The fundamental problem you're overlooking is that, while our forces shouldn't be used for nation-building, nation-building is still an important job. It's just supposed to be left up to the UN. The UN fscked this one, just like they did Bosnia, so we're taking care of it.
As far as rebuilding a coalition, I'll repeat what Bush has said in all three debates...we have 30 countries in the present coalition. We aren't getting France and Germany, we never were, case closed. You could have bribed them with a lifetime supply of wine and cheese and it wouldn't have mattered. It still doesn't, they aren't sending troops. I don't blame Bush for doing something "with only" a 30 country coalition.
BTW, this isn't a flip-flop like so many would love to characterize it. Flip flopping, ala the charges thrown at John Kerry, are when you say one thing then contradict that stance with nothing having changed inbetween and without relying on hindsight. In Bush's case, nation-building wasn't something we should use our forces for because the UN should do it. When the UN *wouldn't* do it, we had to.
No, they aren't. Bush abandoned fiscal conservatism when the war started. I don't blame him for it, but did result in a serious spending spree.
I'm voting for Bush because while we are spending a ton on the war, I see and end to that eventually. Kerry's economic polics (health care, corporate tax breaks, tax refunds, etc), IMO, are going to put us in debt over the long run and despite what Kerry says, they aren't going to generate jobs.
Eh, depends. If he's advocating picking between conservatism or liberalism, I can almost understand that. These are, essentially, just how you think about a given issue. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, with typically conservative foreign policy views. I vote Republican a lot, but I really liked Clinton and voted for him as well.
Picking parties is stupid, I agree. However, I will vote Republican 9 times out of 10 because they tend to be fiscally conservative and that's my hot button topic, so am I a Republican? If asked, I say yes, but usually need to clarify if the discussion lasts more than 3 sentences.
There's a huge difference between conservative/Republican/right-wing, and a lot of people skew what I say because of that. Just a thought
If you honestly think that GTA:SA won't sell an absolutely absurd number of copies, making everyone associated with Rockstar a ton of money, you're deluding yourself. I do not worry for this man's family. But to make you feel better, I'm either going to buy it or have someone get it for me for Christmas.
It's also just a name recognition thing. It's been shown people are more likely to vote for someone when they are innundated with their name. I remember in the 2000 election, it was like a contest to see who could occupy the most space on the medians. You've seen that Family Guy when Lois and Peter run against each other and have red/blue signs covering their front yard? That's what half the medians looked like.
The Oregon report said one person "might" have seen 8-10 registrations shredded and another "might" have been encouraged to do so.
The second one references the same people as the first one (same individual, at least).
The third is a woman who says she was told to do something, by people who deny it, and never saw it happen.
Since you seem to be so insanely insistant I chastise the RNC, I will admit that if any of these cases are proven legitimate then the firms responsible should be held accountable. That's a long, long shot from the RNC itself being guilty of voter fraud. The DNC admits to the inclusion of this page in its manual. When the RNC itself has done something like this, lemme know.
But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
The Democrat spokesman agreed that it is part of their manual. Notwithstanding the fact that I have read the JPG several times, what have I gotten wrong concerning said parent's post?
Read between the lines? How about reading *the* lines:
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
The actions it suggests are to issue press releases, get minority leaders to talk about it in the media and to provide them with talking points.
This is directly from the party's leadership, wtf?
I've read about a single case involving less than 100 Democrats' registrations being ripped up. Can you cite references to the thousands? Honest question, I just haven't read about that many.
To answer your question, yes and no. No, if Democrats can't vote on election day, that's worse. However...yes, this is worse because this comes directly from the DNC, the political party in question, as opposed to people who are working the registration booths. No offense, but if you can't figure out how to register, and get confirmation in the form of a voter registation card from your state, you're a fucking moron. If the RNC has in its manual that we should contact the media and claim we were disenfranchised when *nothing has happened*, that's fraud, plain and simple. The DNC is guilty of advocating fraud.
Did you read the same JPG I did? It's calling for, at best, Democrats to raise a fuss when there's nothing to raise a fuss about, and at worst claiming voter fraud where none exists. And this is from the party's MANUAL.
But Democrats, who verified as authentic the page from a playbook called "Colorado Election Day Manual: A detailed guide to voting in Colorado," said they must be pro-active to assure that minorities and all others are not scared away from the polls.
In my eyes, for president Bush this is the ol' "Are you sorry for beating your wife?" question. There's no correct way to answer it, and neither Kerry nor Nader will be as harshly judged as anything the president chooses. That being said, I do wish he had had a better answer in the debates, but I don't hold it against him that he didn't make an itemized list.
Out of curiosity, what would you have Bush say? He's been in office for four years and has pressed for, rejected and passed legislation dealing with most of these topics. As actions speak louder than words, I prefer hearing what Bush has or hasn't done as an indication over Kerry's "I have a plan" mantra, such as the one he uses when talking about the draft.
Well, no, embryonic stem cells still provide the best bet for other diseases and whatnot. I think she was pointing out that significant benefits, outweighing those from embryonic cells, can be found in adult cells just for spinal research.
I watch FoxNews most nights to catch O'Reilly and sometimes Hannity/Colmes, and I'll vouch that during the month of August I saw about a 4:1 ratio of MoveOn ads to SBV ads. How does your argument that they should run 90 minutes of Soros' propaganda hold up to this?
My point is that so long as you aren't advocating a candidate, I think it's legal to rip another candidate to shreds.
I'll give you one thing...the conservatives have taken hold of the media in the talk radio area, but past that I think you're full of it. You name one media station, in addition to talk, that is conservative (FoxNews), and call it a massive media influence? CNN, MSNBC, the three broadcast stations...some of them aren't obviously opining for the election of Kerry, but they're still liberal. Huge difference between liberal and left-wing Democrat, btw. Read Goldwater's book "Bias"...the liberal label goes well beyond which candidate they choose to endorse.
As far as the SBV ads are concerned, even O'Reilly, that big bad guy on right-wing FoxNews, said the very first night he aired any coverage of the SBVs that they were wrong for doing what they were doing. Coverage of the SBVs was only picked up by the mainstream because it was so huge in the blogosphere.
If Sinclair could get the Court to declare this as "unbiased news", then they would be exempt from the equal time requirements.
I'm not sure they even have to. What's the difference between this and a MoveOn.org ad, other than this is 90 minutes long and ads are like 30 seconds? I think the equal time requirements only dictate that if you're showing advertisement *for* a candidate, you have to give equal time to the other. That's why MoveOn can get away with loads of anti-Bush ads...they aren't campaigning *for* Kerry. Well, they are, but only in the sense that we live in, essentially, a country with a two party system.
The "liberal" media coverage, which you claim hurt Kerry by showing the SBV ads repeatedly, was bashing the ad every chance it got. I suppose you could classify it in the "all publicity is good" category, but saying the media was benefitting the SBVs is a bit much...the SBV ads stood on their own to discredit Kerry.
Fahrenheit hasn't been shown on every tv station under the sun because of distribution rights, plain and simple. Moore's distributor won't let it happen until they've milked all the cash from DVD sales. Had Moore NOT cared about money, he could have made Fahrenheit, not released it to theatres (or given it a limited release to those theaters that would show it) and instead distributed the rights himself, it could be shown anywhere.
haven't managed to get a single person who personally served with Kerry
This is like saying I don't work with the guys in the QA section of my project because they're on the other side of the room, separated by cubicles. While I may not know them as well as the other developers sitting next to me, who I can eavesdrop on if I wanted, I still know who they are, how they act, what they've done and all their personal information. The SBVs you question were serving with Kerry in the sense that many were on another boat right next to him. They ate together, they fought together, they just weren't on the same boat.
You had to actively seek out and pay for Fahrenheit because Moore likes money and chose a distributor that wouldn't let their distribution rights go by the wayside. They won't release it for the public airwaves until the DVD sales have grabbed as much cash as possible. There are plans for an election night showing on pay-per-view, which is standard practice when films go to DVD anyways.
Don't think Moore was altruistic with Fahrenheit's creation...he wanted to make money just like most other film producers.
Sinclair invited Kerry to be on afterwards to refute the documentary. As of now, Kerry's people have refused. The offer, notwithstanding the refusal, ought to stand in court.
It's not out of context, Edwards said this just the other day in a speech. Nevermind that it's only embryonic stem cells that Bush opposes, and his only action is to withold Federal money for research on this type of stem cell only. Also, as noted in the article, adult stem cells show the most promise for spinal research.
Pretending that it's some sort of insane promise about the future is idiotic
I don't have to pretend...Edwards said "We will stop...". Partisan speech prose or not, that's just stupid to promise.
Slashdot Mirror
I think both Japan and Australia, as well as Poland have declared support for Bush as well. I'm sure we could find more.
--trb
The fundamental problem you're overlooking is that, while our forces shouldn't be used for nation-building, nation-building is still an important job. It's just supposed to be left up to the UN. The UN fscked this one, just like they did Bosnia, so we're taking care of it.
As far as rebuilding a coalition, I'll repeat what Bush has said in all three debates...we have 30 countries in the present coalition. We aren't getting France and Germany, we never were, case closed. You could have bribed them with a lifetime supply of wine and cheese and it wouldn't have mattered. It still doesn't, they aren't sending troops. I don't blame Bush for doing something "with only" a 30 country coalition.
BTW, this isn't a flip-flop like so many would love to characterize it. Flip flopping, ala the charges thrown at John Kerry, are when you say one thing then contradict that stance with nothing having changed inbetween and without relying on hindsight. In Bush's case, nation-building wasn't something we should use our forces for because the UN should do it. When the UN *wouldn't* do it, we had to.
--trb
No, they aren't. Bush abandoned fiscal conservatism when the war started. I don't blame him for it, but did result in a serious spending spree.
I'm voting for Bush because while we are spending a ton on the war, I see and end to that eventually. Kerry's economic polics (health care, corporate tax breaks, tax refunds, etc), IMO, are going to put us in debt over the long run and despite what Kerry says, they aren't going to generate jobs.
--trb
Eh, depends. If he's advocating picking between conservatism or liberalism, I can almost understand that. These are, essentially, just how you think about a given issue. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, with typically conservative foreign policy views. I vote Republican a lot, but I really liked Clinton and voted for him as well.
Picking parties is stupid, I agree. However, I will vote Republican 9 times out of 10 because they tend to be fiscally conservative and that's my hot button topic, so am I a Republican? If asked, I say yes, but usually need to clarify if the discussion lasts more than 3 sentences.
There's a huge difference between conservative/Republican/right-wing, and a lot of people skew what I say because of that. Just a thought
--trb
I was gonna respond to your knee-jerk reaction, but the AC seems to have summarily bitchslapped you enough for my tastes.
--trb
Mod this man +1:Funny.
If you honestly think that GTA:SA won't sell an absolutely absurd number of copies, making everyone associated with Rockstar a ton of money, you're deluding yourself. I do not worry for this man's family. But to make you feel better, I'm either going to buy it or have someone get it for me for Christmas.
--trb
It's also just a name recognition thing. It's been shown people are more likely to vote for someone when they are innundated with their name. I remember in the 2000 election, it was like a contest to see who could occupy the most space on the medians. You've seen that Family Guy when Lois and Peter run against each other and have red/blue signs covering their front yard? That's what half the medians looked like.
--trb
The Oregon report said one person "might" have seen 8-10 registrations shredded and another "might" have been encouraged to do so.
The second one references the same people as the first one (same individual, at least).
The third is a woman who says she was told to do something, by people who deny it, and never saw it happen.
Since you seem to be so insanely insistant I chastise the RNC, I will admit that if any of these cases are proven legitimate then the firms responsible should be held accountable. That's a long, long shot from the RNC itself being guilty of voter fraud. The DNC admits to the inclusion of this page in its manual. When the RNC itself has done something like this, lemme know.
--trb
The parent of my original post said:
But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
The Democrat spokesman agreed that it is part of their manual. Notwithstanding the fact that I have read the JPG several times, what have I gotten wrong concerning said parent's post?
--trb
Read between the lines? How about reading *the* lines:
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).
The actions it suggests are to issue press releases, get minority leaders to talk about it in the media and to provide them with talking points.
This is directly from the party's leadership, wtf?
--trb
I've read about a single case involving less than 100 Democrats' registrations being ripped up. Can you cite references to the thousands? Honest question, I just haven't read about that many.
To answer your question, yes and no. No, if Democrats can't vote on election day, that's worse. However...yes, this is worse because this comes directly from the DNC, the political party in question, as opposed to people who are working the registration booths. No offense, but if you can't figure out how to register, and get confirmation in the form of a voter registation card from your state, you're a fucking moron. If the RNC has in its manual that we should contact the media and claim we were disenfranchised when *nothing has happened*, that's fraud, plain and simple. The DNC is guilty of advocating fraud.
--trb
Don't take Drudge's word for it, Dems already admitted it. It appears this thing is, in fact, a legitimate document.
--trb
Did you read the same JPG I did? It's calling for, at best, Democrats to raise a fuss when there's nothing to raise a fuss about, and at worst claiming voter fraud where none exists. And this is from the party's MANUAL.
Addressing your second concern about the reliability of Drudge, Democrats have already admitted it's legit.
--trb
The Democrats confirmed that the page in question is legit:
But Democrats, who verified as authentic the page from a playbook called "Colorado Election Day Manual: A detailed guide to voting in Colorado," said they must be pro-active to assure that minorities and all others are not scared away from the polls.
--trb
In my eyes, for president Bush this is the ol' "Are you sorry for beating your wife?" question. There's no correct way to answer it, and neither Kerry nor Nader will be as harshly judged as anything the president chooses. That being said, I do wish he had had a better answer in the debates, but I don't hold it against him that he didn't make an itemized list.
--trb
Out of curiosity, what would you have Bush say? He's been in office for four years and has pressed for, rejected and passed legislation dealing with most of these topics. As actions speak louder than words, I prefer hearing what Bush has or hasn't done as an indication over Kerry's "I have a plan" mantra, such as the one he uses when talking about the draft.
--trb
Well, no, embryonic stem cells still provide the best bet for other diseases and whatnot. I think she was pointing out that significant benefits, outweighing those from embryonic cells, can be found in adult cells just for spinal research.
--trb
I watch FoxNews most nights to catch O'Reilly and sometimes Hannity/Colmes, and I'll vouch that during the month of August I saw about a 4:1 ratio of MoveOn ads to SBV ads. How does your argument that they should run 90 minutes of Soros' propaganda hold up to this?
My point is that so long as you aren't advocating a candidate, I think it's legal to rip another candidate to shreds.
--trb
I'll give you one thing...the conservatives have taken hold of the media in the talk radio area, but past that I think you're full of it. You name one media station, in addition to talk, that is conservative (FoxNews), and call it a massive media influence? CNN, MSNBC, the three broadcast stations...some of them aren't obviously opining for the election of Kerry, but they're still liberal. Huge difference between liberal and left-wing Democrat, btw. Read Goldwater's book "Bias"...the liberal label goes well beyond which candidate they choose to endorse.
As far as the SBV ads are concerned, even O'Reilly, that big bad guy on right-wing FoxNews, said the very first night he aired any coverage of the SBVs that they were wrong for doing what they were doing. Coverage of the SBVs was only picked up by the mainstream because it was so huge in the blogosphere.
--trb
If Sinclair could get the Court to declare this as "unbiased news", then they would be exempt from the equal time requirements.
I'm not sure they even have to. What's the difference between this and a MoveOn.org ad, other than this is 90 minutes long and ads are like 30 seconds? I think the equal time requirements only dictate that if you're showing advertisement *for* a candidate, you have to give equal time to the other. That's why MoveOn can get away with loads of anti-Bush ads...they aren't campaigning *for* Kerry. Well, they are, but only in the sense that we live in, essentially, a country with a two party system.
--trb
The "liberal" media coverage, which you claim hurt Kerry by showing the SBV ads repeatedly, was bashing the ad every chance it got. I suppose you could classify it in the "all publicity is good" category, but saying the media was benefitting the SBVs is a bit much...the SBV ads stood on their own to discredit Kerry.
Fahrenheit hasn't been shown on every tv station under the sun because of distribution rights, plain and simple. Moore's distributor won't let it happen until they've milked all the cash from DVD sales. Had Moore NOT cared about money, he could have made Fahrenheit, not released it to theatres (or given it a limited release to those theaters that would show it) and instead distributed the rights himself, it could be shown anywhere.
--trb
haven't managed to get a single person who personally served with Kerry
This is like saying I don't work with the guys in the QA section of my project because they're on the other side of the room, separated by cubicles. While I may not know them as well as the other developers sitting next to me, who I can eavesdrop on if I wanted, I still know who they are, how they act, what they've done and all their personal information. The SBVs you question were serving with Kerry in the sense that many were on another boat right next to him. They ate together, they fought together, they just weren't on the same boat.
You had to actively seek out and pay for Fahrenheit because Moore likes money and chose a distributor that wouldn't let their distribution rights go by the wayside. They won't release it for the public airwaves until the DVD sales have grabbed as much cash as possible. There are plans for an election night showing on pay-per-view, which is standard practice when films go to DVD anyways.
Don't think Moore was altruistic with Fahrenheit's creation...he wanted to make money just like most other film producers.
--trb
Sinclair invited Kerry to be on afterwards to refute the documentary. As of now, Kerry's people have refused. The offer, notwithstanding the refusal, ought to stand in court.
--trb
It's not out of context, Edwards said this just the other day in a speech. Nevermind that it's only embryonic stem cells that Bush opposes, and his only action is to withold Federal money for research on this type of stem cell only. Also, as noted in the article, adult stem cells show the most promise for spinal research.
Pretending that it's some sort of insane promise about the future is idiotic
I don't have to pretend...Edwards said "We will stop...". Partisan speech prose or not, that's just stupid to promise.
--trb