You (and many others) missed my point -- What's good for France AND Germany AND Russia AND China AND North Korea AND (insert every large country except the US here) will likely be bad for the US, and therefore we might, take the opposite position. I.E IF THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE KERRY AS POTUS BECAUSE HE'LL BE A PUSHOVER REGARDING OUR FOREIGN POLICY, WE'D BE WELL ADVISED TO VOTE FOR BUSH!
It's not spite! It's a logical argument.
The world indeed wanted Saddam to go, and that turned out to be very bad for Saddam, Right? It hasn't yet turned out to be real good for many Iraqi's either...
Kofi Annan voiced his The-Invasion-Of-Iraq-Was-Illegal position now to descredit Bush prior to the election. His deeper motivation is unclear -- could it be the UN's embarrasment over the Oil-For-Food Program, their lack of action on Darfur, or just that the UN doesn't like being shown for the Do-Nothing organization their Charter didn't intend them to be... we don't know...
The United States is the top provider of aid to foreign countries around the world. Of course, every country elects as their leaders people who consider such humatirian endeavors, but not to the detriment of their own country's well being. For instance, if we need hurricane aid for people in Florida, we're not going to send everything we've got to Haiti, although we'll surely send them something. Every country does look out for their own people's best interests first. That's how it should be.
But, make no mistake, if the people of France were running the United States, how long would it be before they were enriching themselves in Europe at the expense of us here in North America? Not long, I assure you! Its human nature! Just look to history for example after example after example...
So, the fact that France and other countries favor anyone but Bush for POTUS doesn't hold lots of weight, indeed it actually bolsters Bush in my eyes.
... you call my reasoning lame, childish, and several other descriptors, but offer NOTHING BUT INSULTS! Why is that? Allow me to answer for you -- BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO REBUTTAL!
You see, its the facts that are working to support Bush, not the liberal hyperbole that the likes of you spew. It looks like you're not an American -- simply against Bush, not for Kerry.
In the 20 years Kerry has been in the Senate, he's accomplished NOTHING OF NOTE! He's a joke here in the States! http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001831.htm l. Read Kerry's bio -- there's almost nothing about his Senate Service BECAUSE HE'S DONE NOTHING WHILE IN THE SENATE! He can't even attend the Senate Intellegence Committee meetings (he's assigned to the committee) -- his attendance is somewhere near 25%!
The Invasion of Iraq was completely justified at the U.N. level, the U.S. Federal Government level, and the U.S. public opinion level. It was not illegal, and even the 'World Court' would find it difficult to find it illegal.
In the 4 years Bush has been in office he's:
Pushed for legislation to helped the US economy overcome the catastrophic impact of the 9/11/01 attacks
Pushed for legislation to given Seniors low cost prescription coverage
Pushed for nationwide Education Reform (No Child Left Behind)
Pushed for lowering the Federal Tax Rate for all tax paying Americans
Pushed for legislation providing massive funding for several health research initiatives including $15 billion over 5 years for AIDS research
Had the US Armed Forces unseat the Taliban as rulers of Afghanistan
Had the US Armed Forces unseat Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq
Saw Libya's Gov't abandon their nuclear weapons program
Working currently to bring the Sudan to stop the Genocide in Darfur
Working currently to get China and Russia to deal with North Korea's Nuclear Threat
And, last but not least, told all you socialists bastards around the world to go get stuffed!
Some of you are slightly dense and missing my point -- What's good for France AND Germany AND Russia AND China AND North Korea AND (insert every large country except the US here) is probably going to be BAD FOR THE UNITED STATES, and therefore we would naturally, TAKE THE OPPOSITE POSITION. I.E IF THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE KERRY AS POTUS, WE'D BE WELL ADVISED TO VOTE FOR BUSH!
Get It! Its not spite! It's a logical argument.
Oh, I'm sorry, you've shown by example you don't know what those are...
You say you're from the U.S., so I'm guessing a problem with comprehending the English Language isn't in play here...
Of course you didn't say 'I'd like to negotiate with the terrorists.' Who in their right mind would say that. What you did say was you 'couldn't agree more' with comments by an Anonymous Coward that included the following:
'A US that tries to end the war on terror. Not through force, but through negotiation.'
So, what in fact you said was that you'd like the U.S. to negotiate with terrorists. I was making the point that it is VERY DANGEROUS to negotiate with terrorists. In effect, you encourage their terrorism by rewarding it with a dialog, let alone any gain they might receive as a result of the negotiation.
You assisted in making my point by re-iterating the fact that YOU don't want to negotiate with terrorists. I assume you'd like OTHER PEOPLE to negotiate with terrorists. Presumably, as long as the terrorists leave you and yours personally alone, you'd leave them alone. Lunacy!
I'd like to repeat my nomination of you and your immediate family as terrorist negotiator.
There is a whole world out -- that doesn't mean we should sit there and take a beating just because they'd like us to!
We know we effect the world. We work hard to work within the world. The U.S. is the top supplier of aid worldwide. We're the top contributor to the United Nations. We're the top contributor to NATO. We're the top contributor to the World Bank. We're right out there, providing more aid, more assistance, more help, more money, more medicine, and more food than any other nation in the world.
We're at the fore-front of technological advances in many scientific areas. We export technology like crazy.
But, if the world asks us to sit down from a confrontation because they're busy lining their pockets with booty from Iraq, while Iraq shoots at our Pilots, Provides cash bounties for Terrorists and their families, destabilizes the Middle East and just in general kills hundreds of thousands of innocents WE'RE NOT GONNA LISTEN TO THEM!
Neither should you!
And if the world thinks a do-nothing like Kerry would make a better President, maybe they should invite him to their country and have him run their country! WE DON'T WANT HIM HERE!
... because he's shown he's willing to stand up to other countries for the benefit of the U.S. and its citizens, even if it means taking a beating abroad.
The fact that the rest of the world wants a change in leaders here in the U.S. is reason enough to vote for G.W.Bush for four more years!
Its only slightly relevant here in the U.S. what the rest of the world thinks with regard to U.S. politics. The rest of the world knows Kerry as the do-nothing politician (see for yourself - his 20 year career in the Senate is summed up in 2 sentences on his own site
http://www.johnkerry.com/) - exactly the kind of man they prefer in the White House, so the rest of the world can continue to do as they please.
Do you think France, Germany and Russia had the Iraqi people's best interests in mind when they were using the Iraq Oil-For-Food program to rob Humanitarian Aid from the people of Iraq?
Do you think France has the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind when they repeatedly blocked NATO help for training Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq?
Did Koffi Annan's obviously politically motivated 2-years-too-late statement about how the Coalition invasion of Iraq was illegal helped anyone at all? (Oh, of course it did help the terrorist's recruiting effort in the Middle East.)
How about the Darfur region. Do you honestly think that Russia or China have the best interests of the people of Darfur in mind when they oppose a strong resolution by the UN Security Council?
My point is, every Country is looking out for themselves and their citizens first, and the rest of the world comes second. Just as it should. Just as it is here in the U.S.
The world's gonna be dissapointed when we re-elect G.W. for another four years. But it'll be a safer world because of it.
... CBS News took a page from Michael-Moore-Money and his 'Michael-Moore-Documentary' style...
Using obviously faked 'historical records' to back up an outrageous theory; a TANG pilot skipping a physical is tantamount to treason! Come on DAN, do some real reporting for crying out loud!
Then, using Michael-Moore-Money's own tactics, when caught at their lie, they deflect (provide authentication), obfuscate (well, the memos might be fake, but the content is correct), and confuse the issue (we got them from a 'reliable source' who we can't name...).
LIES! LIES! LIES!
Pilots attempting to skip their annual physical is nothing new in any service. My dad served as a trainer in WW2, and he would've skipped any annual physical he thought he could get away with. He also voluntarily quit flying immediately upon leaving the service.
What works for the Michael-Moore-Money fringe doesn't fly with mainstream America. CBS ends up with egg on their face, and Dan Rather ends up ruining his career.
This is the we're sorry ploy. Notice they didn't retract the story -- just retracted the authenticity of the memos. They're trying to mitigate possibility of a lawsuit with more fictional reporting...
If GW was a citizen rather than The President, he'd have a slam-dunk slander case. CBS did not follow due diligence in determining the authenticity of the memos. It really looks like CBS was shopping for the verification they wanted, in order to be able to air the memos even though they knew they were fakes. They even went so far as to call a preliminary opinion of the documents (collectively, not just the 4 memos) their authentication.
If it can be proven that CBS intentionally ran the story with fake documents, its just a short step further to the jackpot slander verdict...
Watch how they CYA with their 'follow-up' 'report' on how the documents were authenticated... more bogus reporting by CBS and company...
As that age-old joke goes ...
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
... it's OK to talk to yourself, but when you start having a conversation with yourself, it's time to either switch shrinks or up your dosage...
... we'd need to have potential voters pass a little IQ test prior to voting. Nothing difficult, something along the lines of 1) What is your name? 1) What is your quest? 3) What is your favorite color?
You see, as a rule, voters are stupid. Intellegent voters are the exception rather than the rule.
The Electoral College is designed to avoid having New York and California run the entire nation to suit their purposes, and it does a good job of that. It's the reason we don't need an IQ test for voters now...
He's got answers, but most of his answers don't respond to the questions raised. In typical "Michael-Moore-Documentary" style, he evades, eludes and replies with answers that are fabricated by himself or others. That long winded expose on his site shows his concern that the movie is full of half-truths and outright fabrications!
To answer a challenge of a "fact" presented in his "Michael-Moore-Documentary" with an opinion , unsubstatiated allegation from another source is NOT AN ANSWER! However, most of these "answers" don't address the questions raised!
The reason he's not going for best documentary is that -- surprise -- even MM concedes its more Comedy than Documentary ('Did I mention it's a comedy?')
If it did come up for best documentary, that category would be forever tainted!
Fact is, Moore has come up with a formula of outrageous conspiracy theories that appeal to the cognitively challenged in society who also happen to have enough change in their pockets to buy a movie ticket.
I propose a new screen name: "Michael MooreMoney" He's finally got a way to fill his pockets -- something he's been unable to do on talent alone for the last 20+ years.
Slashdot Mirror
You (and many others) missed my point -- What's good for France AND Germany AND Russia AND China AND North Korea AND (insert every large country except the US here) will likely be bad for the US, and therefore we might, take the opposite position. I.E IF THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE KERRY AS POTUS BECAUSE HE'LL BE A PUSHOVER REGARDING OUR FOREIGN POLICY, WE'D BE WELL ADVISED TO VOTE FOR BUSH!
It's not spite! It's a logical argument.
The world indeed wanted Saddam to go, and that turned out to be very bad for Saddam, Right? It hasn't yet turned out to be real good for many Iraqi's either ...
Kofi Annan voiced his The-Invasion-Of-Iraq-Was-Illegal position now to descredit Bush prior to the election. His deeper motivation is unclear -- could it be the UN's embarrasment over the Oil-For-Food Program, their lack of action on Darfur, or just that the UN doesn't like being shown for the Do-Nothing organization their Charter didn't intend them to be ... we don't know ...
The United States is the top provider of aid to foreign countries around the world. Of course, every country elects as their leaders people who consider such humatirian endeavors, but not to the detriment of their own country's well being. For instance, if we need hurricane aid for people in Florida, we're not going to send everything we've got to Haiti, although we'll surely send them something. Every country does look out for their own people's best interests first. That's how it should be.
But, make no mistake, if the people of France were running the United States, how long would it be before they were enriching themselves in Europe at the expense of us here in North America? Not long, I assure you! Its human nature! Just look to history for example after example after example ...
So, the fact that France and other countries favor anyone but Bush for POTUS doesn't hold lots of weight, indeed it actually bolsters Bush in my eyes.
You see, its the facts that are working to support Bush, not the liberal hyperbole that the likes of you spew. It looks like you're not an American -- simply against Bush, not for Kerry.
In the 20 years Kerry has been in the Senate, he's accomplished NOTHING OF NOTE! He's a joke here in the States! http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001831.htm l. Read Kerry's bio -- there's almost nothing about his Senate Service BECAUSE HE'S DONE NOTHING WHILE IN THE SENATE! He can't even attend the Senate Intellegence Committee meetings (he's assigned to the committee) -- his attendance is somewhere near 25%!
The Invasion of Iraq was completely justified at the U.N. level, the U.S. Federal Government level, and the U.S. public opinion level. It was not illegal, and even the 'World Court' would find it difficult to find it illegal.
In the 4 years Bush has been in office he's:
Some of you are slightly dense and missing my point -- What's good for France AND Germany AND Russia AND China AND North Korea AND (insert every large country except the US here) is probably going to be BAD FOR THE UNITED STATES, and therefore we would naturally, TAKE THE OPPOSITE POSITION. I.E IF THE REST OF THE WORLD WOULD LIKE KERRY AS POTUS, WE'D BE WELL ADVISED TO VOTE FOR BUSH!
Get It! Its not spite! It's a logical argument.
Oh, I'm sorry, you've shown by example you don't know what those are ...
... exposed to too many cat turds. Its seems you've got brain damage. That, or you've lost your tinfoil hat ...
... that prefer Kerry over Bush are willing to invite John Kerry to their country to run it for 4 years?
You say you're from the U.S., so I'm guessing a problem with comprehending the English Language isn't in play here ...
Of course you didn't say 'I'd like to negotiate with the terrorists.' Who in their right mind would say that. What you did say was you 'couldn't agree more' with comments by an Anonymous Coward that included the following:
'A US that tries to end the war on terror. Not through force, but through negotiation.'
So, what in fact you said was that you'd like the U.S. to negotiate with terrorists. I was making the point that it is VERY DANGEROUS to negotiate with terrorists. In effect, you encourage their terrorism by rewarding it with a dialog, let alone any gain they might receive as a result of the negotiation.
You assisted in making my point by re-iterating the fact that YOU don't want to negotiate with terrorists. I assume you'd like OTHER PEOPLE to negotiate with terrorists. Presumably, as long as the terrorists leave you and yours personally alone, you'd leave them alone. Lunacy!
I'd like to repeat my nomination of you and your immediate family as terrorist negotiator.
... the U.S. won't have to be the only ones to organize the application of justice in the world!
There is a whole world out -- that doesn't mean we should sit there and take a beating just because they'd like us to!
We know we effect the world. We work hard to work within the world. The U.S. is the top supplier of aid worldwide. We're the top contributor to the United Nations. We're the top contributor to NATO. We're the top contributor to the World Bank. We're right out there, providing more aid, more assistance, more help, more money, more medicine, and more food than any other nation in the world.
We're at the fore-front of technological advances in many scientific areas. We export technology like crazy.
But, if the world asks us to sit down from a confrontation because they're busy lining their pockets with booty from Iraq, while Iraq shoots at our Pilots, Provides cash bounties for Terrorists and their families, destabilizes the Middle East and just in general kills hundreds of thousands of innocents WE'RE NOT GONNA LISTEN TO THEM!
Neither should you!
And if the world thinks a do-nothing like Kerry would make a better President, maybe they should invite him to their country and have him run their country! WE DON'T WANT HIM HERE!
Das Riech ist Kaputt. Verstehen sie?
OK, you want the U.S. to negotiate with Terrorists ...
I'm nominating you. First, you and your immediate family have got to meet with the terrorists personally ...
Apparent from the outcomes up north there, eh?
... because he's shown he's willing to stand up to other countries for the benefit of the U.S. and its citizens, even if it means taking a beating abroad.
The fact that the rest of the world wants a change in leaders here in the U.S. is reason enough to vote for G.W.Bush for four more years!
Its only slightly relevant here in the U.S. what the rest of the world thinks with regard to U.S. politics. The rest of the world knows Kerry as the do-nothing politician (see for yourself - his 20 year career in the Senate is summed up in 2 sentences on his own site http://www.johnkerry.com/) - exactly the kind of man they prefer in the White House, so the rest of the world can continue to do as they please.
Do you think France, Germany and Russia had the Iraqi people's best interests in mind when they were using the Iraq Oil-For-Food program to rob Humanitarian Aid from the people of Iraq?
Do you think France has the best interests of the Iraqi people in mind when they repeatedly blocked NATO help for training Iraqi Security Forces in Iraq?
Did Koffi Annan's obviously politically motivated 2-years-too-late statement about how the Coalition invasion of Iraq was illegal helped anyone at all? (Oh, of course it did help the terrorist's recruiting effort in the Middle East.)
How about the Darfur region. Do you honestly think that Russia or China have the best interests of the people of Darfur in mind when they oppose a strong resolution by the UN Security Council?
My point is, every Country is looking out for themselves and their citizens first, and the rest of the world comes second. Just as it should. Just as it is here in the U.S.
The world's gonna be dissapointed when we re-elect G.W. for another four years. But it'll be a safer world because of it.
You're correct ...
/., right?
You realize that the statement of the obvious is optional here on
Michael? Is that you?
... CBS News took a page from Michael-Moore-Money and his 'Michael-Moore-Documentary' style ...
...).
Using obviously faked 'historical records' to back up an outrageous theory; a TANG pilot skipping a physical is tantamount to treason! Come on DAN, do some real reporting for crying out loud!
Then, using Michael-Moore-Money's own tactics, when caught at their lie, they deflect (provide authentication), obfuscate (well, the memos might be fake, but the content is correct), and confuse the issue (we got them from a 'reliable source' who we can't name
LIES! LIES! LIES!
Pilots attempting to skip their annual physical is nothing new in any service. My dad served as a trainer in WW2, and he would've skipped any annual physical he thought he could get away with. He also voluntarily quit flying immediately upon leaving the service.
What works for the Michael-Moore-Money fringe doesn't fly with mainstream America. CBS ends up with egg on their face, and Dan Rather ends up ruining his career.
Good Riddens you BLOCK HEAD!
This is the we're sorry ploy. Notice they didn't retract the story -- just retracted the authenticity of the memos. They're trying to mitigate possibility of a lawsuit with more fictional reporting ...
...
... more bogus reporting by CBS and company ...
If GW was a citizen rather than The President, he'd have a slam-dunk slander case. CBS did not follow due diligence in determining the authenticity of the memos. It really looks like CBS was shopping for the verification they wanted, in order to be able to air the memos even though they knew they were fakes. They even went so far as to call a preliminary opinion of the documents (collectively, not just the 4 memos) their authentication.
If it can be proven that CBS intentionally ran the story with fake documents, its just a short step further to the jackpot slander verdict
Watch how they CYA with their 'follow-up' 'report' on how the documents were authenticated
... it's OK to talk to yourself, but when you start having a conversation with yourself, it's time to either switch shrinks or up your dosage ...
... we'd need to have potential voters pass a little IQ test prior to voting. Nothing difficult, something along the lines of 1) What is your name? 1) What is your quest? 3) What is your favorite color? You see, as a rule, voters are stupid. Intellegent voters are the exception rather than the rule. The Electoral College is designed to avoid having New York and California run the entire nation to suit their purposes, and it does a good job of that. It's the reason we don't need an IQ test for voters now ...
He's got answers, but most of his answers don't respond to the questions raised. In typical "Michael-Moore-Documentary" style, he evades, eludes and replies with answers that are fabricated by himself or others. That long winded expose on his site shows his concern that the movie is full of half-truths and outright fabrications!
To answer a challenge of a "fact" presented in his "Michael-Moore-Documentary" with an opinion , unsubstatiated allegation from another source is NOT AN ANSWER! However, most of these "answers" don't address the questions raised!
See David Kopel's excellent *NON-PARTISAN* run-down: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
The reason he's not going for best documentary is that -- surprise -- even MM concedes its more Comedy than Documentary ('Did I mention it's a comedy?')
If it did come up for best documentary, that category would be forever tainted!
Fact is, Moore has come up with a formula of outrageous conspiracy theories that appeal to the cognitively challenged in society who also happen to have enough change in their pockets to buy a movie ticket.
I propose a new screen name: "Michael MooreMoney" He's finally got a way to fill his pockets -- something he's been unable to do on talent alone for the last 20+ years.