Assuming that others believe, as I do, that Bush pulled a big bait and switch on the American people... dangle Osama, quick, substitute Saddam... and that he lied lied lied about his motives for being there... WMD's, terrorism, etc... why wouldn't he be able to convince the American people that Osama Bin Laden is dead? Matter of fact, it seems much to his advantage to perpetrate such an idea regardless of its truth. It seems to me that if he thought for one second Osama might be dead, he'd start spewing "Osama is dead" from the rooftops, instead of forgetting he exists(ed).
From someone for whom lying comes as naturally as breathing, Bush's failure to mention the probability of Osama's death as one of his accmoplishments, frequently, at length, and LOUDLY, is the most pointed piece of evidence to believe that he, at least, doesn't think Osama is dead.
But this is purely speculation on my part. I'm one of those who, with dismay, believed they'd whip Osama out in mid-October, so I guess we'll soon see one way or the other. But it seems they found Saddam "hiding in a hole" so easily... they should've been able to find an alive Osama "hiding in a hole" as easily. Or if they have reasonable suspicion he is dead, say so... repeatedly, at length, set their pundits to it.. it would become truth rapidly, regardless of his actual status, at least to much of America.
OK, so, in that case, how do you feel about all the viagra (and clone) commercials during the show? Or all the other sexual emphasis included as part and parcel of the superbowl? Hot little cheerleaders with barely anything on jumping up so you can peek at their panties, oh my! I mean if the issue is one of modesty due to your religious beliefs, surely discussing your erectile disfunction is hardly modest, is it?
"Rove acknowledges that, in 1970, he used a false identity to gain entry to the campaign offices of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon, who was running for state treasurer. Once inside, Rove swiped some letterhead stationery and sent out 1,000 bogus invitations to the opening of the candidate's headquarters promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing."
A purple heart shouldn't be about how bad the injury is. It's about the fact that someone was injured serving his or her country. It's about someone putting their life on the line, period. I don't know, maybe he didn't bleed much, maybe he bled a lot, maybe it was somewhere in between. Who cares? He was certainly getting his butt shot at while Georgie was living it up with his rich buddies at home.
But why would my brain *want* to see a fleet of UFO's at sunset? That's such an odd premise. Not that I wouldn't be fascinated, but it's certainly not what my particular brain would expect.
Journalists of any integrity do their best to present the news in an unbiased way. I think most do the best they can. I have a degree in journalism, so I know what some of that training entails and how painstaking it can be to try to keep ALL bias out of a news article. But I think most try their best, as long as we aren't talking about RushLimbaugh.com as a news source.;)
That doesn't stop a forum (such as Fox) from presenting opinion as fact, altho most journalists of integrity are careful to distinguish between the two.
Sure, anyone can run for President, but the only alternative party that ever made a REAL go for it was Ross Perot. And Ross Perot has something your average American doesn't... $$$$$ and tons of it. ANYONE can run for Pres, as long as they have the deep pockets to get their message out.
I spoke to a Col in the Army who is stationed in Germany, recently. He said that if the vote were that day (two weeks ago), and 1 million Germans voted, there would be 1 million votes for Kerry. Kind of an interesting factoid. (Anyone replying, "What do we care about Germany?" Ok. I'm just putting it out there for consideration.) He also noted that altho he is actually liberal and is usually surrounded by conservatives, that more and more of our military are backing away from the President's policies. Should be an interesting vote this year among our historically conservative military. He also let me know that his son was due to be deployed to Iraq in a few weeks, something which he was *terrified* about.
I suppose that those of us in the "Bush stole the election" camp, feel pretty strongly about it. I personally believe that he stole the election based on a) rampant corruption by virtue of his brother being governor of the state in question and his buddyette Kathleen Harris manipulating the results, and b) by virtue of the 50,000 or so black votes which were "lost." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/08/politic s/main295656.shtml) Let's not forget that there was also a scandal about his brothers' 2000 gubernatorial election. (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/ 21/1353239) What a coincidence...?
In terms of voter intimidation tactics, the Repubs are already preparing for this year... (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/opinion/20herbe rt.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A337 98-2004Aug25.html) I respect differing opinions, but I think that turning a blind eye to the controversy of the 2000 election is just willful ignorance. At least admit there was controversy about the vote in 2000! The fact is that there WAS. I am so worried about the vote this year that I could tear my hair out. Wouldn't it be *amazing* and interesting and an incredible show of integrity if Bush were to say "screw these crazy touch screen machines, I want everyone to have a RECEIPT or some kind of printed verification of their vote. I don't want any question about my winning this time!" But you'll never see that happen, he'd rather take it to the Supreme Court and hash it out there.
No offense, but if you look at polls long enough, they'll probably drive you batty. I am not able to put faith in any of them, including a poll of our troops.
I've personally spoken to lots of people in the military, including an Army officer last night who said that altho he is ordinarily surrounded by zillions of die-hard republicans... even they, are starting to waver over this war. (His son is being shipped to Iraq in a few weeks as well.) I've spoken to troops headed overseas as well, and an Army chaplain who is in position to speak with *lots* of troops. I don't think the support for Bush amongst the troops is anywhere near overwhelming, but this is just my opinion.
I think that if these guys are given the chance to vote, the Repubs might be surprised... because even people who ordinarily are conservative or agree with conservatives on most issues, might have to reconsider after seeing their buddies killed and maimed for... what? Anyone know the count of American wounded? Last I heard was approx. 7000.
Also, don't forget that Bush is making heavy use of the National Guard to fight in Iraq, which is ironic considering that his joining the National Guard was deliberately to *avoid* being sent to war. So those guys in the Guard are probably not too full of love for him right now.
But hey, I'd be glad to see the Repubs step up and get these votes to the polls either way. I guess we'll see what happens.:)
I had a debate with my fiance about this... he's the programming expert, I just love computers;) Maybe you guys can chime in? Is there ANY WAY to ensure independantly that these machines will count votes accurately and reliably every single time? Is there ANY WAY to ensure that there isn't a little secret code someone can punch in on them to make scripts run? (Wasn't there just a controversy about a two button code left on a machine?)
Rush Limbaugh was on the radio saying that Democrats are always scared of change... which is a bass-ackwards statement if you ask me... but in this instance, he's right. It surely does seem odd to me that the usually staid repubs are the ones so gung ho for this while those of us liberals still wincing after the 2000 election controversy are going "nooooooooooooo!"
Wouldn't it be an amazing show of integrity if W. stood up and said, "after the 2000 election controversy I don't want any debate this year. Let's save the computerized voting machines for the next election, so that each vote can be COUNTED BY HAND if need be... I want to win without a shred of suspicion this time!"
Well, I know... that's why it would be amazing. *sigh*
Check out http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ for more info about the electronic polls.
I like your sig... I don't actually have TV myself.:)
As for voting for Kerry because he's not Bush... I don't feel that way. I've actually gone out of my way to find out some information about him, and have listened to him speak on Cspan a few times...I *like* Kerry. But if I did not, I would definitely feel that I had no alternative. Regardless of how I feel about Kerry specifically, it would make me happy to see us have more realistic choices in the elections. I apologize for not wording that post better... I was in a hurry. I should've said "I'd love there to be more realistic, viable options."
The bottom line is, it won't make a bit of difference if I vote for Nader (I don't like Nader anyways) or any of the other people running... it will only make a difference pragmatically if LOTS of people do. You are absolutely right, Bush has gotten me scared. I do not always feel scared, actually as an American I have always felt ridiculously not scared. I'm your typical cocky American without question! Or at least, used to be. Pre- 9/11, and pre-Abu Ghraib.
I did not feel scared a bit in 2000. I felt scared after watching W "win" that election. I do absolutely feel our nation is in currently in a state of crisis.
BTW if any party is making use of fear tactics, it is the Republican party. That is why most Americans believe that Bush is tougher on terrorism, and it's why we have such long lines at airport security. It doesn't matter if airport security really accomplishes anything by making us throw out our nail clippers, it's the illusion of security for the people they are scaring half to death. It doesn't matter a bit if the Patriot Act robs us of our freedoms, if it provides them the *illusion* of safety. It doesn't matter if Al Qaeda is not in fact in Iraq if it gives some people the *illusion* that we are there fighting terrorism.
My question for you was really how to make alternative parties more visible and viable in our election system as it stands. Sure, it takes people voting for what they believe in, I thought that went without saying. But it also takes getting their messages out and putting them on more of an even playing field with traditional candidates. The only answer I can see there is $$$$, which is probably why Ross Perot did so well.
"Pardon me, but if a terrorist was aiming a weapon at the president, Bush would hide behind an innocent person and shout "bring it on" from behind them, just like he's done internationally."
Thanks for that, I really needed a good laugh today! It's so true!!! The National Guard today is a completely different animal than it was when Bush joined. Regardless of papers then or now, the facts are that we are sending the National Guard to Iraq in droves... George *never* would have joined the Guard had he thought for a single second he'd still have to go to Vietnam.
As for voting for a third party, I would love to. The question is, how can we make alternative parties viable options? I will not vote for an alternative party when what it means in the reality of this election, is that my vote will help Bush. I simply can't. I also have no idea how we could make a multi-party system more of a reality in this country.
I'm not going to comment on the moderation system as I'm still a brand new newbie on/., but it's been my personal experience that conservative politics seem to play dirtier and hit lower. It's one of the reasons (IMO) that liberal candidates tend to get labelled as "weak", which is one of the many things Kerry has been labelled in this election. In trying to have a conversation with a conservative, I've been called a communist (because I don't like Bush), told I hate America (because I don't like Bush), told I'm a terrorist (because I don't like Bush), and on and on and on.
I am not saying that ALL conservatives do this. But an awful lot, in my experience, do. It's kind of a phenomenon that I'm trying to figure out. It all feeds right into the Bush camps message that if you disagree with them on ANY level you are not a "patriot."
Maybe some of it has to do with the fact that the republican platform is, in so many ways, trying to enforce ways of living on other people. Trying to squelch gays out of existence, shut up environmentalists (whom they hate also), determined to force everyone to adhere to their idea of morality, hating immigrants (tho most of us are immigrants to America), label anyone down on their luck as lazy... it's definitely much easier to HATE the homeless/destitute than it is to figure out any solutions for them... So maybe it comes from all of that. The party line is so often based on dislike of others. At least, that's what it seems like to me.
OK one *teensy* comment about moderation... I always thought of an online troll as someone who is trying to sell something, but apparently it can also mean "I don't like you, so shut up!" here.:)
In terms of Kerry's vision, I personally believe that a lot of the reason America is not familiar with his message is because it has been utterly obliterated behind all the "scandal" coverage of Vietnam, Swift Boat Vets, etc. When Kerry simply makes a speech saying "this is what I envision for my country," it simply doesn't make headlines. You have to go dig it up and look for it or you won't see it.
Well, I guess the whole controversy over Bush's election is just a figment of my imagination then. Is it possible to have a discussion about a thing when you cannot acknowledge even the basic facts about a thing? Obviously if you like Bush, my perception and yours of the end result will differ.. but to call either an "out and out lie" is, well, an "out and out lie." Perhaps you don't think the electoral vote should reflect the popular vote or that every vote should be counted.
Either way, I wish you well... I think you need some good energy in your life.:)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000 for john kerry vietnam. (0.66 seconds
Results 1 - 10 of about 83,800 for george bush awol. (0.36 seconds
That's just regular google.com though, so it includes all kinds of non-news tidbits.
I am not, incidentally, saying this proves media bias. I'd rather point to the headlines on CNN which, today, included: Bush documents forgery, Paris Hiltons Bio, the hurricane in Haiti and ten other little crap articles. No word about the National Guardsmen under lock and key prior to their deployment to Iraq. No word about the comparison between the job of a National Guardsmen during Bush's tenure or now... because now they go to war. THAT speaks of bias to me. Why is the document forgery more important than what is happening with our troops NOW, today?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer
But really to me it's a no-brainer... the media have been far less tough on the SBVT's than they have on any criticism of Bush in terms of what they cover and how they present it. But the chicken/egg question which then naturally ocurrs is... is it The Media who are to blame, or the people who push the ratings to which the Media caters?
Well, but, but, but...
"That's not at all what she said --go read the transcripts --and she's also the same person who was quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying that the thought Bush was "selected, not elected." No possible agenda there, no sir."
But, he wasn't elected.
That's a statement of fact, not an agenda.
(Frankly I have not gone off and done all the research into every little detail of this or that or the other as I could care less. But truth be told, Bush never would've signed up for a National Guard en route to Iraq... which is just what he's doing now!)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer
It's also very very interesting to note that Bush is not letting guys in the National Guard today, get away with what HE did 30 years ago. No way, no sirree... they are not only having to show up, they're being kept under lock and key until they are shipped off to Iraq. Not only that, but this is all due to his own choice not to expand our armed forces. And not only THAT, but if someone were to refuse a phsyical now... what do you think would happen?
Oh George, this is just getting so ugly!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer
Slashdot Mirror
From someone for whom lying comes as naturally as breathing, Bush's failure to mention the probability of Osama's death as one of his accmoplishments, frequently, at length, and LOUDLY, is the most pointed piece of evidence to believe that he, at least, doesn't think Osama is dead.
But this is purely speculation on my part. I'm one of those who, with dismay, believed they'd whip Osama out in mid-October, so I guess we'll soon see one way or the other. But it seems they found Saddam "hiding in a hole" so easily... they should've been able to find an alive Osama "hiding in a hole" as easily. Or if they have reasonable suspicion he is dead, say so... repeatedly, at length, set their pundits to it.. it would become truth rapidly, regardless of his actual status, at least to much of America.
Just curiously seeking consistency...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/camp aigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm
Journalists of any integrity do their best to present the news in an unbiased way. I think most do the best they can. I have a degree in journalism, so I know what some of that training entails and how painstaking it can be to try to keep ALL bias out of a news article. But I think most try their best, as long as we aren't talking about RushLimbaugh.com as a news source. ;)
That doesn't stop a forum (such as Fox) from presenting opinion as fact, altho most journalists of integrity are careful to distinguish between the two.
In terms of voter intimidation tactics, the Repubs are already preparing for this year... (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/opinion/20herbe rt.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A337 98-2004Aug25.html) I respect differing opinions, but I think that turning a blind eye to the controversy of the 2000 election is just willful ignorance. At least admit there was controversy about the vote in 2000! The fact is that there WAS. I am so worried about the vote this year that I could tear my hair out. Wouldn't it be *amazing* and interesting and an incredible show of integrity if Bush were to say "screw these crazy touch screen machines, I want everyone to have a RECEIPT or some kind of printed verification of their vote. I don't want any question about my winning this time!" But you'll never see that happen, he'd rather take it to the Supreme Court and hash it out there.
I've personally spoken to lots of people in the military, including an Army officer last night who said that altho he is ordinarily surrounded by zillions of die-hard republicans... even they, are starting to waver over this war. (His son is being shipped to Iraq in a few weeks as well.) I've spoken to troops headed overseas as well, and an Army chaplain who is in position to speak with *lots* of troops. I don't think the support for Bush amongst the troops is anywhere near overwhelming, but this is just my opinion.
I think that if these guys are given the chance to vote, the Repubs might be surprised... because even people who ordinarily are conservative or agree with conservatives on most issues, might have to reconsider after seeing their buddies killed and maimed for... what? Anyone know the count of American wounded? Last I heard was approx. 7000.
Also, don't forget that Bush is making heavy use of the National Guard to fight in Iraq, which is ironic considering that his joining the National Guard was deliberately to *avoid* being sent to war. So those guys in the Guard are probably not too full of love for him right now.
But hey, I'd be glad to see the Repubs step up and get these votes to the polls either way. I guess we'll see what happens. :)
Rush Limbaugh was on the radio saying that Democrats are always scared of change... which is a bass-ackwards statement if you ask me... but in this instance, he's right. It surely does seem odd to me that the usually staid repubs are the ones so gung ho for this while those of us liberals still wincing after the 2000 election controversy are going "nooooooooooooo!"
Well, I know... that's why it would be amazing. *sigh*
Check out http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ for more info about the electronic polls.
As for voting for Kerry because he's not Bush... I don't feel that way. I've actually gone out of my way to find out some information about him, and have listened to him speak on Cspan a few times...I *like* Kerry. But if I did not, I would definitely feel that I had no alternative. Regardless of how I feel about Kerry specifically, it would make me happy to see us have more realistic choices in the elections. I apologize for not wording that post better... I was in a hurry. I should've said "I'd love there to be more realistic, viable options."
The bottom line is, it won't make a bit of difference if I vote for Nader (I don't like Nader anyways) or any of the other people running... it will only make a difference pragmatically if LOTS of people do. You are absolutely right, Bush has gotten me scared. I do not always feel scared, actually as an American I have always felt ridiculously not scared. I'm your typical cocky American without question! Or at least, used to be. Pre- 9/11, and pre-Abu Ghraib.
I did not feel scared a bit in 2000. I felt scared after watching W "win" that election. I do absolutely feel our nation is in currently in a state of crisis.
BTW if any party is making use of fear tactics, it is the Republican party. That is why most Americans believe that Bush is tougher on terrorism, and it's why we have such long lines at airport security. It doesn't matter if airport security really accomplishes anything by making us throw out our nail clippers, it's the illusion of security for the people they are scaring half to death. It doesn't matter a bit if the Patriot Act robs us of our freedoms, if it provides them the *illusion* of safety. It doesn't matter if Al Qaeda is not in fact in Iraq if it gives some people the *illusion* that we are there fighting terrorism.
My question for you was really how to make alternative parties more visible and viable in our election system as it stands. Sure, it takes people voting for what they believe in, I thought that went without saying. But it also takes getting their messages out and putting them on more of an even playing field with traditional candidates. The only answer I can see there is $$$$, which is probably why Ross Perot did so well.
Thanks for that, I really needed a good laugh today! It's so true!!! The National Guard today is a completely different animal than it was when Bush joined. Regardless of papers then or now, the facts are that we are sending the National Guard to Iraq in droves... George *never* would have joined the Guard had he thought for a single second he'd still have to go to Vietnam.
As for voting for a third party, I would love to. The question is, how can we make alternative parties viable options? I will not vote for an alternative party when what it means in the reality of this election, is that my vote will help Bush. I simply can't. I also have no idea how we could make a multi-party system more of a reality in this country.
I am not saying that ALL conservatives do this. But an awful lot, in my experience, do. It's kind of a phenomenon that I'm trying to figure out. It all feeds right into the Bush camps message that if you disagree with them on ANY level you are not a "patriot."
Maybe some of it has to do with the fact that the republican platform is, in so many ways, trying to enforce ways of living on other people. Trying to squelch gays out of existence, shut up environmentalists (whom they hate also), determined to force everyone to adhere to their idea of morality, hating immigrants (tho most of us are immigrants to America), label anyone down on their luck as lazy... it's definitely much easier to HATE the homeless/destitute than it is to figure out any solutions for them... So maybe it comes from all of that. The party line is so often based on dislike of others. At least, that's what it seems like to me.
OK one *teensy* comment about moderation... I always thought of an online troll as someone who is trying to sell something, but apparently it can also mean "I don't like you, so shut up!" here. :)
Either way, I wish you well... I think you need some good energy in your life. :)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,550,000 for john kerry vietnam. (0.66 seconds
Results 1 - 10 of about 83,800 for george bush awol. (0.36 seconds
That's just regular google.com though, so it includes all kinds of non-news tidbits.
I am not, incidentally, saying this proves media bias. I'd rather point to the headlines on CNN which, today, included: Bush documents forgery, Paris Hiltons Bio, the hurricane in Haiti and ten other little crap articles. No word about the National Guardsmen under lock and key prior to their deployment to Iraq. No word about the comparison between the job of a National Guardsmen during Bush's tenure or now... because now they go to war. THAT speaks of bias to me. Why is the document forgery more important than what is happening with our troops NOW, today?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer
But really to me it's a no-brainer... the media have been far less tough on the SBVT's than they have on any criticism of Bush in terms of what they cover and how they present it. But the chicken/egg question which then naturally ocurrs is... is it The Media who are to blame, or the people who push the ratings to which the Media caters?
Well, but, but, but... "That's not at all what she said --go read the transcripts --and she's also the same person who was quoted in the Dallas Morning News as saying that the thought Bush was "selected, not elected." No possible agenda there, no sir." But, he wasn't elected. That's a statement of fact, not an agenda. (Frankly I have not gone off and done all the research into every little detail of this or that or the other as I could care less. But truth be told, Bush never would've signed up for a National Guard en route to Iraq... which is just what he's doing now!) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer
It's also very very interesting to note that Bush is not letting guys in the National Guard today, get away with what HE did 30 years ago. No way, no sirree... they are not only having to show up, they're being kept under lock and key until they are shipped off to Iraq. Not only that, but this is all due to his own choice not to expand our armed forces. And not only THAT, but if someone were to refuse a phsyical now... what do you think would happen? Oh George, this is just getting so ugly! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31689-20 04Sep18?language=printer