The swifties are simply performing the same character assasination on Kerry as they already did on McCain. Is that seeking truth?
When has Kerry changed his story on his vietnam record??
I see no way Kerry benefitted from the "lies" that you pointed out. Incorrect? Sure, but hardly sinister. Contrast that to Cheney feeding the Haliburton war machine.
....and why do you think being on good terms with our international neighbors means being weak?
Our allies are mad because we invaded a country without justifying it. We claimed there were WMDs there and there weren't any. They said there was no proof and they were right. Now we've put our military in the most economically unstable part of the world and expect to unite people who were previously united only by a dictator. We've dumped billions of dollars on this project only to see the price of gas nearly double. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we arrived and now it is filled with them.
Are these the actions of a strong country? No. We're stronger when we're united with our allies rather than fighting them. We're stronger with our military fighting problems that exist rather than imaginary ones.
there is a difference between proving the existence of an object or entity and proving a law of physics.
a law of physics stands until a counter example is found, then it is revised.
to prove that something exists, you must present it, or its effects.
and on that basis, i'm sure we'd simply argue over what constitutes evidence of god and leprechauns. certainly, evidence of god is not as reliable and repeatable as evidence of light. repeatability is the main reason why no one has conclusively proved to the scientific community that god exists. i think there's a difference between having a rigid set of standards and having a bias. bias implies something a bit less logical
Based on that, you also can't disprove the existence of unicorns or that the center of the earth is inhabited by hitler imitating leprechauns. And apparently since we can't disprove that something exists, it does exist.
Also, I have a story about the leprechauns killing a unicorn. it happened because it says so in this book.
Don't agree with me about the unicorns and leprechauns? You're biased against it!
I completely agree. I also agree that Kerry and the Democrats haven't done enough to separate themselves from the Republicans along these lines. Still, I do feel it is worth while to vote out the current administration. Unfortunately politics is a game of compromise - you rarely have a chance to vote for precisely what you want. I don't believe anyone but the current Bush administration would have had the prisoner abuse problems, which is related to claiming they have no rights under international law.
So the best way to have a say in government is not to say anything at all. How interesting.
Do we fuck up as a country? Sure. We're still awfully damn strong though. Its going to take a while for that revolution to come that you've been waiting for. Don't hold your breath.
i simply can't agree with the choice not to vote Kerry or Bush. its not just bush vs. kerry. if you're not happy with where the country has headed in the past four years, then we have to reject what bush has done. i understand you may not have any more confidence in kerry, but you should also consider the balance of power among the government branches. even if kerry is elected, he would have a republican congress to deal with.
Iraq may have been an Arab nation, but it was NOT a muslim nation.
You're correct, good eye. Although many people in Iraq are Moslem. Actually, the role of Islam in Iraq is fascinating. Saddam has switched sides on it.
How'd the world end apartheid in South Africa? Trade sanctions
Sometimes. Castro is no closer to leaving power than 30 years ago. (Well, unless you include the threat of his own aging.)
at the time, polls showed overwhelmingly how good a job most people thought the president did
at the time, people were stocking up on bottled water and duct tape to prepare for the coming terrorist attacks. Just because it wasn't analyzed at the time doesn't mean its not a weakness. It was talked about before F911, although it might not have made itself know to you specifically.
I guess desparate times call for desparate measures.
Critiquing the job the president has done is always fair game. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise.
...and as far as desperate is concerned, how about Cheney saying we'll be attacked if Kerry is elected?
Thats an interested way to resolve the problem. I sure hope if I ever make such an ass of myself before the country, that i'll have so many people making up excuses for my actions.
Its not just Al Quada that resents the presence of American troops in the Holy Land, but the vast majority of Moslems. Al Quada has exploited this anger and directed it towards something militant. We certainly weren't comfortable with Cuba's association with Russia, this is exactly the same kind of threat in their eyes.
Just because Islamic extremists speak out against the House of Saud doesn't mean they are on our side. They are a dictatorship that has committed many human rights atrocities and are hated by the people they rule. By associating ourselves with them, we take on some of this hatred. Hence, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
Other Islamic countries see our invasion of Iraq and its flimsy justification as a show of power that could be wielded over any moslem country simply at our will. This use of force to achieve our goals is a threat to cultures and nations not explicitly on our side. It encourages more war.
I think you're awfully optimistic to think that our leaders can have family ties to foreign leaders without it affecting our policy. We should be putting pressure on the Sauds to change their ruling policies.
It doesn't surprise me, but it seems that we should question whether its okay to have a president that has received large amounts of investment money from a ruling family. And now its a ruling family that control the country where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.
If we went into Iraq because the people needed to be liberated from a dictator, why didn't Bush make that argument? Instead, he chose to scare the country with claims of WMDs that have never materialized.
Then again, I don't see how it could be our moral obligation to provide people with democracy. Is that even possible in such an unstable part of the world? Further, there are many other places in the world where awful things are happening, shouldn't we be in all those other places as well?
The military seems to think that it can take control of anything. It can, as long as its not spread too thin and used appropriately. Unfortunately the Iraq war sets a poor president for justification of future actions which will result in increased hostility from anyone but our closest allies.
I think you're looking for any possible excuse to defame the man.
If I was looking for any possible excuse to defame him, I might point to his past of alcoholism or coke use. I might point to his many failed business ventures. Or his low grades and acceptance into Yale based on family history. I might point to how he sells himself as a Texan even though he's from the east coast. Or his incredibly poor public speaking. Or how he thinks God wants him to be president.
Yet I set this all aside when making an argument against re-electing him.
You're right, it is disturbing. Strangely enough the bashing is being lead by our elected leaders. The Republican National Convention was mostly a Kerry-bashing rally. (When it wasn't a Reagan love-in.) People giving away band-aids mocking Kerry's purple heart. Just the other day Cheney has started saying that electing Kerry would bring a terrorist attack because it would be a display of weakness. WTF?? Kerry tried to lead a clean campaign for too long and its hurt him, now he's swinging back.
He could have immediately said, "Sorry children, I need to go and do the things that a president needs to do. You should all come and visit me at the Whitehouse!" Then he should have left and started informing himself. Even if there was nothing he could have done, he should have considered options and come to that conclusion. Instead, he sat and read a children's book.
Those seven minutes are Bush's most indefensible of his career. You may have your reasons for support Bush, but I can't believe how he acted in that moment is one of them.
Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.
I really doubt that is an accurate reflection of the current state of the job market. We've been in a recession long enough that many people without jobs are no longer being listed as unemployed. Further, many people are underemployed or working for less money than they were a while back.
Congradulations for such a stellar work record. You're lucky and a rare exception. But don't point to those of us who have bad luck and say it solely our fault.
Also, Bush clearly hasn't helped the economy. Look at gas prices - which are a result of the instability in Iraq. Thats the simplest example I can provide.
Slashdot Mirror
The swifties are simply performing the same character assasination on Kerry as they already did on McCain. Is that seeking truth?
When has Kerry changed his story on his vietnam record??
I see no way Kerry benefitted from the "lies" that you pointed out. Incorrect? Sure, but hardly sinister. Contrast that to Cheney feeding the Haliburton war machine.
....and why do you think being on good terms with our international neighbors means being weak?
Our allies are mad because we invaded a country without justifying it. We claimed there were WMDs there and there weren't any. They said there was no proof and they were right. Now we've put our military in the most economically unstable part of the world and expect to unite people who were previously united only by a dictator. We've dumped billions of dollars on this project only to see the price of gas nearly double. There were no terrorists in Iraq before we arrived and now it is filled with them.
Are these the actions of a strong country? No. We're stronger when we're united with our allies rather than fighting them. We're stronger with our military fighting problems that exist rather than imaginary ones.
We were stronger before Bush was president.
Betcha didn't hear: More people also want a weak U.S. President.
Doesn't get much weaker than it is now. We're planning to shut down bases around the world and certainly can't extend our military any further.
there is a difference between proving the existence of an object or entity and proving a law of physics.
a law of physics stands until a counter example is found, then it is revised.
to prove that something exists, you must present it, or its effects.
and on that basis, i'm sure we'd simply argue over what constitutes evidence of god and leprechauns. certainly, evidence of god is not as reliable and repeatable as evidence of light. repeatability is the main reason why no one has conclusively proved to the scientific community that god exists. i think there's a difference between having a rigid set of standards and having a bias. bias implies something a bit less logical
Are you serious man?
Based on that, you also can't disprove the existence of unicorns or that the center of the earth is inhabited by hitler imitating leprechauns. And apparently since we can't disprove that something exists, it does exist.
Also, I have a story about the leprechauns killing a unicorn. it happened because it says so in this book.
Don't agree with me about the unicorns and leprechauns? You're biased against it!
Name one scientific law that cannot be broken. And then state your proof that it has never been broken.
Gravity.The laws of gravity have never been broken. In the history of the physical interaction of objects, I can't find a case where its been broken.
Or would you like to submit evidence to the contrary?
Or, could it be, that everyone is biased?
No. When it comes to science, some people are right and some people are wrong. Its not like we're judging cheesecakes.
hm, you sound to me like a republican mad at bush. (or a true libertarian) no, kerry isn't your man for less social programs, or less gun control.
i guess the best thing i can say about kerry is that he'd be deadlocked with a republican congress.
or maybe you find voting libertarian is a more effective use of your vote.
I completely agree. I also agree that Kerry and the Democrats haven't done enough to separate themselves from the Republicans along these lines. Still, I do feel it is worth while to vote out the current administration. Unfortunately politics is a game of compromise - you rarely have a chance to vote for precisely what you want. I don't believe anyone but the current Bush administration would have had the prisoner abuse problems, which is related to claiming they have no rights under international law.
Provide an example.
...and what is that morally wrong direction?
So the best way to have a say in government is not to say anything at all. How interesting.
Do we fuck up as a country? Sure. We're still awfully damn strong though. Its going to take a while for that revolution to come that you've been waiting for. Don't hold your breath.
i simply can't agree with the choice not to vote Kerry or Bush. its not just bush vs. kerry. if you're not happy with where the country has headed in the past four years, then we have to reject what bush has done. i understand you may not have any more confidence in kerry, but you should also consider the balance of power among the government branches. even if kerry is elected, he would have a republican congress to deal with.
Where can I buy a new 8" floppy?
Iraq may have been an Arab nation, but it was NOT a muslim nation.
You're correct, good eye. Although many people in Iraq are Moslem. Actually, the role of Islam in Iraq is fascinating. Saddam has switched sides on it.
How'd the world end apartheid in South Africa? Trade sanctions
Sometimes. Castro is no closer to leaving power than 30 years ago. (Well, unless you include the threat of his own aging.)
at the time, polls showed overwhelmingly how good a job most people thought the president did
at the time, people were stocking up on bottled water and duct tape to prepare for the coming terrorist attacks. Just because it wasn't analyzed at the time doesn't mean its not a weakness. It was talked about before F911, although it might not have made itself know to you specifically.
I guess desparate times call for desparate measures.
Critiquing the job the president has done is always fair game. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise.
...and as far as desperate is concerned, how about Cheney saying we'll be attacked if Kerry is elected?
Thats an interested way to resolve the problem. I sure hope if I ever make such an ass of myself before the country, that i'll have so many people making up excuses for my actions.
Its not just Al Quada that resents the presence of American troops in the Holy Land, but the vast majority of Moslems. Al Quada has exploited this anger and directed it towards something militant. We certainly weren't comfortable with Cuba's association with Russia, this is exactly the same kind of threat in their eyes.
Just because Islamic extremists speak out against the House of Saud doesn't mean they are on our side. They are a dictatorship that has committed many human rights atrocities and are hated by the people they rule. By associating ourselves with them, we take on some of this hatred. Hence, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
Other Islamic countries see our invasion of Iraq and its flimsy justification as a show of power that could be wielded over any moslem country simply at our will. This use of force to achieve our goals is a threat to cultures and nations not explicitly on our side. It encourages more war.
I think you're awfully optimistic to think that our leaders can have family ties to foreign leaders without it affecting our policy. We should be putting pressure on the Sauds to change their ruling policies.
It doesn't surprise me, but it seems that we should question whether its okay to have a president that has received large amounts of investment money from a ruling family. And now its a ruling family that control the country where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.
If we went into Iraq because the people needed to be liberated from a dictator, why didn't Bush make that argument? Instead, he chose to scare the country with claims of WMDs that have never materialized.
Then again, I don't see how it could be our moral obligation to provide people with democracy. Is that even possible in such an unstable part of the world? Further, there are many other places in the world where awful things are happening, shouldn't we be in all those other places as well?
The military seems to think that it can take control of anything. It can, as long as its not spread too thin and used appropriately. Unfortunately the Iraq war sets a poor president for justification of future actions which will result in increased hostility from anyone but our closest allies.
I think you're looking for any possible excuse to defame the man.
If I was looking for any possible excuse to defame him, I might point to his past of alcoholism or coke use. I might point to his many failed business ventures. Or his low grades and acceptance into Yale based on family history. I might point to how he sells himself as a Texan even though he's from the east coast. Or his incredibly poor public speaking. Or how he thinks God wants him to be president.
Yet I set this all aside when making an argument against re-electing him.
the swift boat ads are outright lies. hell, someone who is part of them had to leave bush's re-election campaign.
You're right, it is disturbing. Strangely enough the bashing is being lead by our elected leaders. The Republican National Convention was mostly a Kerry-bashing rally. (When it wasn't a Reagan love-in.) People giving away band-aids mocking Kerry's purple heart. Just the other day Cheney has started saying that electing Kerry would bring a terrorist attack because it would be a display of weakness. WTF?? Kerry tried to lead a clean campaign for too long and its hurt him, now he's swinging back.
Besides, what could he have done?
He could have immediately said, "Sorry children, I need to go and do the things that a president needs to do. You should all come and visit me at the Whitehouse!" Then he should have left and started informing himself. Even if there was nothing he could have done, he should have considered options and come to that conclusion. Instead, he sat and read a children's book.
Those seven minutes are Bush's most indefensible of his career. You may have your reasons for support Bush, but I can't believe how he acted in that moment is one of them.
Unemployment is currently at the same level that Clinton ran on in the 1996 election, 5.4%.
I really doubt that is an accurate reflection of the current state of the job market. We've been in a recession long enough that many people without jobs are no longer being listed as unemployed. Further, many people are underemployed or working for less money than they were a while back.
Congradulations for such a stellar work record. You're lucky and a rare exception. But don't point to those of us who have bad luck and say it solely our fault.
Also, Bush clearly hasn't helped the economy. Look at gas prices - which are a result of the instability in Iraq. Thats the simplest example I can provide.