here.
First, this is not like moving your apartment: none of this equipment was deployed. If they did it (or the bulk of it) in one shot a competent, motivated team with sufficient pallet jacks & forklifts could easily move the ~200 skids in one night (I get as little as 4 hours if they have 4 loading bays, 12-16 jacks or lifts, not too long a haul & sufficient transport). It's even likely that some of it was already trailered up and ready to roll.
Second, only YOU are talking about the time BEFORE the US occupation of that facility. AFAIK, all evidence suggests that the materials disappeared sometime AFTER Apr 10/03.
Incompetent invasion? The history books will be the judge of that. IMO, it appears that the invasion was well organized but the occupation was a complete clusterf*** from day one. Which is about what you'd expect from a bunch of frat boys playing armchair general.
The Register reports http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/27/bush_block ing_non-americans/
but that http://65.172.163.222/ works
http://65.172.163.222/ resolves as GeorgeWBush.com which illustrates how cak-handed the blocking is. Naturally as the site runs IIS6
Okay, I love you bye bye!
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
A non-American's opinion in the 2004 presidential election is pretty much as irrelevant as it gets.
Quite to the contrary: what international investors believe about US politics is vitally important to the US. Should they lose confidence in the US, they'll pull out their money and the US economy will collapse.
Bush should have kept my $300 check. It pales in comparison to the bonus check we get on good years. The year I got a $300 check from Bush, not only did I get no bonus, we had to fire 100 people. It could have been me.
Don't worry. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed the very next year that the IRS took back that $300. It's not like Georgie gave you anything you wouldn't have gotten anyway. And woe befall those people who did run right out to WallyWorld and bought that new 32" TV, then got laid off. Then found out they owed a few hundred dollars in taxes the next year.
n/t
"want to knock down the barrier between church and state?"
How does that violate the freedom of speech, press, or religion? In fact, preventing religion in public life by public leaders is actually a violation of freedom of religion.
It's freedom _of_ religion not freedom _from_ religion.
Engineering and the Ultimate
And - possibly even more to the point - the enemy shot at Kerry, wounding him.
It boggles my mind that the Bush camp has the dishonesty and brass neck to carp at Kerry's war record. It boggles my mind even more that after the Bush camp had done that, there are still people who will vote for Bush.
And do you expect that much traffic coming from 'internatioal people' to consume any significant bandwidth for such a site, I doubt...
Actually is quite well know that Saddam didn't fund or train terrorist, especially not Al-Quada since they were direct enemies.
Syria is another arabic country, a good place to sell stuff if you need some cash to make an escape with.
Hmm..."C)" (about people thinking Kerry is less of a lier) is a great point--except that it's wrong. See the Opinion Dynamics poll as reported here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135932,00.html
In brief, this October poll found that a majority of Americans believe Bush to be a better leader (morally and otherwise), more likely to keep his campaign promises, and more likely to be honest and open with the public.
I'm sorry, I didn't know those freedoms granted by the U.S. constitution carried over to foriegn combatants...
I see. The constitution doesn't apply but US laws do? These men are being prosecuted under US law eventhough they never were within US jurisdiction to begin with. According to International law these men fall under the Afghan jurisdiction and should have been handed over to the Afghan government as soon as the US handed back control.
Technical Update Although overseas visitors to www.georgewbush.com are blocked https://georgewbush.com or http://65.172.163.222 still work. http://65.172.163.222 resolves as GeorgeWBush.com which illustrates how cak-handed the blocking is. From "The Register" website.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
"Try talking to soliders in Iraq, who support Bush at least 3 to 1."
I know quite a few soldiers and none of them suport bush, I don't believe your 3 to 1 figure.
"Things in Iraq are nowhere near as bad as they were a year ago, or two or 10"
Says you who lives safely ensconsed in your suburbia. Iraqi polls indicate otherwise.
"The only ones claiming they are worse are people who benifited by Saddams dictatorship and the subversion of the UN."
Those and the ones left standing after their kids, parents, friends, and neighbors have been blown up.
evil is as evil does
I'm so sure China is going to onvade the people that buy all the stuff they make, and India is going to go after the people outsourcing work to them.
I have no doubt China will be a larger ecenomic force than the US someday. But why would they care to invade someone so beneficial to them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your argument has a huge logic error in it. First lets define drill, according to webster, then do a little search and replace on your sentence.
drill:Now for a little search and replace, They do not bore or drive a hole in the baby's skull. They insert a pair of scissors, then open it to enlarge the hole. Now surely you can say Hey, I am comfortable with the notion of putting holes into a baby's skull. with out having to teach someone a lesson that ultimately you were wrong about. Tip to you: worry less about propaganda and more about logic.
George Bush, fuck yeah!
GW pays lip service to other religions, but we all know he sees America as a Christian county.
Take a look at his lauded "Faith-Based Initiative" where he puts public money into the hands of Faith-Based Non-Governmental Agencies to provide social services.
Sounds like a good idea. Minority religions tend to have strong social services groups. This money would be able to let them reach more of their flock with better services.
Except that it is a scam. Not one dime has gone to any Non-Christian Faith-Based organization. It's all gone to Christian groups.
Seems like there's a de facto violation of the 1st Amendment. You know, the part that goes "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Make no mistake, George Bush simply tolerates non-Christians. Just like he simply tolerates the non-Rich.
I'm just curious, which Bush rallies (date and location) where you refused tickets, and what was the reason given.
Secondly, which Kerry rallies (date and location) did you attend successfully?
Further, was there any difference between the two- when you asked for tickets, overall attendance numbers, etc? Just elaborate on the overall circumstances.
Separation between church of state? That is nothing more than the federal constitution saying Congress shall neither endorse nor forbid any religion. If you want a full legal separation, then your job (figuratively speaking) is to make sure that the state constitutions have a similar clause. Otherwise it's open season, and legally at that.
That being said, I do not think it to be in any school's best interest to teach creationism over evolution, especially since the concepts of evolution hold swing today in every aspect of our physical and social realms. Not least of which includes modern medicine and capitalism itself.
Damn, I never thought I'd post a comment to draw the attention of moderators, it usually just adds to noise... But this one is really good...
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Do you have proof that WMD disapeared from Iraq? Hard proof?
The only official investigation I know off is the one that the UN WMD inspectors undertook. According to UN there was NO WMD's in Iraq.
Sir, I belive UN before I belive you.
They're both pretty bad, but not equally bad. Bush obviously has no respect for the ideals on which America was founded - his attitude to the Bill of Rights is that it's a bunch of obstacles to be worked around (e.g. when he wants to jail people without due process). I've seen no indication that Kerry is as bad as that.
The "ideal" candidate is never on the ballot. But America still has a very important choice to make.
CLICK HERE HERE.
and yes the people outside the US wont have a chance to affect the elections
Really now..?
The current White House seems quite motivated by campaign money from Saudi Arabia, India, and China. OK, it's funnelled through proxy corporations first, but you can see the clear policy emphasis on maintaining trade imbalances that are healthy (for the other guy).
" Actually is quite well know that Saddam didn't fund or train terrorist"
/ ne ws/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml
T er ror.htm
Actually it is VERY well-known that he funded palestinian terrorists. It is fairly well-known that he used the oil-for-food program to fund Al-Qaeda.
"train terrorist"
Actually, it is fairly well-known that they trained all sorts of terrorists at their Salmon-Pak facility. They even had a 747 for use in training to hijack. They were also not direct enemies w/ Al-Qaeda, especially since, as the 9-11 report stated, that they had signed a mutual pact to develop weapons together. Also, Saddam has harbored many terrorists in Baghdad.
Clinton Justice Department's spring 1998 indictment of bin Laden:
"Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
WTC1: Mohammed Salameh called Baghdad 46 times in the two months before bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin flew from Baghdad to New Jersey to join the plot. Afterwards, Yasin fled to Baghdad, where records and multiple press accounts show he received safe haven and Baathist cash.
After leaving Afghanistan, Zarqawi fled to Baghdad and received medical attention in one of their premier hospitals.
Here's some links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=
This link includes both confirmed and speculated connections of Iraq/Al-Qaeda:
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/Iraq%20
I have more, but I'll leave it at that for now. Note that in the 90's, the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was pretty much a given. Only now that Bush is using Saddam's terror ties as reason for invasion are people backing down.
Engineering and the Ultimate
You mean like, taking http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00000795.htm">con tent off the whitehouse website?
YOU're part responsible. If you do nothing, you're part of the problem.
I just can't believe people can be so retarded!
If people like you got up from their fat ass, your country could have an independent president! At least a high score for Nader or some other independent, would shake the ground pretty good and show them.
If after YOU have DONE what you could, a 100%, you can say you did that with satisfaction. However, if you DON'T, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to 'diss your current president and leaders! YOU voted them there, even by not voting!!
*sigh*
999 out of 1000 terrorists agree: vote Kerry
Do you realy think terrorists care who is president of the US?
Or that Bush would protect the country better then Kerry would?
That's pretty naive
It's not very likely terrorists care who is president since quite a lot of them see the entire nation (and the rest of the western world) as their enemy.
And neither presidental candidate can guarantee to stop terrorist attacks. The more realistic view is the one the British have.
They assume that a successful terrorist attack is inevitable whatever preventative measures are taken. (And they know what they are talking about since they have decennia of experience with dealing with terrorism.)
Any promises made by the candidates to keep the country 100% safe are just hot air unless of course one of them has psychic powers.
My sentiments exactly.
** Those of us with 0 Karma are the ones making sense. ** ** Help stop rampant sensorship of conservative speech **
I don't think for a min. that Kerry would halt that spending...I truly think he'd spend more. The only hope on this front, is that if GB is re-elected...he won't have to worry about the next election...and will start cutting left and right...even where it would politcally hurt. I think if taxes are cut (maybe a little more), according to some financial experts I've read/listened to...the economy will continue to grow...which will mean more revenue...which should be used to pay towards the deficit. I don't believe in surpluses...that means the govt. has TOO MUCH of MY money.
I don't think Bush is incompentent...not a very good public speaker...and he seems to know how to put together smart people around him. Powell, Rice and yes, I think Cheney are all very smart and insightful people. With the Supreme Court..well, that's tough. I don't suppose leaning it a little more to the right would be bad...would seem to balance out the left leaning circuit courts out there that are more and more today legislating rather than just interpreting. I would hope that the SC candidates would be more strict constitutional types...neither left or right...I'd certainly like to see them pay MORE attention to issues regarding the 10th amendment for sure.
Anyway...while I would say I'm leaning towards the GB way...I'm not set in stone on that. I'm still listening...
If only John McCain could jump in as a national write in candidate...I'd go whole hog for that!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yeah, but the ones he killed weren't your fault. Having killed less innocent civilians than a brutal dictator isn't something to be proud of.
>John Kerry should be thrown in jail for aiding the enemy.
John Kerry aided the enemy? WTF are you talking about? Osama Bin Laden wrote a book before 9/11 about how he wanted to start a war with the western world to divide the west from the muslim middle east. The purpose was to show the middle east that the west could not be trusted and to move the society toward a more fundamental, jihadist one. So Bin Laden decided to blow up the World Trade center to provoke the US into invading Afghanistan. Bush not only did that, but he also attacked ANOTHER country in response to 9/11 that had nothing to do with it, satisfying Bin Laden's ambitions beyond his wildest dreams.
Al Quaeda has a new hero - it's Bush.
Actually...I've seen the tax relief the last 2 years big time. Was nice to keep more of my money. I usually play around with my W4 during the year to keep my taxes as close to 0 as possible (no refund, no payment)...and even with that...I still got a refund. Mostly due to my starting my own business...incorporating with subchapter "S" sure helps...and filters through your personal taxes. I'm not even making much money through it yet..but, when I do...I see many things indicating that Kerry's proposed tax plan would actually start to hurt people like me that have small business...since it goes through personal taxes...it can look like you make over $200K...when in reality...most goes back in the business...etc.
"I look at Bush & Cheney and see the epitome of the 'good-ol-boy' network. Back door deals, friends of Enron, Halliburton, & Suadi Arabia."
Well....do you really see the Dem.s and Kerry as any less of a GOB network? Both sides are owned by corporations and money givers...
And as far as I can see...the economy IS picking up....unemployment is lowering...market is picking up...I see jobs starting to come about. The US took a huge hit with 9/11...the shutting down of the airline industry alone had severe and far reaching repercussions. It takes time to recover from that. But, all signs at least now seem to point to a short recession...and growing economy.Sure the dollar is down...but, that does mean our products become more attractive to those overseas...which mean even more jobs.
As far as the debates go. Well, Kerry is a much better speaker...and overall I think he won the 1st one hands down. I think I'd have to give Bush the edge on the 2nd one. And I've not watched the 3rd one yet...still on the Tivo.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy.
Now now, people support Kerry also because he's unlikely to invade places based in specious evidence, because he's less likely (somewhat) to sign things like the USAPATRIOT Act, he'd be less likely to make use of the act we already have, because he's certainly not likely to do things because God told him to, because he's not in the backpocket of folks like the Enron people, he's far less likely to piss off the rest of the world, he's less likely to act like a spitful dictator, he's less likely to treat winning the election as giving him a "right" to pass out plums to his supporters (though that happens to all presidents to some degree, alas), because he'd probably not flush the environment down the commode (Bush has been an atrocious environmental president), and because he can actually say the word "Nuclear."
There are plenty of other reasons too, but I'm stopping here because thinking about Bush soils my soul.
Human rights violation ? Ok, the US violates the human rights too with the Guantanamo camp. W should invade the US too.
But wait, this is merely part of Bush's plan! The next threat to national security to which we must spread democracy: Cuba.
Are you disturbed by the religious right that wants to outlaw late-term abortions, with a provision allowing them to be performed in the case where a mother's life is in danger? Please don't prove yourself just as bigoted as those you are trying to bash. "Bigoted fundamentalist" is about as effective a hate word as I've ever seen, except I'm not going to sue over it . . .
So what would it take to convince you that you really, really don't want to vote for George W. Bush? What kinds of arguments would it take? Would any of these get the point across?
Actualy it is not self defeating. Allow me to explain it to you: they sacrifice some of their potential children so that they can provide better for their children they decide to actually give birth.
While I am sure most of the children they bring up to speak share the, "I'm glad mommy didn't abort me!" sentiment all of the ones they possibly aborted were never around long enough to have sentiments. Problem solved. Also, if the daughters had more time to speak they would probably say, "go pro-choice! Because if mommy was forced to carry the pregnancy that she foolishly ended up with while partying one weekend at college she would have never finished and earned her degree. She would have had 3 children now instead of 2 and she would be working two jobs earning minimum wage instead of getting the managerial position that she needed her degree to get. Thankyou Mommy for waiting for the right time!"
You might be ineterested to hear what the magazine American Conservative has to say on it. http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
"People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy."
Great, we already know exactly what Kerry would do in office before he's in office! Since we already think Bush lies based on what he's done in office, certainly the challenger doesn't! You can't compare the honesty of both administrations considering the administration of the challenger hasn't occured! The only thing you can judge Kerry on is how he's acted in the past until now, which is pretty poor and abrasive.
The most this election has done has revealed how shockingly irrational and foolish so many people are. Supporting someone simply to spite their competition is extremely dumb. If you do not want to consider each person's platform and intelligently decide which one you believe has the best policies then you should not be voting. These people would elect a chimp, worse they would elect Balmer just to spite Bush. It's this sort of thinking that allowed the Taliban to get power. People thought anyone would be better in the Middle East than the Soviets. Turns out the alternative wasn't such a great idea. And the point of democracy is the ability to CHOSE your leader. Your choice is not limited to the two major parties.
Try this one:
https://georgewbush.com/
W should invade the US too.
Did. The word is did.
Watch "Going Up River: The Long War of John Kerry", and tell me that the drunken coke-addict AWOL idiot who can't even sting a sentence together, and who looked like a spoiled petulant brat in the debates is the "lesser evil" of the two.
Kerry is a principled man who has been fighting for the people and serving this country for more than 30 years. He's a decorated war hero.
The difference between them is phenominal. If you cannot perceive the difference, you're not looking too hard.
And as for taxes... Bush has been raising SPENDING. He hasn't cut your taxes at all, he's just delayed them. You're being gullible and buying into bullshit. Worse, you're being scammed an don't even know it. Do you honestly think that spending on credit is cheaper than pay as you go? We're not only increasing the deficit by nearly half a TRILLION dollars this year, but we're going to be stuck paying INTEREST on that deficit for the forseeable future, until it gets paid back. And another HALF TRILLION is going to be added next year and the year after that if Bush is returned to office. Someone is going to eventually get hit with those bills.
This "Gee, I saved $1000 on my taxes, so I'm going to vote for Bush" is so short-sighted and pathetic. Are you a whore for Bush or something? You don't care about the destruction of the environment, of the bill of rights, of his utter incompetence in the war on terror and the fiasco in Iraq, all the lies and deceit, the destruction of the separation between church and state, the loss of high paying jobs, the stagnant economy, or anything else along those lines, as long as you get a (temporary, short-term, with a huge hidden future cost) tax cut??
Use your head, man.
A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.
Babies have a good chance of living outside the womb at 24 weeks. They remove the placenta with a sharp suction tube, which is just as dangerous as cutting a C-section. Most doctors will tell you that a C-section is safer for the mother, it is tried and true, millions of women have them.
Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.
Personally, I think you should be hung from a lamp post.
A president who consistently lies to the American public about important issues (jizz in the oval office being a not-important issue, for instance), and who surrounds himself with people who do the same, is not qualified for the job. People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy.
I would call Kerry more of a liar. Look at the story he's touting right now about the stolen explosives in Iraq. He knows the truth, they were removed before we ever got there. SOURCE. I would call a lie having a prior knowledge of events and then telling something other, or in Bill Clintons case, the exact opposite ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman.") That is a lie. George Bush being given faulty intelligence from sources around the globe, that is not a lie in my book and a judge would agree with me there. John Kerry saying he was in Cambodia when he really wasn't, or that he met with the UN security council before the Iraq war when he really didn't, those are lies.
** Those of us with 0 Karma are the ones making sense. ** ** Help stop rampant sensorship of conservative speech **
"So what? Kerry lies"
He's far more truthful and honest than Bush. And he has been for 30 years. He has a solid record of honesty and trustworthiness (for a politician). Unlike Bush, who has a record of failing to serve when called, of avoiding responsibility, and of deceiving and telling half-truths, and out-right lying on a near daily basis.
I don't think Kerry is a straight up person. I think he will say and do anything based on the audience he is with.
Acutally, you just described Bush. Kerry is, for a politician, far FAR more "straight up" than Bush ever has been. Bush is evasive, deceptive, and secretive. Bush has gone back on virtually every promise he made in the 2000 election. What makes you trust this obviously untrustworthy man?
I don't think the problem is with Kerry's honesty, it's in your perceptions of Kerry's honesty.
I think if you stop listening to the Karl Rove spin-machine, you'll realize his positions have actually been quite consistent. You have to look at the context of his Senate votes and his reasons for voting the way he did. His underlying principles are rock-solid. Of course, Karl Rove doesn't want you to know that. Karl Rove is the master of lies and smear (ask John McCain). Don't fall for it.
"Going Up River: The Long War of John Kerry" is a available for rent now on DVD from video stores and on NetFlix. Rent it and watch it. I think you'll come away impressed. It's not a campaign propaganda piece, but an honest documentary.
I don't like the wealth redistribution system the tax system is today.
You realize under Bush there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest people, right? The middle-class is being squeezed, the number of people living in poverty is skyrocketing, and the wealtiest 1% of Americans have gotten obscenely wealthier. Bush has been cutting taxes on WEALTH (interest, dividends, investments) not on WAGES. The tax burden being paid by Americans has noticably shifted onto the backs of the working poor.
I like to wild speculation like this upgraded to "insightful" by the liberal masses, like us with our heads on straight are actually going to consider it a real possibility.
In case you haven't heard, an NBC reporter was there when troops first went in, and the explosives were already gone.
** Those of us with 0 Karma are the ones making sense. ** ** Help stop rampant sensorship of conservative speech **
And Again:
a nd +sedition+act&btnG=Google+Searchb yu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.htmlr ouscitizen.com/Articles/525.aspx
The Espionage and Sedition Act during WWI.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=espionage+
http://www.lib.
http://www.dange
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
Do you really think anyone in the US gives a flying fuck what a french person says?
;)
O...I do hope so because the French intelligence agencies probably have much better insights into the movements and actions of the Algerian, Marrocan and other North African extremists than the US agencies have.
I wouldn't be suprised if the French already have prevented or helped to prevent attacks on the US and US targets.
(In fact..if I remember correctly they prevented an attack on the US embassy in Paris. No doubt they did more than that.)
Not listening to the French would be foolish as this would leave a large gap in the intelligence gathering.....
Think before you start that moronic France bashing. The French, like most of the world, may not have supported the invasion of Iraq but that doesn't make them enemies. (just smarter
P.S. I'm Dutch, not French
As the original submitter of this story, I'm gratified by the amount of debate it's spawned :-)
However, a few points in reply to various comments in the thread (I'm sorry they're not posted appropriately)
For whatever reason, it's undeniably a PR disaster.
Which raises an interesting point - are the various terrorist organisations threatening the US/West/CIS just taking up the vacuum left by the collapse of the USSR as a superpower. Newton's 3rd law applied to geopolitics?
Oh well, all interesting stuff - let's see what happens next week!
Actually...I've seen the tax relief the last 2 years big time. Was nice to keep more of my money.
Meanwhile, Bush is spending more and more of your money. Per-capita federal spending decreased every single year under Clinton. He is the ONLY president who left office with federal spending at a lower level than when he entered.
Bush, meanwhile, has drastically increased federal spending every single year he's been in office, NOT INCLUDING WAR EXPENSES. He's done this while cutting taxes, making us the only civilization in the history of civilization to have cut taxes during a time of war.
All he's doing is postponing the sacrifice. All he's doing is delaying your taxes, not cutting them. If he can't cut spending as he cuts taxes, if the deficit actually grows while cutting taxes, then you're not REALLY getting a tax cut at all. You're just getting an advance.
The deficit is YOUR deficit just as taxes are YOUR money. You (and I, and everyone) are paying interest on all this spending Bush is doing. Your share of Bush's deficits over the years is pushing $30,000 (if divided evently among all tax-payers).
NOW do you think he and his fiscal policies are such a good idea?
Number one is a right-to-life issue.
And whoever said that freedom was free?
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
That's so weird - they are using the Duke 2000 campaign slogan. When's the "Compassionate Fascism" ad coming???
Are you disturbed by the religious right that wants to outlaw late-term abortions, with a provision allowing them to be performed in the case where a mother's life is in danger?
Here is my abortion position: 1st and 2nd trimester, no restrictions. By the 3rd trimester, the woman has effectively made her decision and I have no problems with restrictions as long as they have a provision that allows a women to have an abortion in the event that there is medical evidence that continuing the pregnancy will put her life in serious danger. It is also reasonable to place restrictions on minor kids having abortions (e.g. parental notification) as long as there is an out for judicial review. There are cases where a father has raped his daughter and forcing her to get parental permission is unconscionable. As I understand the polls on this subject, my views pretty much match the mainstream. They also are the reasons why Kerry voted against the partial birth abortion ban (no provision for saving the life of the mother) and the parental notification requirement (no provision for judicial review).
FreeSpeech.org
Here's a suggested thought.
The reason spending is up, is because the GOP controlls both houses and the Presidency. There is no "check" or "balance". It's congressional hogs feeding at the trough.
By voting for Kerry, you put a Democrat in the White House. There is no danger of the Republicans losing congress. Thus you restore the adversarial "Democratic President with Republican congress" dynamic that has given us great economies in the past, and under which the budget was balanced and federal spending actually reduced all during the 90's.
It's something to consider, anyway.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
...of alienation extends to his website.
http://www.georgewbush.com/ is back working again from .ie anyway.
You, sir, are an idiot.
Late term abortions are very, very rare. Besides, abortion is such a complicated issue that no two people ever agree completely on, that you have to admit there can be no one size fits all solution that is imposed by the government. "Pro Choice" is the compromise solution here. You are free to be against abortion but still be pro choice. Besides, it used to be banned, and it happend more then that it did under Clinton. Interesting note: under Clinton, a pro-choice president, the number of abortions went down every year. Under Bush, a militantly anti-choice, anti-family-planning president, the number of abortions is up year over year. Abolition doesn't work. Give people the freedom to make their choices, and then inform them of the realties, options, and consequences. That's what freedom is.
And Kerry has never "aided the enemy". He's fought long and hard, for 30 years, to prevent soldiers dying unnecessarily in unnecessary and fraudulent wars. Rent "Going Up River: The Long War of John Kerry", and you'll see a man of principle, standing up for what's right. Bush should be thrown in jail for Treason (exposing a CIA operative for punative, partisan reasons) as well as for lying to rush this country into an unnecessary and destructive war.
"According to UN there was NO WMD's in Iraq."
? page=17
r it ics%20and%20the%20Duefler%20Report.htm
The UN DID NOT SAY THAT. IN fact, what they said was that there were numerous WMD's that were unaccounted for.
'Hans Blix, the UN Security Council weapons inspector from 2002-2003, recorded in his reports to the Security Council that Iraq had failed to account for its possession of the nerve agent VX, 6500 chemical bombs, at least 8500 litres of anthrax, 650kg of bacterial growth media, and 1000 tonnes of chemical agents. And these, he said, were only examples of ``many proscribed weapons and items not accounted for'''
This was the problem. Saddam didn't tell us where they went as he was required to. We knew he had these at one point, and don't know where they went.
See http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951561/posts
The linked article (whose text is reproduced there) is password-protected.
Also there was the Duelfer report, which was an official investigation - a continuation of David Kay's investigation.
Here are some excerpts from the Duelfer Report:
http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/War%20C
Basically, while there weren't large-scale factories, there were numerous underground laboratories. In addition, Saddam had always kept his dual-use industrial chemical plants in overcapacity, so he could start creating these weapons on a large scale once the UN left.
The interim report, given by David Kay, also shows Iraq was in possession of numbers of banned weapons. We did not find large caches of WMD's, but we did notice large amounts of truck movement to Syria. Shortly after the war, there was an attempted use of WMD from Syria against the King of Jordan.
Also, the HMX which the press has been giving Bush a hard time about was already starting to disappear in the leadup to the war. The UN had noted that Saddam had been moving it. It seems that Bush came just in time, before more was moved out.
Engineering and the Ultimate
I find it hard to believe people actually support Kerry.
Then we're even. I find it hard to believe any thinking person actually supports Bush. He's the worst president this country has ever had. Utterly corrupt, incompetent, and a completely deceptive liar and deceiver. He's violated the Consitution at least once, committed Treason at least once, and worse. He's destroying the environment, wiping his ass with the constitution, and destroying this nations credibility and standing in the world community. He's been an utter failure as a president, just like he has been on every other job he's ever been handed (god knows he's never earned any job he's ever held).
# Perl script to find fast US proxies using /\d+.\d+\/(\d+.\d+)\/\d+/;$tempAvg = $1;if ( $tempAvg $minAvgRTT ) {$minIP = $ip;$minPort = $port; $minAvgRTT = $tempAvg;}}} close(PING); }} print OUTPUT "\nWith an average RTT of $minAvgRTT ms, your best bet from page $i is:\n"; print OUTPUT "HOST: $minIP\nPoRT: $minPort\n"; $minAvgRTT = 1000;}}
# publicproxyservers.com and ping times
#
# schedule with cron using the crontab line:
# 0 7-23/2 * * * perl ~/proxyfind.pl
# proxies.txt will be updated every other
# hour between 7:00 AM and 11:00 PM.
#
use LWP::Simple;
$output_file = '~/proxies.txt'; $ping = "/bin/ping"; $country = "United States"; open (OUTPUT, ">$output_file"); my $minIP;my $minPort;my $minAvgRTT = 1000; for ( $i = 1 ; $i ](\d+\.\d+\.\d+\.\d+)[](\d+)[) { if (/max/) { $result = $_;$result =~
Okay, a troll is going to get un-modded because I'm posting this, but it needs to be said.
A central component of the War on Terrorism is the battle for the hearts and minds of non-Americans. There are 6 billion people in the world, 96% living outside the USA. A tiny number are willing to kill themselves in order to inflict damage on Americans, but these people only exist because they are fed and sustained by a larger (although still small) number who are angry or deeply mistrustful of the US.
These people matter. If we alienate them, if we feed their numbers, if we give them reason after reason to hate or doubt the US, their numbers will grow.
Many parts of the world are awash with anti-American conspiracy theories. The US attacked itself on Sept 11, for example, in order to invade Iraq and seize its oil. Such madness is fed when it turns out that US did invade Iraq on a false pretext. Now consider: you live in Iran or Indonesia and suddenly your country is blocked from seeing what George Bush is promising to do when he gets back into office.
I can't imagine a single good reason for Bush to block the world from his web site. But I can imagine thousands of already mistrustful people around the world feeding their conspiracy theories over it.
Is their opinion irrelevant? No, quite the opposite. The success or failure of the War on Terrorism depends on bringing these people into the fold. Not shutting them out.
I should buy some cement.
The Viet Cong offerd Kerry web hosting, but the French deal was too good to pass up...
So the Bush website is not available outside the US, all I can say is hoo-bloody-ray! We are subjected to so much coverage of the US elections that not getting the updates is actually very welcome.
I find it hard to believe people actually support Kerry.
Because they want a safer world to live in.
Every time I ask self-proclaimed democrats why they support abortion, they say they believe in a womans right to choose, so I ask them if they know what a late term abortion is, and they dont really know, so I explain that its when they induce labor and when the baby peeks his new-born head out, they drill a hole in his skull and suck out his brains and rip his limbs off and put him in a plastic container. They laugh at me, but when they see the solemn look they stop laughing, and tend to agree with me that abortion is wrong.
Actually they stop laughing at you because they realise you are a dangerous mental patient who might kill them.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"I find it particularly disturbing that the religious zelots on the right would outlaw late term abortions with no provision for protecting the life of the mother."
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute only 2.8% of all abortions are due to maternal health risks. You make it sound as though large amounts of women would be dieing if abortion was illegal. One of the facts you are missing is that even legal abortions are not totally safe for the mother. The CDC has recorded over 550 confirmed deaths from legal abortion and mothers with life threatening complications is in the hundreds of thousands.
Creative Demolition
Ever heard of hacktivism? It's no secret many Europeans loathe Bush...
Alright, this is what pisses me off about the whole thing. I'm an atheist, and no-where in the constitution does it say that you can't practace your religion in public. What it *DOES* say, is that the state "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".
In short, you can pray in my school, but my school can't make me pray. (I'm a highschool student)
Along with that, the education system cannot teach religious doctorine as fact, so teaching Genesis is out.
On the subject of vouchers, they can be used to fund religious schools, which would violate the 1st ammendment due to funding a religous organization, If you somehow think that funding a group is not helping it become established, you are either dumb or lying. Anyway, why use vouchers? If we give more money to education (and throw out No CHild Left Behind) then we can make all the schools better, not just the ones that rich people go to.
" Troll? Ok - I guess others can quote bumper stickers without any issues."
OK, I've got the karma, so here we go.
Don't worry about it. It's to be expected. Nothing to see here, move along. This is a tech news/issues site, with, I'd guess, a majority of posters under 30 and many even younger. Very generally speaking, they don't have the benefit of having *lived* through 4-5 decades or more of history for reference, and have only seen what the liberal schools and media have shown them. I mostly refrain from posting my political views here for that very reason.
I forget who said it, and don't have the exact quote, but someone once said that if you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart, and if you're not conservative when you're older, you have no brain.
Don't expect any sympathy from the non-US crowd, as the USA has always been the whipping boy of the world, even more so since the fall of the USSR. I liken it to a schoolyard, where the really bright and successful kid gets picked on by the bullies and cowards and the less bright students for their success, as that very success points out their own failings, something no one wants to be confronted with (or the leaders of said less-successful countries held responsible for).
Just my once-young-liberal, now more mature-conservative two cents.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
In the case of saving a mothers life, you're taking a life either way you hack it, so why should *you* get to decide which life is more important? SHouldn't that be the choice of... oh... say... the MOTHER?
In Soviet Russia, the country decides which sites view you!
If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
One could say the same thing about a woman who successfully fends off a would-be rapist.
Actually, if 350 tons of previously well monitored explosive can disappear, who says their weren't also really an unknown number of WMD's that also slipped away?
Bush has been cutting taxes on WEALTH (interest, dividends, investments) not on WAGES
Um....I have no wealth (College student with loans), but I make a resonable amount of money, and I have definitely seen a reduction in my taxes. I'm not a fan of getting refunds, I don't like making interest-free loans to the gov't, but this past year my refund was waaay beyond every previous year, even though my wages didn't increase very much.
And another HALF TRILLION is going to be added next year and the year after that if Bush is returned to office.
If he returns to office he'll stop caring about this "bi-partisan" crap and start cutting liberal handout programs. At least, we can hope so.
loss of high paying jobs
Like...the factory workers?
So you say that preventing a human from existing, even though it was not a human at that time, qualifies as a bad thing?
Does that classify you in the league of Pol Pot the next time you do a right hand chaser?
It isn't just Iraq. This is the flaw in the doctrine of Pre-emptive strike. The doctrine (as propogated by the US) says if we feel threatened we will invade. This doctrine was effectively in place before 9/11.
However it is a double edged sword. Under this doctrine Nth Korea is perfectly justified in invading America, or for that matter invading South Korea.
meh
The one point that I was hoping someone would make. Thank you.
This diagram says it all about the priority that the Bush administration places on terrorism. http://topdog04.com/redgreen.html
"Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being"
I think that all depends on your definition of unharmed. If anything that leads to its death is considered harm, then yes, a human embryo will become a human if unharmed. However, it requires much more than a lack of harm to survive. It requires the mother's body to provide a huge level of support. If you remove the embryo from the body, it will die. If the body does not have the right conditions (failure of hormones to change correctly, etc), the embryo will die. If you remove the embryo from the body manually (but do not harm the embryo itself), it will die. I have heard it estimated that between 50 and 75 percent of pregnencies end in miscarriage before people even realize they are pregnent. That would mean that, if things are left to their natural course and you don't do anything to the embryo, it most likely won't become a human.
"Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection."
Women have, what, about 400 eggs? By not raping women as soon as they are fertile, by not removing their eggs and ensuring they are all fertalized, potential human lives are destroyed. If not doing all we can to preserve all potential human life is a sin, and you aren't impregnating as many people as possible, then you are living in sin too.
Going through pregnency is more than just sitting idley by, and doing nothing will lead to "harm" for the embryo. Should we all be requiredd to nurse all potential life, as not doing so is akin to murder?
The block means that US soldiers serving in Afganistan, Iraq, South Korean etc don't get to see the presidents site either.
I assume Bush thinks those guys are expendable in search of an election win...
Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being.
That's just not true. Of corse, it depends on the time, as many do - but in the first 2 weeks the chance of a miscarrage is 75%, and about 10% chance up to 6 weeks.
Overall - about 15% to 20% of known pregnancies end up with a miscarrage.
What does this mean? That it is more likely for a miscarrage (cause if you don't get past week 2, you aren't in the running for week 6) than a sucessful pregnancy.
The reason for the known pregnancies to be less than the miscarrages is that when the embryo is a miscarriage during the first 2 weeks, often the woman isn't aware that she is pregnant at all.
When near 1 out of 5 pregnancies that are known about fail naturally, and ~78% of all pregnancies fail - it shows that your statment is wrong.
That changes the equation. When it is quite likely that a pregnancy will fail, especially at the very early stage that you support above, it is easy for others to see the embryo as a bunch of cells rather than human.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Replying to myself is bad I know, but cites that I forgot of course:
g e= 1
http://www.pregnancyloss.info/statistics.htm
and
http://www.birth.com.au/class.asp?class=6620&pa
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
I would, but then I'd be arrested as well.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
I would ask that question, yes.
You see - if a bunch of cells (as an embryo) is worth so much to you, how can you be so blase about the killing of a full HUMAN, no matter what they have done?
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Show me one case of freedom of speech, press, or religion was denied because of something Bush did.
1 /19/a10- 328911.htm
from
http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/031
Bush administration undermines vital right to dissent
Every war tests America's commitment to its free speech ideals. The war on terrorism is no different.
America has made tremendous strides in protecting the free speech rights of citizens in the last century. The belief that an open marketplace of ideas is the best venue for thrashing out political differences and charting a national course on important issues is a bedrock American principle.
Still, post-September 11, a disturbing tendency has emerged to use the power of the government to stifle dissent.
Federal Appeals Judge Damon Keith, 80, of Detroit, sees the closed court proceedings for terrorist suspects and deportees and the snooping provisions of the Patriot Act as among the biggest threats to free speech in his lifetime.
"People are afraid to dissent today," Keith says. "Dissent is an act of faith in the democracy. Without dissent, the majority thinks everything it is doing is right."
There are at least a dozen documented instances in which the Secret Service has given preferential treatment to Bush administration supporters -- while escorting its critics to so-called "protest zones" where they can be neither seen nor heard.
The Bush administration maintains that concerns about security -- not politics -- guide the Secret Service's treatment of activists. But if security were the issue, then the agents should keep all members of the public at bay -- not just opponents. What's to stop someone who wants to hurt the president from sporting a pro-Bush sign to get closer to him?
Further fueling suspicion about the Bush administration's motives is the Justice Department's recent decision to revive a little-used law to go after an anti-Bush activist in South Carolina.
The activist, Brett Bursey, who was carrying a sign "No War for Oil," was charged after he refused to move to a designated protest area during the president's visit.
Bursey maintains that only he was asked to move to the site, about a half a mile away, where the president could neither see him nor hear him. Yet Bush supporters were allowed to stay much closer to the speaker's podium.
"Bursey's prosecution," says Tim Lynch of the Cato Institute, "is a case of blatant viewpoint discrimination that will be thrown out by the courts."
Many lawmakers have written to the administration urging it to drop the case, and it should do just that. There seems little point of the prosecution except to send a signal to protesters that they exercise their right to free speech at their own peril.
Democracy thrives on open debate and public dissent. Peaceful expressions of support and protest are an important way citizens communicate with their leaders -- and for leaders to gauge public sentiment about their policies.
Quashing these expressions leaves a distorted view about what Americans really think. It strikes at the heart of the democratic process much in the same way that rigging the ballot box would.
America's founders embedded the right to free speech in the Constitution for good reasons. Those reasons are still valid today. Public officials in government and outside of it ought to nurture -- not curtail -- this right.
Hmm, lets go down the list of opportunities Bush had to stop 9/11 while he was in office:
1) The CIA repeatedly came to him with direct, credible reports of an unusually high increase in chatter by Al Qeada (Note: Not Iraq). Not only were these warnings completely ignored, they grew steadily in urgency and frequency until the Bush administration literally said STOP BOTHERING US WITH THIS.
2) The FBI did the same as #1 above, and recieved the same [lack of] response.
3) Both the CIA and FBI were told, and passed onto the Bush administration, that there were specific middle eastern individuals on known watch-lists that were learning to fly 747's but had no interest in learning to land. Again, exactly zero action was taken.
4) A memo, cryptically titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." so it is understandable that they missed it, was given to the Bush administration and was, suprise, surprise, completely ignored.
5) All of this was going on while Bush was spending nearly half of his time on vacation.
I would call this an utter disregard for national security. And apparently, Bush was pretty ashamed of it, too. He and his administration completely opposed the 9/11 Commission until they had absolutely no other choice but to go along with it, and even then their answers were embarrassingly stupid and vague, and the president refused to testify under oath or on record.
Furthermore, anyone who had warned Bush of the serious threat of terrorism, or spoke out on the subject afterward was promptly fired.
No, I do not excuse Clinton and his lack of action with regard to Al Qaeda. But the fact remains, Bush did have the power to stop 9/11 and repeatedly chose to pass up that opportunity, and any action that was taken was contrary to the evidence at hand (a theme he has stuck with his entire time in office, and is covered thoroughly in the article I mentioned, which I doubt you've read).
And yes, I do believe Gore would have acted on that information instead of supressed it. He may not have gone to war with Iraq, but I view that as intelligence rather than weakness.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
As of 28. Oct 9:18 am local time...
-- Contradictions only exist in thought - not in reality.
This will most likely be modded down as troll or flamebait, but it is not.
I am from Australia, and your democratic system, while appearing so very similar to ours is unbelievably different.
I cannot understand the way a lot of you (Probably not many slashdotters) get behind your political parties like it is a form of sporting team.
IMHO there is way too much grandstanding, not enough core politics.
Seriously, we take rugby less competitively.
I see the waving of banners and screaming of 'fans' for these people as if they are heros.
I hope this doesn't get modded down as I would like to hear an American take on it.
ps. posting AC because I am having trouble logging in.
Biscuit.
Now that both www.georgewbush.com & www.johnkerry.com are Akamai'zed they often share same IP address* (Akamai's) - but HTTP GET results from this IP would differ, depending on domain ;-) (like failing from outside US).
s h.com.edgesuite.net is an alias for a434.g.akamai.net.
o m.edgesuite.net is an alias for a338.g.akamai.net.
# 46;com&# 47;" on this server.<P>
...
Wed Oct 27 19:30:56 GMT 2004
tokyo$ host www.georgewbush.com
www.georgewbush.com is an alias for www.georgewbush.com.edgesuite.net.
www.georgewbu
a434.g.akamai.net has address 202.239.172.87
a434.g.akamai.net has address 202.239.172.88
tokyo$ host www.johnkerry.com
www.johnkerry.com is an alias for www.johnkerry.com.edgesuite.net.
www.johnkerry.c
a338.g.akamai.net has address 202.239.172.87
a338.g.akamai.net has address 202.239.172.96
tokyo$ telnet 202.239.172.87 80
Trying 202.239.172.87...
Connected to 202.239.172.87.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.georgewbush.com
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Server: AkamaiGHost
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 206
Expires: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:46:34 GMT
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:31:34 GMT
Connection: keep-alive
<HTML><HEAD>
<TITLE>Access Denied</TITLE>
</HEAD><BODY>
<H1>Access Denied</H1>
You don't have permission to access
+"http://www.georgewbush&
</BODY>
</HTML>
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.johnkerry.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) PHP/4.1.2
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.1.2
Content-Type: text/html
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:31:40 GMT
Content-Length: 1544
Connection: keep-alive
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<script>
You terrorist!
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Don't official policies get based on promises made by/during political campaigns?
President Jimmy Carter went out of his way to faithfully record every promise he made and after elected tried to fulfill every one. The American people just laughed at him for being a goody two shoes. Mostly, people get the leadership they EARN. We'll get truths told when we reward truth telling and truth tellers.
If 300 tones of high explosive can go missing right out from under the UN's nose. . . .
That is some amazing spin. Do you actually believe that? What is wrong with you? Seriously. At what point did you lose your ability to think and just become another node for disseminating the daily talking points/lies? Is re-electing the President so important that you will ignore reality?
If it's true that Kerry will say anything to get elected, it doesn't bother me that much. That's what politicians do. We know Bush does it as well. What bothers me is that some people will believe anything so that they can unquestioningly support their candidate.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Great Britain, Australia, Israel, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Romania, Czech Republic, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Slovakia, Ukraine, Singapore, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, South Korea, Nicaragua, Mongolia, and Albania.
You're right. Not counting these 32 nations, there is a total lack of international support.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Bush did wage a 3 year war against terrorism. Given his secrecy in doing so, it's hard to say just what exactly it was that he prevented by doing so, but you cannot rule out the possibility of his having actually protected us from terrorist attacks.
Keep in mind that his administration was working on the assumption that terrorists, if left to their own devices, WOULD obtain and use chemical and biological weapons. While I am not saying that Bush is our savior and protector, whenever I stop to remember that in his mind, the other options involved mass death and destruction in America, I find it harder to be quite as dismissive of his foreign policy.
All I'm saying is that we need access to more information that we currently have in order to properly judge Bush's war on terror. That in and of itself could be seen as a criticism, but that doesn't seem to be the point here.
For what it's worth.
Very fast and I'm in Canada.
You are to fucking stupid to understand that one terrorist is a weapon of mass destruction! I believe you are definitely grasping at air trying to defend your position.
Bin Laden's dead. No one has heard from him in well over a year,perhaps two, we've gotten no new material starring OBL that isn't remixes with voice overs and his name has never come up in any current activities.
I wouldn't be worried about someone who's dead either.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
walked away from the Geneva Convention at Abu Gharib and Guantanemo Bay
The Geneva convention was written for wars between nation-states and outlined a 'gentleman's war', if you will.
Among the many myriad of rules in the convention, it states that anyone caught fighting out without the uniform and markings of a nation may be summarily executed as a spy.
So, it would be perfectly in line with the Geneva Convention if we took all the bastards out of Guantanamo, into the yard, and shot them in the back of the head. Same thing for all the syrian and Iranian insurgents in Abu Ghraib.
So, considering they're still breathing, they're getting a damn sight better than the convention says they deserve.
Incidentally, there have been updates since the original Geneva Convention; we haven't signed all of them.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
...you'll believe anything.
You hadn't heard I suppose that NBC had a crew with the 101st who walked the length of the place and found not a single UN sticker? In APRIL 2003? One day after the fall of DadsBag?
You hadn't heard that there was a unit there with a reporter even before the 101st was there and they found no UN stickers either? Name escapes me for the moment.
I hasn't occured to you that possibly the UN guy who started this freakshow with the NY Slimes might possibly have an interest in the outcome of the US election? Or that the NY Slimes might?
Finally, I take it that you think its worse that "we know not who" -might- have their hands on a bunch of nuke building explosives than knowing 100% that Saddam Hussein had control of them?
Face it. Saddam had the shit moved before US forces crossed the Kuwait border in 2003 because he was afraid it would be bombed to crap. We are talking 35 tractor-trailer loads of material here. Who in post-attack Iraq had that many 18 wheelers hanging off his upper lip? That wouldn't instantly be targeted and blown to hell from the air? Uncle Sam and nobody else.
This is just the latest lump in the steady stream of bullshit from John&John. Not making me want to see them in the White House one little bit.
I await my -1 score with baited breath. Mod me, baby.
"In short, you can pray in my school, but my school can't make me pray."
But this means that the government officials can pray in school, too, if it were under congress's jurisdiction. Of course, actually, school is not really covered by the first amendment, because school is under the authority of the states, not congress.
In fact, earlier in our nations history, many of the _states_ were directly affiliated with denominations. The first amendment did not apply to what state governances did, only congress.
"Along with that, the education system cannot teach religious doctorine as fact, so teaching Genesis is out."
As I pointed out, this is a state issue, so you are wrong.
"On the subject of vouchers, they can be used to fund religious schools, which would violate the 1st ammendment due to funding a religous organization, If you somehow think that funding a group is not helping it become established, you are either dumb or lying."
Not quite. The law itself would be blind to what kind of institution it was going to. That would fulfill the requirements of the 1st amendment. Congress is not making a law about establishing a religion. They are making a law about helping people w/ schooling. How they choose to do that is their business.
"Anyway, why use vouchers? If we give more money to education (and throw out No CHild Left Behind) then we can make all the schools better, not just the ones that rich people go to."
Actually, (a) vouchers cost less than public schools, (b) the schools can't be all-the-way better if they cannot teach theology.
Personally, I'm homeschooling my kids. One will be homeschooled by necessity (he's a special needs kid, and the schools are not adequately prepared to push him to excel), and the other by choice.
When the public schools took over education in the late 1800's / early 1900's it was understood that the public schools would continue religious education.
FYI - in my town, the best school for special-needs kids is both private and tuition-free. And Christian.
Engineering and the Ultimate
I have heard it estimated that between 50 and 75 percent of pregnencies end in miscarriage before people even realize they are pregnent
Discover had an article back in May of 2004 that talked about this. In fact, it seems, the viability of a pregnancy is sometimes determined even before fertilization.
Why should we follow URL's provided by someone who can't even spell Iraq (NOT IraK)?
Note to self: buy dictionary before I preach to everyone else about international affairs.
Perhaps that's due to the findings of the Iraq survey group that there were programs to produce them.
Can you point us to a reference, please?
Iraq was an impotent regime that was probably going to go under to Iraq or Saudi Arabia as soon as either country got it's internal squabbles sorted out. We don't care how evil Saddam is, and we could always get their oil at a cheap price, so it really comes down to a range of petty personal reasons by the poeple involved. Rumsfelds career was in the toilet for years after Gulf War I, thanks to the famous photo of him shaking hands with Saddam - perhaps he's wanted to prove something by talking about finishing off Saddam for about the last ten years.
Most likely in the hands of looters even more disorganised than the US mission to retreive the things, but does it matter? High explosives are a trivial technology and can be made virtually anywhere.You're right. If we'd found them in Nebraska, we could execute them as spies.
But since the US Army invaded Afghanistan, calling Afghan natives "spies" is pretty thin. Don't think Karl Rove didn't consider it.
Both those points aside, you are the sort of monster the Geneva Convention is designed to preserve the rest of us from. I suppose you think torturing people is just fine as long as you think you might find a convenient piece of information from it.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
They also didn't find any unicorns. That's not evidence that there were in fact unicorns.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The legal concept of a "foriegn(sic) combatant" is largely fiction. Prisioners taken on a battlefield are classified as "Prisioners of War" and have rights under the Geneva Convention -- which the US, despite being signatories of the Convention, are not respecting.
You are simply wrong. The Geneva conventions explicitly exclude certain categories of persons from their protections, such as mercenaries and spies. For certain others, they must pass various tests to qualify for the protections.
Now, somehow I doubt that you have ever bothered to read the conventions since then you would know this, and you would also realize that the specific protections of the Geneva Conventions don't necessarily make any sense for those people, such as PAYING them a monthly salary (article 60).
Please do trouble yourself enough to actually read them. Maybe you could start with Article 4, section 2. Hopefully you will do this before spreading any more highly moderated malarkey.
calling Afghan natives "spies" is pretty thin. Don't think Karl Rove didn't consider it.
I don't believe the convention has any such distinction as to where they are found, just that they fight out of uniform. Feel free to quote a passage that demonstrates I'm wrong. I haven't checked, it could be there.
you are the sort of monster the Geneva Convention is designed to preserve the rest of us from. I suppose you think torturing people is just fine as long as you think you might find a convenient piece of information from it.
If it'll save some of our boys, I have just one thing to say: Red is positive, black is negative.
I'm all for fighting gentlemanly... with gentlemen. With the kind of enemy we find over there, observing the nicest rules of war while they fight the dirtiest way they can is just fighting with one hand tied behind our back.
Remember also that the Geneva Convention is a reciprical agreement. No matter who the warring factions are, the rules only apply at all if both sides follow them. Makes perfect sense if you bother to think about it.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
However, I do agree with your point that it is the snuffing out of a potential human life. It just doesn't bother me, what with the overpopulation and AIDS killing a zillion people a day.
Basically, it looks like you're able to justify the ending of pretty much any human life except your own. Or am I wrong in assuming you draw a distinction even there?
To really clear the air, I'd even let you say life began with conception, and that abortion was actually killing a real live person. I just wouldn't call it murder, with all the punishment attached
Of course. Because you're safely out of the womb. I mean, who cares for rights for anyone in a different situation or stage of life than your own, right?
By the way, real funny remark about the potty training. As the father of an 8 month old and 2 1/2 year old, I was greatly amused by that.
Generally, attempts at humor reveal a lot about a person's true beliefs, so I recommend anyone reading your comments keep that remark in mind.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
At least abortion is a well reasoned choice, where you take responsibility for your own action when it matters: before you make a mistake that leads to years of easy-to-measure human suffering.
But doesn't that apply equally to those with the misfortune to have been actually born, and, in your eyes, are experiencing "easy-to-measure human suffering"? Wouldn't the consistent position to abort these poor souls, too, even now? Is that not the most humane thing?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Only Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld know why they went in - the terror links didn't exist and oil companies win if the price is high or low.
In case you haven't noticed, the Niger Uranium was also war propaganda - at times like this evidence is required to convince others, and the USA could not find enough evidence to convince the UN of anything in this situation.
what will it take to get this piece of shit's website blocked throughout the US?
I'm going to backtrack a little bit.
1) sorry about the monster crack. That was poor form on my part.
2) I'm not going to try to make a legal argument. I don't know the Geneva Conventions well enough to do so.
However, I can and do make an ethical argument against executing Afghan or Iraqi prisoners. It's pretty straightforward: If even a single, solitary innocent shepherd has gotten lumped in with the detainees, there is simply no outcome positive enough to justify murdering them. Not possible. And, since the detainees have no access to counsel or due process, there is no way of proving that they are not innocent shepherds, and therefore (by our own ethical code) they are entitled to presumption of innocence, which is an inalienable human right that we encode in our supreme laws.
The Constitution simply does not apply to only citizens. It enjoins the Government from taking actions that would infringe on inalienable human rights.
I can make a similar argument wrt torture. It is a) not effective and b) morally repugnant.
Want to protect our "boys"? Let's don't invade Iraq with no plan for an effective occupation. That will save a lot more US service personnel than torturing a couple naked Iraqis.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
You contradicting "The rest of it" doesn't mean it's untrue.
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
:)
It's not viable, even with serious equipment.
See, the funny thing is this: the very equipment and medical techniques that will allow younger fetuses to live outside the womb will also enable...wait for it...reproductive cloning! Yes, folks, in the name of reducing abortions (if they can't outlaw them completely) conservatives will have to make manufacturing babies a reality. Ain't that the dandiest contradiction.
In that one case, yeah.
That one case happens... say... almost NEVER?
This isn't what's being argued, so it's disingenuous at best to trot this out.
Is this valid for other american leftist tree hugging hippie faggot communist types? I have a few friends who are considerring their options and could probably use a few extra bucks to get them over the fence. This also goes for republicrats and other fanatics, if you're really interested in 'cleansing the american race' or whatever, let me know. I'll take some money off your hands. no problem :)
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
1. Apology accepted.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating we summarily execute anyone. Just pointing out that we could, and the convention is misunderstood widely, especially the reciprical part.
As for presumption of innonence, et al, presumably our soldiers track under what circumstances and for what reasons they capture an individual. I believe that our soldiers are by far and wide proffessionals, and would use this information appropriately.
As for the constitution, it's application to enemies in a war is quite debateable- a debate I don't feel like engaging in.
Yes, for the most part physical torture is inneffective and morally repugnant. I am not, however, against various forms of psycological pressure to extract information. What techniques are and are not appropriate is a question I leave to those more experienced in the field. The photos out of Abu Ghraib didn't bother me. The possible death of an inmate did concern me, however.
Let's don't invade Iraq with no plan for an effective occupation
There's an old adage that goes something like this: An imperfect plan delivered swiftly is better than a perfect plan delivered late.
You can monday morning quarter back the entire Iraq affair all you want, but if you accept that something had to be done about saddam, you have to accept some screw ups along the way. There's no procedure written for invading and occupying a country, no 'how to' manual, and all the people with experience from post world war two probably died a couple decades ago.
No plan, no matter how perfect, survives contact with the enemy. (Another military adage...)
I would like to point out that there is a great deal of good news from Iraq, but since it's good news, it won't sell papers, so it doesn't make headlines. You can read all about it here.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Gods. Do you believe in the immortal soul?
I *WISH* my mother had had the right to choose. If she'd aborted me, maybe I'd have gotten parents who weren't sadistic child molesters.
Give a soul a second chance...
Pro Choice all the way!
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Have you ever looked at the numbers? I find that facts frequently stop a debate dead in it's tracks.
i nforcements.php)
(and by the way, these stats are definitely favorable to your ideas because our 'allies' have been going home as soon as possible.)
Troop totals from April 23, 2004 (most recently I could easily find: http://www.cfr.org/background/background_troop_re
TOTAL: 158,800
* US: 135,000 - 85%
* Britain: 8,700 - 5%
* Italy: 3,000 - 1% (hey, didn't they already bail out after one guy got kidnapped?)
* Poland: 2,400 - NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT (and aren't they getting ready to go home?)
* Ukraine: 1,650 - NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
* Netherlands: 1,000 - NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
* Thailand: 900 - NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
* Australia: 850 - NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
* Romania: 700 - NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
* South Korea: 600 - NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
* The remaining 20 countries contribute a total of 3,900 soldiers. - NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
How do you cite El Salvador and and Mongolia as sources of international support?
I mean seriously, are you just trolling?
The Philippines is one of the best examples, and I tease my Philippino friend about it all the time.
They send 50 people to drive trucks. One got kidnapped. The whole country freaked out. They bribed the terrorists, and then took all their people home, where that trucker was greeted as a hero.
I thought that we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place, and think that the current administration is entirely to blame for the whole thing and they should be held accountable.
I also think that we're there now, and we have a duty to do things right by the Iraqi people before we leave.
But if you think that having allies like the Philippines is helpful or a show of international support, you are mistaken. Fairwhether friends do not make an international coalition.
here in Japan. I've tried numerous times, and have never been able to get to it, from multiple locations. Ever since I can remember, at least a year.
Not that I'm missing much, but I think it's sad that their outlook on the world is so narrow, the only people they allow to view their policies and issues are Americans.
(btw, I'm an American living abroad. What if I wanted to vote for Bush. Ha ha ha, but seriously, if I did, how would I learn about him? The SCLM? I guess the BBC's all I got...)
No, I DON'T think we could, not without becoming our enemy. That is my point. It may or may not be against the Geneva Accords, it is absolutely against the code of ethics that this nation was founded on.
If we can't afford our principles, we can't afford anything.
The techniques of acceptable interrogation are the business of every citizen of this nation. We are (rightly!) judged by our treatment of prisoners. Prisoners should be treated with dignity at all times. Period.
An imperfect plan delivered swiftly gets us stuck in an untenable occupation with no support and no viable exit strategy, with insufficient forces and no armor. Had Colin Powell been calling the shots, it would have not been a problem. Overwhelming force is better for everybody involved. Having some frat boys who think they're soldiers because they did a weekend survival camp where they shot each other with paintball guns running our foreign policy is a Rotten Idea.
Saddam was a bad, bad man. He was not the worst man in the world, nor was he the easiest to get rid of, nor did he lead the most dangerous nation. Any of those criteria would have been sufficient to justify his removal by force by an international body. I do not think invading Iraq has made the United States more secure, and I do not think we had sufficient mandate to invade.
Now that we're there, we have no choice but to stay the course. I am not sanguine about the prospects, but certainly leaving now would be far worse than trying to stick it out.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
They didn't fund Al Q'aida, true. That was something left for the US to do.
Saddam's government did fund Hammas and the PLO, however.
right here
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Perhaps that's due to the findings of the Iraq survey group that there were programs to produce them.
Factually FALSE. The the report concluded there were no existing programs of any signifigance. The most the administration was able to squeeze out of the report was an allegation that Saddam may have desired to develop such weapons after the sanctions eventually got lifted.
I actually voted FOR John Kerry before I voted against him.
A perfect example of the SoundBites-ignoring-reality used to attack Kerry. Kerry voted for one bill and voted against a DIFFERENT bill. They both related to providing $87 billion in military funding, but they had other provisions as well. That is not flip floping at all. That is voting for a good bill and voting against a bad bill. Legislators are SUPPOSED to vote for a good version of a bill and vote against different and bad versions of a bill.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
For Soviets socialism was the reason; W blames terrorism.
Reviewing the text of the Convention, I couldn't find any instance of the words 'spy' 'spies' 'mercenary' 'mercenaries' or 'combatants'. Now, certainly Article 4 enumerates those persons to whom the Convention applies -- however no party is explicitly excluded; indeed, Article 5 states, as a catch-all:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
It is only until very recently that the American government has been holding any kind of trial or tribunal for those prisioners held in Cuba, and there are a number of concerns raised as regards their competence and fairness.
You're right, I hadn't read the text of the convention. Like many today, my understanding of law is often garnered from conversations with friends and colleages and from the media -- although I do try to familiarise myself with the literal texts of various fundamental pieces when the opportunity arises.
Thanks for the link.
Blocking access to www.georgewbush.com from outside the USA makes you believe the Ostrich ads are not far off.
And that's another reason for doubt, why would I be afraid of hactivism if I was convinced of what I'm doing, and I have the right people working for me.
As many Russians do, because Bush does damage to US as much as Gorbachev did to USSR.
- Increase pay for our servicemen and women
- Continue to eliminate inadequate military housing
- Provide the next generation of weapons to assist our troops in the field
- All of the above
[Submit]Where's "None of the above"
> Why should we follow URL's provided by someone who can't even spell Iraq (NOT IraK)?
a) I would assume the poster does not speak English as a native language, many countries around the world spell Iraq as Irak.
b) Don't complain about people's spelling if you get your own wrong. It's URLs, not URL's.
I missed the part where I said there should be a total ban on abortion. The vast majority of abortions are done "out of convenience", not because they are medically recommended. Taking an innocent life out of convenience is the part that bothers me. I wouldn't even ask for a ban on partial birth abortions if they were medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I'd say that's more of a gray area... the photos were released, afterall. This is what I'm saying - the government often says it would rather the press not publish things, but they don't do anything when the press does it (except maybe complain).
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Um, check again. It's called punctuation not spelling.
Additionally, I'm not the one regurgitating a bunch of Michael Moore tripe to everyone. If I'm trying to persuade someone about the situation in Iraq, shouldn't I know how to spell it first?
Wether you think the spelling of Iraq with a 'k' is correct or not is a specious argument. This is a US English site. Learn it or don't post if you want a convincing argument.
If you really want to see W's re-election site,s h.com
you can use this anonymous proxy:
http://www.anonymization.net/http://www.georgewbu
Repeat that in a real sentence, and maybe I can answer it.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
Is no difference. What US does is everybody's concern, due to economics and US foreign policy and even internal policy. I am a Turkish citizen, and US has its fingers in so many pies here like everywhere else, that makes it also our concern. And no, I do not think much will change whether Bush or Kerry gets elected. The so called "old boy network" will continue to exist, with it the arms companies, the oil companies and various other powerful lobbies, whose interests really get to decide which way US government jumps. Bush is well disliked around here, but at least he is good material for -some really very funny- political satire. It's like having choice but between only two brands: coke or pepsi. No wonder US voters are apathetic and don't show up at the ballot.
I live in Thailand, and just once I'd like to hear an American in the United States talk about what's best for the world. All they ever seem to care about is what's best for the United States. Is the world safer since the invasion of Iraq? Obviously not. The biggest threat to world peace? Washington D.C.
Just type georgewbush.com. Note the '.' after com, doesn't take much to fool the system.
Just type georgewbush.com. Note the '.' after com, doesn't take much to fool the system.
You are speculating that Gore would have done differently. Gore is just a pissed off has been.
Truly, President Bush has stolen the symbolism and body language of religion and used it to disguise the most radical effort in American history to take what rightfully belongs to the American people, and give as much of it as possible to the already wealthy and privileged
I especially liked this comment. He makes it sound as though the wealthy peoples money rightfully belongs to all Americans. This is the major issue I take with democrats. They are great at promising other people's money and making it sound like it is the noble thing to do. They even quote scripture as Kerry did during the debates. Nowhere has Jesus said, "Take from the rich and give to the poor." Rather he challenged the rich man to sell all that he had and follow him. It should be a CHOICE!!! And if Kerry was so righteous he might not own 5 mansions and a private jet...
What this all boils down to is that democrats don't agree with Bush's domestic policies so they are irresponsibly attacking his foreign policy in the middle of a war.
Now I remember why I stopped voting for Republicans.
Almost forgot.
My grandfather lost his mother when he was six years old. There were complications surrounding the birth of his baby brother, and both the mother and baby died. My great-grandfather was remarried a few years later, and his new wife didn't much like my grandfather. Threw him out of the house at age 14 cause he was old enough to be on his own.
Now I'm not saying that is a situation for an abortion. But I am saying, I'll bet if you had asked my grandfather, he would have liked to have had his mother alive through his childhood.
I'm often baffled by abortion opponents love for babies and absolute denial that the life of the mother has any value.
Maybe you should stop and think about what it is you are actually advocating instead of spewing talking points.
The BBC report that the site was restricted for "security reasons." Remember, this is the same site that suffered a DOS attack earlier this month.
/
These three links still work though:
https://georgewbush.com/
http://65.172.163.222
http://origin.georgewbush.com/
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's not too hard to read the site if you're outside US, you even don't have to use a proxy. Just send a fake X-Forwarded-For header with a US IP address (like 18.1.2.3).
with an appropriate IP address and the website will let you through.
Looks like The Shrub's website guys are as dumb as he is.
Spies and mercenaries are directly covered in Protocol I to the treaty.
Re: Holding tribunals - I believe that this is actually a second round of tribunals. My (possibly faulty) recollection is that "battlefield tribunals" were held around the time they were captured, which meet the requirements of the treaty. The most recent round of hearings amounts to more of a reevaluation of the status of those currently held.
I will note that so far something like 12 former prisoners who were released have been recaptured or killed while engaging in terrorist activities. It is apparently an imperfect process.
effectively prevented a human from existing
I'm not straw-manning here, I try to be objective on this issue. But, the point your making falls down before casual logic. If you think it's wrong to prevent a human from existing, then by extension, choosing not to engage in intercourse should be made illegal. In fact, opting not to engage in intercourse at every available opportunity would certainly prevent humans from existing, and must therefore be wrong. So all those pro-life people need to get with the baby-making, right?
And on the matter of being incensed when CNN aired the pro-choice march. You should probably question why people exercising their right to public demonstration and free speech makes you angry. And I'm relatively certain that the thing they were doing for their daughters was giving them the option not to become mothers at age 15 when they get trashed at a high school party and get knocked up by a football player.
I can see this either way, but your particular examples aren't the strongest arguments I've seen from that side of it.
So having an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions? If you have sex (and we all know that sex can lead to pregnancy) then taking responsibility for your actions is living with the consequence of those actions. Abortion is nothing more than a way to avoid responsibility.
Seriously people, there are MANY good people who are on waiting lists to ADOPT healthy children. Taking responsibility would be to have the baby and giving it up for adoption. Then maybe the person will think twice before getting pregnant again.
I'm never "blasé" about talking any life at all. I'm asking if you think there's a moral equivilence between taking an innocent life (generally done out of convenience), and taking the life of someone found guilty of premeditated murder? Do you not see the difference? Even in the case of abortion there are sometimes (although these are a tiny minority of cases) justifications (to protect the mother's life, for example). On the flip side of the coin, you might be against the death penalty, which is a fine position to take and it's one of the topics I won't argue about, but are certain that there's no one who has ever existed that didn't simply deserve to die? No one? Not a Hitler, not anyone?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Abortion is nothing more than a way to avoid responsibility.
I'll assume for the sake of the argument, that you mean voluntary abortions and not instances of rape, incest, or the mother's health. Regardless, that's a pretty convient way for you to frame the whole issue, isn't it?
Taking responsibility would be to have the baby and giving it up for adoption.
How is this--at the very least, a nine-month hiatus--really an option for someone who is heavily invested in a career or education? Because you claim it is?
Furthermore, exactly what responsibilities do I have to a mass of cells on my body? This isn't a rhetorical question. Please explain what differentiates a first-trimester blastocyst from that of a growing fingernail or mole. Is it a soul, the human DNA or some convoluted concept of potentiality which we never apply elsewhere? I am not a moral relativist. There are right and wrong actions. I've just not seen any logical arguments that first and second trimester abortions (representing 88% and 11% of all abortions, respectively) constitute the latter.
Then maybe the person will think twice before getting pregnant again.
Yeah! Those dirty whores!
Isn't that what it all really comes down to in the end? There's a need in some people for punishment and public humiliation for those practicing non-marital sex that abortion inherently denies.
-Grym
I was replying to the previous poster who indicated that abortion is the responsible thing to do. I do believe there are cases that abortion should be an option (we could have a debate about that) but to say that abortion is responsible just because the child, if kept, will have a hard life is just stupid. Even if they did keep the child, there are many examples of people born into harsh circumstances that became great people.
Furthermore, exactly what responsibilities do I have to a mass of cells on my body?
My wife recently had a 6 week miscarriage. At six weeks you can hear a heartbeat. To call it a mass of cells is a stupid argument. It is a potential human child. If given the opportunity to grow, it will not turn into a mole or a fingernail. It will turn into a child.
Yeah! Those dirty whores!
Look, all I am saying is people should take responsibility for their actions. Killing a potential human being because you don't want it or you are afraid of what other people might think or because you are worried about your career cannot be justified.
Um, so what's so different about the fetus's personhood 1 day before the third trimester?
Not much. But you have to draw the line somewhere, don't you? Arbitrary though it may be, the third trimester period represents about 1% of all abortions and also the point where significant events relative to the fetus begin to occur (i.e. "quickening", viability, and so on).
I just don't get how there can be such a disconnect for people between something in the womb and something that just came out if it. Even if it's a stinkin' embryo, thousands of years of observation STRONGLY suggests that, left unharmed, it's going to become a human being. If somebody has an abortion, simple logic dictates that they effectively prevented a human from existing, even if they don't think its a human at that point.
The "disconnect" arises from this notion of potentiality. The logic you describe is simple but only deceptively so. How can the moral status of something depend upon what it might become?
Your Logic (correct me if I'm wrong): An embryo, regardless of the stage of development, has a good chance of becoming human. Humans have rights. Therefore, an embryo is entitled to the rights of a human.
This seems simple enough, but what happens when we apply potentiality in another context?
Example: All of us will (chance isn't even involved in this one) die and thus become dead bodies. Dead bodies have do not have rights. Therefore, all of us are not entitled to rights. (?)
Immediately, it becomes obvious why potentiality is a bad basis for conclusions on morality, and why it is never used outside the context of the abortion debate.
Seriously, it's a self-defeating argument- they're trying to protect their daughters, yet some of those potential daughters won't be around to enjoy that protection.
Okay, again correct me if I'm wrong, but this is your potentiality-based logic: Abortions prevent potential people from coming into the world. Abortions are, in essence, murdering potential people. Murdering people is morally wrong. Therefore abortions are morally wrong too.
Fair enough.
Context-switching example: Abstinence prevents potential people from coming into the world. Abstinence is, in essence, murdering potential people. Murdering people is morally wrong. Therefore, abstinence is morally wrong too. In fact, we are morally obligated to be sexually promiscuous--lest we prevent any potential people from coming into being.
It doesn't take long to see that potentiality alone is NOT a good logical basis, which is what plagues this whole line of arguments against abortions.
-Grym
nothings secure. microsoft gets hacked all the time and ikts not like they dont have the right people. and he knows what hes doing
I don't have time to read 1700 comments, so if this has been posted already, I am sorry.
Try surfing to the IP that www.georgewbush.com resolves to. Fucking morons.
echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck
Now compare other mentions of "sword" in the NT.
Agreed.
At six weeks you can hear a heartbeat.
What's your point with this beyond an emotional appeal? Does a heartbeat make one human?
To call it a mass of cells is a stupid argument... It will turn into a child.
To call it a full-fledged human deserving of rights is a stupid argument too. Please don't take this the wrong way, but what I think you mean to say is that it might potentially turn into a child. Nobody except the religious fringe argues that invitro-fertilization is immoral, and yet, hundreds of fertilized eggs--or potential human beings, if you will--are destroyed in the process. Why do you think this is? It's my firm belief that much of the reason why lies in the fact that there aren't sexually promiscuous "whores" to torment; only couples trying to have a child.
Look, all I am saying is people should take responsibility for their actions.
Who says I'm not? What's at issue is whether a responsibility exists, which, at the very least, we should be able to agree is a matter of opinion.
Killing a potential human being because you don't want it or you are afraid of what other people might think or because you are worried about your career cannot be justified.
But outcasting a child to a stranger's hands can? Regardless, motive for an abortion is irrelevant if the moral status of the fetus is non-existent or at least significantly less than that of a person. In this respect, I hold a gradualist point of view. A fertilized egg is not a human. Neither is a blastocyst, but we can agree that a baby on the verge of delivery undeniably is. In between these cases (zygote --> birthing child) exists a gradient of increasing moral consideration. The vast majority of abortions (88%) occur at the low end of this spectrum. Therefore, despite its emotionally-divisive nature and negative social connotations, the vast majority of abortions are not morally wrong.
-Grym
No, the DNA makes the child human. The heartbeat indicates life the beginning of a life. If there are no defects in the DNA and if a few other things happen correctly, the child WILL grow into a human child. It isn't all about potential. This glob of cells as you call it IS a human. It merely cannot survive on its own outside the womb. To set some arbitrary point at which it becomes a child is impossible to do. You seem to draw the line at after the second trimester so at 180 days it is a child and at 179 days it is a glob of cells.
But outcasting a child to a stranger's hands can?
I believe it is absolutely justified. It isn't like you are dumping the child on total strangers. These total strangers WANT a child. In most cases, they were not able to have a child by themselves. Obviously some research on the adopting couple should be done and standards need to be set. I know several adoptive parents who are VERY good parents and love their adopted children as if they were birth children.
Therefore, despite its emotionally-divisive nature and negative social connotations, the vast majority of abortions are not morally wrong.
I will agree to disagree on this one. I feel that most abortions are morally wrong. Whether the fetus has moral status is a matter of opinion or belief. My belief and conviction point me in that direction. Proving otherwise is like trying to prove that God exists.
Those numbers pretty much mirror the numbers for UN sanctioned operations.
You insult the contributions of our allies by saying they are insignificant.
I consider your interpretation of the "facts" to be insignificant.
-- Will program for bandwidth
http://www.command-post.org/oped/2_archives/007763 .html
This is an excellent read on the subject. Thank you.
Obviously this site is closed for us Urpeens because they don't want us to see their obvious lies.. Btw: What are the Bush-es meaning by having this big "Whatever it takes" slogan on their site ? Are they going to keep the President-seat by any means: cheating in the election, by help from corrupted judges, the Brother in Florida and so on? A big neccecary part is also to keep the Public afraid by using the trash media to keep the public "informed" with bullshit, and randomly changing the Terrorist-threat scale. btw2 : Already 60,000 votes in Florida are missing!
You must be male?
Carrying a baby to term involves all sorts of stuff. You have to watch what you eat, your health, not smoke, or drink, etc. Easy enough so far. Except you also might have to go off antidepressants or some other medication to decrease risk of birth defects. And if you don't get enough folic acid in those first few weeks, bad things happen. Suddenly you have to worry more about lead in your fish, and other enviromental poisioning.
"Just have the kid." It sounds so simple, but has so much responsibility. And if you mess up, you mess up big.
If you want to adopt, go grab one of the unwanted kids from one of the orphanages in any 3rd world country. Don't ask me to have a baby for you. Geez. And if you feel that strongly about it, maybe you should donate money to hunger relief.
Many good points.
Realistically, if your primary concern is the security of the US, then the best policy is isolationism, not global intervention.
That was what you thought before 9/11.
Plus, it wouldn't exactly be the best policy for us Europeans, whenever we need the US.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Want some wood?
Ha ha ha. It was funny the way Bush said that when he really did report himself as a small business selling timber on his taxes. It's like he doesn't even do his own taxes himself. Wait a second. (Silver spoon falls from his mouth as he interrupts the debate moderator again.). You mean he is a multi-millionaire who got the most from his "tax cuts"? Why, yes, Virginia, he is. I'm glad you're able to cheat the government in paying no taxes. Just like a Republican (well, a Bush-Republican). How about a no-bid contract? Maybe if you owned Enron stock you wouldn't be so smug.
Why the qualifier? It sounds like you think life-taking in general is okay. That makes you a Bush-Republican. Or at least you share the same values.
The photos weren't allowed to be taken. So you are full of shit like usual, gfxguy.
Bush appointed Ashcroft. QED.
No, no Geneva Conventions tribunals were held as required. And as such any possibility of a kidnapped person being excluded from further reach of the (U.S.-)Consitutionally-mandated adherence to the signed Conventions is impossible. Bush is a war criminal. And you are his apologist.
You should probably question why people exercising their right to public demonstration and free speech makes you angry.
That wasn't the reason why I insensed. RTFP.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
A mom who will raise a kid no matter what the odds is a lot tougher than the one who will only do it when life is cozy. I'll take the former anyday.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
Believe me, it's not that I think Kerry ought to be president. I have never in my life voted anything but Republican. I'd rather be able to stick with that this time around, and in fact I am voting straight Republican in all but the presidential election.
But I honestly believe that Bush is a danger to the American way of life. His actions are based solely on ideology in spite of any facts.
Worse, by far, was it utter, total, and complete lack of any action in the months leading up to 9/11. I could easily say he had done the best with the information he had if he had taken some action and later a better option came up. Hindsight is 20/20. But he had overwhelming amounts of evidence and did absolutely nothing.
I disagree strongly with the democrats view of most money and social issues. But in the end, I am voting because I think Kerry will do less damage in the next 4 years than Bush will.
But I don't think it is irresponsible to attack Bush's foreign policy in the middle of the war. I'm not sure there is any consistent, tangible policy to even attack.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
Not really. I think death is an easy out vs life in prison.
And I don't see abortions as any different than cutting your hair, in either case you are ridding yourself of parts of your body.
I also am not going to argue these points as they are personal opinions, but I don't see a way to determine the start of life in any logical manner - so I arbitrailary set it at the moment of birth. If I have to be arbitrary, I'll make the line easy to see.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Factually FALSE. The the report concluded there were no existing programs of any signifigance. The most the administration was able to squeeze out of the report was an allegation that Saddam may have desired to develop such weapons after the sanctions eventually got lifted.
Congratulations. You've just parrotted news misrepresentations that are directly contrary to the contents of the report. Since the report is public record, there's no excuse for this except personal political bias.
See pages 12 and 13.
No, it really is quite simple. If you're against abortion don't have one. The whole line of thinking here is exactly CHOICE. Those speakers you mentioned with their sons and daughters present chose NOT to have an abortion. That doesn't mean one can't support the cause.
I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
"Reasonable dissent" does not include coming back home from war and consorting with a person who calls POW's war criminals. liars and baby killers. Hell, the asshole even wrote a "factual" book on his experiences there. No sir, "reasonable dissent" does not mean coming home and shitting all over the very people you served with and then expect to become president. That is an error of epic proportions.
I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
Geography has no effect upon compliance with the Geneva Conventions. You are either just making things up, or don' know what you are talking about.
Apparently "Flamebait" is political jargon for "facts inconvenient to my political views"
Who the hell would think that. Like that issue makes any difference to the guy's argument. Try adressing the other things he said if you want to call him ignorant. Do you really think you changed anyone's mind or brought anything new to this discussion with an unlosable argument like that.
Sorry about the vitriol but this iceperson was being a bit of a smug git with no reason to be.
I'll tell you what. If you can cite what on pages 12 or 13 is evidence that Iraq had a prohibited chemical weapons program to justify the invasion then I am biased and parroting misinformation. If you cannot then you are biased and parroting missinformation.
I suspect the problem is that you are reading "dual use" as somehow being incriminating. Dual use specifically covers things that could be used for a prohibited program AND would appear in perfectly legal and legitimate chemical industry, The report specifically documents perfectly legitimate and legal uses for those chemicals. It in no way documents a chemical weapons project. It is documenting alegitimate chemical industry.
It also cites illicit funds transfer and procurement from the Oil-fo-Food program, but in no way indicates that it was directed to or involved in any chemical weapons program.
It goes on to document that former chemical weapons scientists remained employed in the chemical industry (naturally, that is their area of skill), and it specifically cite an absence of any indication that they were involved in any chemical weapons program.
It also orders were given to prepare for inspectors, orders that would obviously be given even in the absence of any chemical weapons program.
The only thing in there that is actually in any way incriminating is "Reports of an unexplained discovery of VX traces on missle warhead fragments in April 1997". The report says it is unexplained, and we all agree that Iraq once did have a chemical weapons program. And it was fully SIX YEARS before we invaded Iraq.
There was no evidence of a chemical weapons program because THERE WAS NO chemical weapons program. Saddam may have been interested in restarting such a program if/when sanctions ended, but he did indeed destry his existing chemical weapons and did indeed terminate his chem,ical weapons programs. Saddam might even have dreamed of making a nuke some day, but he certainly had no actual and active nuke program.
The US administration constantly relied on the "dual-use" line and did their best to deceive the public into beleiving that had something to do with prohibited use. All the evidence was and has been that it indeed was all put to legitimate and legal use.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
> Um, check again. It's called punctuation not spelling.
No, you misspelled the plural of URL. This has nothing to do with punctuation. If it makes you feel better you can call it a mistake in grammar (i.e. you *meant* to use the singular form and the possessive case "'s"). I doubt it though.
Anyway, what I was trying to point out was that the knowledge of the correct US-English spelling of Iraq is not necessary for the discussion of the situation in Iraq. However, when discussing other people's spelling it arguably is important to get it right.
America, if you dont know, its a continent. There is South America, NORTH AMERICA and Central America. So, if you say that the Bush page cant be visited by people outside America then you are referring to the entire continent! We live in Argentina, and i cant visit the Bush's page. Argentina its in America Continent!!! how could be that people who reads slashdot cant understand the difference bettwen A CONTINENT and a COUNTRY!!! The worlds go bads if the people of the most powerful country of the earth are so ignorant. Sorry my english. Here in Argentina we have subway, internet, cars, directv. For those that thinks that we lives like the indians.
His point, you fool, is that it was logistically impossible for Iraq or the looters to remove the explosives en masse as others have claimed, as the the environment surrounding the invasion, as grandparent post or so attested these were pulled out during April 2003, was incredibly hostile in that region and would have been to any supply-like looking non-US vehicle.
The mere fact that you could not fathom this simple argument just shows how tunnel-visioned you are to your own arguments when you see a counter and well-argued plain-faced counter argument and don't even recognize the main points.
Note I'm not saying he's right, but that you need to get a clue.
Spin, spin, spin...
ABC News: Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control
These three links still work though
No joy: they closed those holes, buddy.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
If it'll save some of our boys, I have just one thing to say: Red is positive, black is negative.
I'm all for fighting gentlemanly... with gentlemen. With the kind of enemy we find over there, observing the nicest rules of war while they fight the dirtiest way they can is just fighting with one hand tied behind our back.
Don't care much about the moral high ground, do you? We're fighting an amorphous war that is supposedly based on values. What kind of a message does it send across the globe when we can't uphold the values we're fighting for?
Torture doesn't just happen "over there". It's actively used in Guantanamo Bay, where american citizens are sent. Those tortured are not necessarily guilty. But they're tortured anyway. So, being a middle-class caucasian, it's easy for you to make a joke about electrocution. But what if you were an american citizen of middle eastern descent? Would you joke about the very real threat of torture then? Guantanamo Bay is real. Innocent people are mistakenly sent there. And to justify torturing them because maybe, just maybe, one of the other people you torture could know something reveals your monstrousness.
4-star general in a one-man army.
"In addition to preserved capabiilty, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD production as soon as sanctions were lifted."
Yes, it's true every plant he built was multi-purpose. However, this is true of any chemical weapon production plant. Most chemical nerve agents are closely related to pesticides, and many of the pesticides Iraq was producing are in fact nerve agents, usually used in diluted form.
However, if you don't dilute them, they're just as effective as their better-known weaponized counterparts. Tabun, in particular, is very similar to Malathion, and they had massive overproduction capability for Malathion. If you think this stuff doesn't make an effective chemical weapon, tell that to the millions of Jews that Adolph Hitler killed with insecticides.
Saddam might even have dreamed of making a nuke some day, but he certainly had no actual and active nuke program.
Their first attempt to blow one up was in 1989. This is probably the only time in history that a country failed in its first attempt to blow up a nuclear weapon. Once sanctions were lifted, they'd have resumed that as well. Lest you forget, they were hiding uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment in the back yard of the man in charge of the program.
Also in the Duelfer report, on page 3:
"Uday - head of the Fedayeen Saddam - attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF, according to reporting, but ISG found no evidence that Iraq ever came into possession of any CW weapons."
If they were trying to buy them, do you honestly think it's reasonable to assume they'd have continued to fail? Do you honestly think it's reasonable to assume they'd have declined to use them, despite their long history of doing just that, as late as 1991?
As far as all this stuff being dual-use goes, is it your honest contention that Iraq was attempting to become the world's major supplier of pesticides, and that Saddams long history of declarations that having chemical weapons was necessary for him to maintain the strategic balance with his enemies was just a coincidence?
If you go around saying "I will drop hammers from freeway overpasses, killing the drivers of passing cars", and then you buy 10,000 hammers, it's reasonable to assume you have them in order to do harm, despite the fact that hammers are legal.
Oh, I should add this now:
Iraqi rebels claim to have chemical weapons.
Wonder where they got those? Hmm, says here, from the Iraqi chemical weapons experts that have joined them.
From wikipedia:
"Se denomina continente a cualquiera de las grandes masas de tierra que tiene nuestro planeta. Típicamente estas grandes masas son subdivididas, como lo muestra la siguiente tabla, ya sea geográficamente (por istmos, estrechos o canales) o culturalmente (la división Asia/Europa). América, limitando con el continente Euro-asiático-africano por el noroeste en el Estrecho de Bering. Se suele enseñar el modelo de siete continentes (África, América del Norte, América del Sur, Antártida, Asia, Europa y Oceanía) en Europa Occidental y América del Norte. El modelo de seis continentes (Eurasia combinada) se emplea también en América del Norte, y es el que se suele enseñar en contextos científicos. El modelo de seis continentes (América combinada) se emplea más en Europa del Este y en América del Sur."
Ouch, sorry, i forgot that Many CITIZENS OF USA dont speak "mexicano". If many of your think like you the world go bad. Then Bush have the reason for kill the people that he want, and do things without think. The next tuesday i think that bush will win, and that will show how the citizens of usa thinks.
If you remember me about MALVINAS ARGENTINAS (Ouch again, Citizens of USA dont know that the original name is Malvinas, not falkland) i will remember you Vietnam. Victor Charlie kicks your ass.
PD1: If Bush win, the hate of the world against your people will increase, its a fact.
PD2: It is not "mexicano", it is spanish or castellano. Te aclaro esto por las dudas, porque como el habitante promedio de estados unidos es bruto seguro que mas de uno no lo entendio, ah si, fueron palabras de su presidente "elegido democraticamente". Por las dudas tambien estoy aprendiendo chino y pronto aprendere frances. If you cant understand this words its becouse you are brainless!!!
What he siad is indeed true. As surveyed, a majority of Bush supporters do indeed believe that most of the world supports Bush or is at least indifferent. The majoriity of Kerry supporters accurately know that the majority of the world has turned against Bush and against the US as a whole.
The fact is that global opposition to Bush is overwelming, as surveyed by over 34,000 people in 35 countries.
The reason it is signifigant is that Bush has absolutely destroyed our international relations. Bush has alienated our allies.s The US has been caught lying to the world to support the Iraq invasion. The world no longer trusts us. The world no longer supports our anti-terrorism efforts. How the hell are we supposed hunt down and capture or kill terrorist cells hiding in Mexico or Canada or Germany or Australia or anywhere else without the support of their general population and their intellegence agencies and police support and military support?
Bush supporters are generally unaware of just how badly Bush has ruined our capability to catch and kill terrorists cells worldwide.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Perhaps that's due to the findings of the Iraq survey group that there were programs to produce them.
The findings were that Saddam had indeed destroyed his WMD's and that he had indeed shut down all programs in an effort to end the sanctions and avoid potential US attack.
I never denied that Saddam was interested in resuming programs if/when sanctions were ever lifted.
The point is that the majority of Bush supporters have been misled into thinking that such weapons or programs existed at the time the US invaded. Even worse the administration presented 'evidence' it know was a forgery - the yellowcake documents. It presented other evidence it knew was bogus - the aluminum tubes our own experts knew were were ill suited to uranium enrichment.
Was Saddam a nasty guy? Yes. Would Saddam have returned to "business as usual" had sanctions been lifted? Most likely. However there was no legitimate need to act when we did and in the way we did. So long as the sanctions remained in place Iraq was no imminent threat. There was no connection to Al Qaeda. The administration's lies were absolutely intolerable. The claimed justifications for the invasion were flat-out false.There was no reason to lie and to alienate all of our allies and to fuel the anti-US terrorist movement.
Working with and through the UN may feel like swiming through thick mud, but maintaining the sanctions was fully effective in the mean time.
Most chemical nerve agents are closely related to pesticides
Pesticides generally are nerve agents - INSECT nerve agents.
Tabun, in particular, is very similar to Malathion
A certain similarity, however Malathion and related compounds have the wrong kind of bonds to target humans. They are also almost impossble to transform into human nerve agents like Tabun.
if you don't dilute them, they're just as effective as their better-known weaponized counterparts.
Hahahaha. Sure Malathion is toxic to humans - but over TEN THOUSAND less toxic than Tabun. In order to use Malathion as a "chemical weapon" you'd have to drop kilotons of it on a battlefield to have any effect at all.
If you think this stuff doesn't make an effective chemical weapon, tell that to the millions of Jews that Adolph Hitler killed with insecticides.
LOL. Just because you can poison a captive with a chemical does not mean it can be meaningfully weaponized on a battlefeild. It's off by a factor of thousands. By that logic nailpolish remover is a "chemical weapon".
they had massive overproduction capability for Malathion
?????
According to the report Iraq's chemical industry was "building up" - but it was building up from a ruinous state, that it was still a wreck and still under capability. I spend a while Google searchingsand I couldn't find any reference anywhere to Iraqi "overproduction" capability of anything.
Not that overproduction capability of Malathion would have any weapon use anyway.
>Saddam might even have dreamed of making a nuke some day, but he certainly had no actual and active nuke program.
Their first attempt to blow one up was in 1989.
Like I said, he had no actual and active nuke program. Any such program had been shut down over a decade before we invaded. And so long as the sanctions remained he was not starting any such program.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yes, but he said it wrong. If someone has an abortion it kills a human who merely hasn't grown up yet.
People differ in opinion as to when it becomes a "person" in the true sense of the word. Some say conception. Some say birth. Each of those two positions is ridiculous. It's somewhere in between, and it's fuzzy at best.
And so long as the sanctions remained he was not starting any such program.
The sanctions were killing 50,000 a year. The war has killed less than a third of that number. How much longer would you have wanted those sanctions to go on? Another half a million dead? A million? Two?
Inner cities are full of the children of women (and girls) who decided to raise them "no matter what the odds". Or I should say, some of them are still in the inner cities; lots of them are in prisons or cemetaries due to their mother's "pro-life" (or "I don't give a damn") attitude.
"....And God breathed the breath of life into him and man came to be a living soul...." Genesis 2:7
You've stated your religious viewpoint. Others may take the above to mean that there is no life there until it's breathing, and therefore having an abortion is a matter of taking responsibility (as much so as using contraception) rather than convenience.
If someone takes their religion to mean that abortion is preferable (or even an obligation), who are you to tell them they're wrong?
The sanctions were killing 50,000 a year. The war has killed less than a third of that number. How much longer would you have wanted those sanctions to go on? Another half a million dead? A million? Two?
I do not dispute there were potential humanitarian issues at stake. It's not nearly as simple as you suggest, but I really don't have to bother arguing about it at all. Why? Because you are simply changing looking for an excuse and to to cover up the fact that the original poster broter was correct and the report The Separate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters was correct and the majority of Bush supporters are missinformed and you were wrong when you claimed I "parrotted news misrepresentations" and Bush lied to the US and to the world to justify the war.
If we should have invaded Iraq based on that humanitarian justification as you now claim, then Bush should have stated that justification at the time. Then the American public and the world could have evaluated the legitimacy or flaws in that justifcation and properly prepared and acted to best fulfill that justification - if it was valid. We did none of that, and it is quite obvious that we are currently doing a lousey job of fulfilling that aim. Iraq is an absolute mess. If we presume that justification turned out to be valid and had we presented it to the world we most likely would have had international help in fulfilling that aim much better. And we would not have lost the trust of our allies for lying and we would not have causing tens of thousands to flood into the ranks of terrorists and we would not have wound up alienating all of our allies and lost their popular support and lost their police support and lost their intelligence support and lost their military support and we would not have crippled our capability to hunt down and catch or kill terrorists across the globe.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
From the January, 2003 State of the Union address:
So, as you've stated, if this was one of the reasons we went in, the President should have stated it at the time. He did. Therefore, by your logic, you must agree it was one of the reasons. Quod erat demonstratum.
All that is left to you is arguing it's not a sufficient reason. If human life means so little to you, by all means, keep marching further onto the wrong side of history.
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons
Not only was that FALSE, but Bush knew - or should have known - that all credible evidence at the time was that it was false. Our Senate Intellegence report documents that in at least some cases Bush did specifically and KNOWINGLY present invalid "evidence" to us and to the world.
The rest of the quote is a miniscule toss-in in an entire speech - and the entire administration war propaganda campaign - entirely based on defending the United States against attack. And particularly raising the threat of a nuclear attack.
[quoting myself]
>then Bush should have stated that justification at the time
I'm sorry - "stated" was the wrong word there. He did mention it. He never tried to justify the war on that basis.
If human life means so little to you, by all means, keep marching further onto the wrong side of history.
On that basis, BUSH is on the wrong side. If the war was fought becuase "leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape" then Iraq was about 30th down the list of places we should have gone. Compared to some other places, Iraq was a glorious loving regime compared to the rape, torture, and mutilation of millions being intentionally starved to extermination.
So if action was justified on that basis then heading to Iraq was still unjustified.
I don't know what Bush's motivation was for wanting to invade Iraq, but it sure as hell wan't humanitarian concerns. He pressured the CIA into manufacturing the illusion of grounds for war specifically with Iraq. One CIA informant said he was ordered "If Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so." If Bush wanted to go on a humantitarian crusade there were far better places to go, and there no need to manufacture evidence for it.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I don't know what Bush's motivation was for wanting to invade Iraq,
I've boiled your argument down to its crux. This should save you lots of typing in the future.
You're welcome.
>I don't know what Bush's motivation was for wanting to invade Iraq,
I've boiled your argument down to its crux.
Wahahahaah!
No, my argument is that Bush LIED to us and to the world to justify that war. As if lying to *us* wasn't bad enough, but the entire world no longer trusts us and no longer supports us. He has absolutely traches our international relations and CRIPPLED our capability to hunt down and catch or kill terrorists across the globe (because we no longer have country's citizen's support and no longer have their police support and no longer have their intelligence support and no longer have their military support). And it sure as hell doesn't exactly help our ability to keep terrorists out when we have even lost the support of Canada and Mexico. And even if the Iraq war were somehow justified, by lying about it and alienating the world and invading in the way he did he absolutely fscked up the post-war recovery and wound up CREATING far more terrorist recruits than ever before.
The fact that I said didn't know what his motivation was completely irrelevant to all of those points.
But as for Bush's motivation for attacking Iraq, according to Bush himself God instructed him to do it. Usually people who say they are RECEIVING ORDERS FROM GOD TO ATTACK PEOPLE get medicated, not reelected.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.