.the Republican National Convention thread. [Archive] - THE WRITERS FORUM

KaBar2

08-29-2004, 07:59 PM

And pretty well-behaved so far. BTW, the Chicago Democratic National Convention in '68 is officially termed "The 1968 Chicago Police Riot," because what happened is that the Chicago cops, encouraged by Mayor Daly (who was an immensely powerful and super corrupt Democratic Party "machine" politician) attacked the heretofor peaceful anti-war demonstrators outside the Convention. Once that happened, the crowds started fighting back, the Governor called out the Illinois National Guard, and the fight was on. The biggest battle was the police trying to push the protestors encamped in the park out of the park and into the streets. Tons of both silent 16mm film and Super-8 film was shot during the street battles. The most famous shots are the anarchists from Yippie! wearing gas masks and throwing tear gas canisters back at the cops and National Guard, and a huge crowd outside a hotel next to the Convention site surging against the National Guard barbed-wire Jeep barriers and chanting "THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING! THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING!"

Fucking awesome. The news reports of those street battles did it for me, right then and there. Within a month, my Movement friends and I had all bought guns and ammunition. I figured the Revolution was definately a green light. We were pretty naive and immature, I guess, but I had never, ever seen anything like that on the news in the U.S. in my whole life. We hated the Vietnam War worse than poison.

Young people all over the country started joining radical groups--Students for a Democratic Society (SDS,) Black Panthers, Socialist Workers Party (SWP--they're Trotskists), Industrial Workers of the World (IWW--back then they were mostly anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists,) Young People's Socialist League (YPSL--the Communist Party USA youth group), Revolutionary Youth Movement I (Progressive Labor---Stalinists) and RYM II (the Weathermen--mostly Maoists) and so on. I figured within two or three years, maximum, the Government would be fighting a guerrilla war against the student-led radical, anti-war "Movement."

It's amazing to me that I find myself on the opposite side of the fence this time around, along with about half of the "Sixties generation."

It's going to be an interesting election. I predict that extremists on both sides will dominate the news and the country will be even more polarized than last time (2000.) As the country becomes more and more polarized, and open conflict becomes more and more likely, I predict ultra-conservatives will stockpile and fortify quietly, unlike in the '90s, when they made the mistake of talking too openly to the liberal media. I don't think they'll ever do that again.

GLIK$

08-29-2004, 08:01 PM

Just vote, your protests and words mean nothing.

Poop Man Bob

08-29-2004, 08:03 PM

Watch CSPAN if you're interested in seeing the marches.

No TV? CSPAN.org (http://www.cspan.org/) has a life feed.

Pfffffffffft

08-29-2004, 08:12 PM

thanks poop..

im watching now..

those coffins are crazy..

Poop Man Bob

08-29-2004, 08:19 PM

Yeah. I flipped over to Fox News real fast to see what they were covering, and I was surprised to see the coffins on the air for a good 15 seconds.

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/fatdave/12oz/coffins.jpg'>

fermentor666

08-29-2004, 08:26 PM

Watching this now, pretty crazy.

Poop Man Bob

08-29-2004, 08:29 PM

From NYTimes.

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide1.jpg'>

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide2.jpg'>

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide3.jpg'>

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide4.jpg'>

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide5.jpg'>

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide6.jpg'>

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide7.jpg'>

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide8.jpg'>

KING BLING

08-29-2004, 08:30 PM

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=actio...=petition_flash (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.election&item=petition_flash)

fermentor666

08-29-2004, 09:27 PM

Rosie Perez's nipples, mmmmm.....

I caught the end of it, now CSPAN is showing the coveted exclusive of the American Isreali's Republican Convention Welcome Conference. Riveting....

freeze

08-29-2004, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20040829/capt.sge.ezj84.290804181842.photo03.default-380x247.jpg'>

i:m not trying to be unsympathetic towards those who have lost their lives in iraq, afghanistan, or anywhere else the united states has ever fought a war...but the fact of the matter is that these soldiers enlisted in an occupation that could potentially put them in harms way. they signed up knowing there was a shot that they:d have to go to war. i think it:s fair for parents to be worried/troubled by their children having to go to war for a cause they may not agree with...but i think it:s unfair for them to say that bush killed their children. what did they want? the free college education for dressing up in fatigues and 'playing army?' i respect and appreciate every single soldier that has fought for my country, and i:m willing to bet that they:d probably whoop their parents asses for walking in protest blaming their death on their boss.

Poop Man Bob

08-29-2004, 10:24 PM

...but i think it:s unfair for them to say that bush killed their children.
The war was Bush's choice. It was not a war of necessity. It was a war of choice. Therefore, her son's death can be traced back to Bush's decision.

...but the fact of the matter is that these soldiers enlisted in an occupation that could potentially put them in harms way. they signed up knowing there was a shot that they:d have to go to war.
They also enlisted assuming that the commander in chief would not send them into harm's way without being honest about the WMDs that don't exist and the imminent threat that Iraq didn't pose.

i:m willing to bet that they:d probably whoop their parents asses for walking in protest blaming their death on their boss.
I'm willing to bet you're wrong. I'm willing to bet that if the nation had not been conned into a war based on untruths, you may be right. But the fact is that the nation was sold untruths from the administration, and soldiers have died as a result of these untruths. I'm willing to bet they'd whoop Bush's ass instead.

Poop Man Bob

08-29-2004, 10:32 PM

[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040829/capt.nydd10808292145.cvn_protests_nydd108.jpg'>

S@T@N

08-29-2004, 10:34 PM

If Kerry wins: republicans bitch and moan for the next 4 years, then
blame any problems in the next 20 years on him.

If Bush wins: protests and pandemonium, extended US hate, etc.

Let's hope America makes the right choice and votes for Kerry.

Dr. Dazzle

08-29-2004, 10:43 PM

When will people learn......PEACEFUL PROTESTS DON'T WORK!

TheoHuxtab|e

08-29-2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Glik0
Just vote, your protests and words mean nothing.

Nah, the protests are a useful propaganda tool to get others to vote against Bush.

The more the better.

GamblersGrin

08-30-2004, 01:13 AM

http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/...06133/index.php (http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/106133/index.php)

lots of pics of the protests

Poop Man Bob

08-30-2004, 01:26 AM

[img]http://home.comcast.net/~jim-candlin/coffins2.jpg'>

[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040829/capt.nygb10308291814.cvn_protests_nygb103.jpg'>

[img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040829/i/r1306207221.jpg'>

[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040829/capt.nydp10208291800.cvn_protests_nydp102.jpg'>

[img]http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2004-08/14031684.jpg'>

[img]http://tinyurl.com/65yea'>

[img]http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/51236074.jpg'>
[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040827/capt.nyff10408270032.dnc2rnc_march_nyff104.jpg'>

[img]http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~aaron/images/photos/couldlie.jpg'>

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/29/nyregion/29cnd-protest.slide10.jpg'>

[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040829/capt.nygb10208291751.cvn_protests_nygb102.jpg'>

[img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040829/i/r529687159.jpg'>

[img]http://www.whistlestopper.com/rnc04/RNCp10.JPG'>

Nekro

08-30-2004, 02:48 AM

If I lived in NYC, I'd have hit the Billionaires for Bush event in my suavest couture.

It's only going to get crazier from here, I have a feeling there's going to be some craziness outside madison square garden during Bush's acceptance speech. After all, the whole world is watching.

SF1

08-30-2004, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by freeze
i:m not trying to be unsympathetic towards those who have lost their lives in iraq, afghanistan, or anywhere else the united states has ever fought a war...but the fact of the matter is that these soldiers enlisted in an occupation that could potentially put them in harms way. they signed up knowing there was a shot that they:d have to go to war. i think it:s fair for parents to be worried/troubled by their children having to go to war for a cause they may not agree with...but i think it:s unfair for them to say that bush killed their children. what did they want? the free college education for dressing up in fatigues and 'playing army?' i respect and appreciate every single soldier that has fought for my country, and i:m willing to bet that they:d probably whoop their parents asses for walking in protest blaming their death on their boss.

DUDE, YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN COP. EVERYBODY ON HERE KNOWS IT AND NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RETARDED OPINION. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

freeze

08-30-2004, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by SF1
DUDE, YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN COP. EVERYBODY ON HERE KNOWS IT AND NOBODY GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RETARDED OPINION. GO FUCK YOURSELF.

i:m a cop just like you paint...

DETO

08-30-2004, 03:40 AM

[color=pink]Originally posted by freeze
i:m not trying to be unsympathetic towards those who have lost their lives in iraq, afghanistan, or anywhere else the united states has ever fought a war...but the fact of the matter is that these soldiers enlisted in an occupation that could potentially put them in harms way. they signed up knowing there was a shot that they:d have to go to war. i think it:s fair for parents to be worried/troubled by their children having to go to war for a cause they may not agree with...but i think it:s unfair for them to say that bush killed their children. what did they want? the free college education for dressing up in fatigues and 'playing army?' i respect and appreciate every single soldier that has fought for my country, and i:m willing to bet that they:d probably whoop their parents asses for walking in protest blaming their death on their boss.
AMEN.</span>

Poop Man Bob

08-30-2004, 03:41 AM

Why did you respond to him so quickly, but neglect to respond to me?

And, DETO - if you believe freeze is right, respond to my comments.

freeze

08-30-2004, 03:47 AM

pmb, i didn:t respond to you because pretty much this has become a tired argument...nothing i say will change your mind and nothing you say will change mine. i stated my opinion and you stated yours. you don:t agree with me and i don:t agree with you, just wanted to leave it at that. i responded to sf1 or whatever because for whatever reason, his childish reference to me being a cop just because he doesn:t agree with me pissed me off at the moment. no hard feelings, i just don:t have the energy to engage in an argument that will get neither of us anywhere with the other.

Poop Man Bob

08-30-2004, 03:50 AM

I didn't ask you to change my mind. I asked you to respond to the points I brought up.

And how is this a tired argument? I don't think I've ever previously replied to anything you've posted on here.

And are you incapable of a discussion on a certain topic if you and another person disagree? That's in effect what you're saying.

the_gooch

08-30-2004, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by freeze
pmb, i didn:t respond to you because pretty much this has become a tired argument...nothing i say will change your mind and nothing you say will change mine. i stated my opinion and you stated yours. you don:t agree with me and i don:t agree with you, just wanted to leave it at that. i responded to sf1 or whatever because for whatever reason, his childish reference to me being a cop just because he doesn:t agree with me pissed me off at the moment. no hard feelings, i just don:t have the energy to engage in an argument that will get neither of us anywhere with the other.

don't you know that it is pointless to argue with people who have over 3-4 thousand posts on here?

:rolleyes:

:lol: :lol:

freeze

08-30-2004, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
The war was Bush's choice. It was not a war of necessity. It was a war of choice. Therefore, her son's death can be traced back to Bush's decision.

They also enlisted assuming that the commander in chief would not send them into harm's way without being honest about the WMDs that don't exist and the imminent threat that Iraq didn't pose.

I'm willing to bet you're wrong. I'm willing to bet that if the nation had not been conned into a war based on untruths, you may be right. But the fact is that the nation was sold untruths from the administration, and soldiers have died as a result of these untruths. I'm willing to bet they'd whoop Bush's ass instead.

Any war is essentially the president:s choice, although there is a process where the congressional bodies become involved. Not a war of necessity? Ask the thousands upon thousands of iraqi:s who lost their lives so that Hussein could fulfill his 'sport' killing daily fix. Ask the iraqi:s who had to live in poverty while the Hussein clan lived luxuriously while ignoring them. Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, and that was the front that we used to go to war, the fact of the matter is that the US presence in iraq was and is a positive one.

And on your point saying that soldiers would whoop bush:s ass instead. nope, sorry. on my way to tokyo i sat next to an american soldier flying home from iraq for a two week visit with his family. a great opportunity for first hand conversation, and his opinion mirrored mine...'i signed up for this job, and wrong or right i will fulfill the duty that i agreed to perform.' your response would be like me not liking my boss at the office, calling my mom to bitch about how horribly depressed i have become, and then her in turn suing the company that i was working for to cover my therapist bills. sorry, isn:t going to work.

and when i said that this was a tired argument, i didn:t mean between you and i personally, just in general. i can be pretty much guaranteed that you:re not going to agree with a word i just wrote and will respond with more counters that i:m not going to agree with...that:s why i just wanted to state my opinion and then leave it alone.

freeze

08-30-2004, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by the_gooch
don't you know that it is pointless to argue with people who have over 3-4 thousand posts on here?

:rolleyes:

:lol: :lol:

nothing agains pmb, but just because someone has 4 million internet posts does not automatically make them an all knowing being.

the_gooch

08-30-2004, 04:11 AM

i think you missed the sarcasm in my comment to spite the hints i left.

i tried, i tried

DETO

08-30-2004, 04:16 AM

[color=pink]Originally posted by the_gooch
don't you know that it is pointless to argue with people who have over 3-4 thousand posts on here?

:rolleyes:

:lol: :lol:

:lol: </span>

SF1

08-30-2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by freeze
Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, and that was the front that we used to go to war, the fact of the matter is that the US presence in iraq was and is a positive one.

[img]http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/Genocide2gfx/ManCarriesDeadGirl.jpg'> [/B][/QUOTE]

SF1

08-30-2004, 04:44 AM

[img]http://www.changemedia.org/photos/peacemarch/images/photos/4.%20Signs/Already%20500K%20Iraqi%20Children%20Dead.jpg'>

High Priest

08-30-2004, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by SF1
[img]http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/Genocide2gfx/ManCarriesDeadGirl.jpg'> [/B][/QUOTE]

Ugh.

Nekro

08-30-2004, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by freeze
Any war is essentially the president:s choice, although there is a process where the congressional bodies becomes involved. The Constitution of the United States is specifically constructed such that going to war is not the "president's choice." The President can draw up a declaration of war and put it before the congress, but congress must approve before we go to war. Likewise, congress doesn't have the power to send troops- only the president can direct the actual fighting of the war. Hence, the president can't go to war without the agreement of the congress and congress can't go to war without the president. This is called separation of powers, you might want to read up on it.

Not a war of necessity? Ask the thousands upon thousands of iraqi:s who lost their lives so that Hussein could fulfill his 'sport' killing daily fix. Ask the iraqi:s who had to live in poverty while the Hussein clan lived luxuriously while ignoring them. Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, and that was the front that we used to go to war

Was Iraq going to invade the United States? Did they pose a grave danger to our well-being? Do they have nuclear weapons cough*northkorea*cough? If the United States is going into the business of democratizing the world, why didn't we start with a a more US-friendly country where we would be sure to succeed and set a good example? Why did we invade the one country where our motives would be most suspect? Why didn't W come right out and say that we were going to invade Iraq because they had a horrible, oppressive dictatorship and it is our moral obligation to overthrow said dictatorships- not because they posed a great threat to our national security? And finally, why did W need a front to go to war? Is the case really that weak? Would you send your child to die for a "front?"

The commander in chief has an obligation not to send our troops into harm's way unless it is absolutely neccessary. Based on the arguments supplied during the run-up to the war, it was not neccessary to send our troops into Iraq.

KING BLING

08-30-2004, 05:17 AM

CAN WE STAY ON TOPIC? > THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

[img]http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0408/gallery.rnc.sunday.update/gal.rnc.dragon.ap.jpg'>

justaname

08-30-2004, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Nekro
The Constitution of the United States is specifically constructed such that going to war is not the "president's choice." The President can draw up a declaration of war and put it before the congress, but congress must approve before we go to war. Likewise, congress doesn't have the power to send troops- only the president can direct the actual fighting of the war. Hence, the president can't go to war without the agreement of the congress and congress can't go to war without the president. This is called separation of powers, you might want to read up on it.

Was Iraq going to invade the United States? Did they pose a grave danger to our well-being? Do they have nuclear weapons cough*northkorea*cough? If the United States is going into the business of democratizing the world, why didn't we start with a a more US-friendly country where we would be sure to succeed and set a good example? Why did we invade the one country where our motives would be most suspect? Why didn't W come right out and say that we were going to invade Iraq because they had a horrible, oppressive dictatorship and it is our moral obligation to overthrow said dictatorships- not because they posed a great threat to our national security? And finally, why did W need a front to go to war? Is the case really that weak? Would you send your child to die for a "front?"

The commander in chief has an obligation not to send our troops into harm's way unless it is absolutely neccessary. Based on the arguments supplied during the run-up to the war, it was not neccessary to send our troops into Iraq.
also thanks for all the images guys...

Poop Man Bob

08-30-2004, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by freeze
Any war is essentially the president:s choice, although there is a process where the congressional bodies become involved.
Wrong. US Constitution, Section 8, Clause 10. "Congress shall have power to declare war ..." In this instance, they passed legislation essentially leaving it up to the President's discretion - something abnormal. The norm is Congress declares war, since only they have the constitutional power to do so. So, no, all wars are not the President's choice.

Not a war of necessity? Ask the thousands upon thousands of iraqi:s who lost their lives so that Hussein could fulfill his 'sport' killing daily fix. Ask the iraqi:s who had to live in poverty while the Hussein clan lived luxuriously while ignoring them.
Following your logic, "wars of necessity" exist all over the world - i.e., wars based on maniacal dictators who keep their countries in poverty. Are you prepared to follow your logic to its natural conclusion and invade other sovereign nations in order to fulfill the precedent the Bush administration has set?

Although no weapons of mass destruction were found, and that was the front that we used to go to war, the fact of the matter is that the US presence in iraq was and is a positive one.
You can't dismiss one of the single most important facts with an "although ..." Clearly you don't mind being taken into war based on false premises - untruths. I'm avoiding calling them "lies" because I don't know if the Bush administration had the intent to deliberately mislead the nation - or if they're simply incompetent as decision-makers.

And don't paint me into a corner as a Saddam-apologist [not that you're attempting to, this is merely a preemptive statement .. call it the Bush Doctrine of Preemption In A 12oz Discussion]. I'm fucking glad the guy is out of power and incarcerated where he can own up to the hell he has put his country through. BUT - and this is the important part - the manner in which the Bushies chose to take him out was fundamentally flawed: untruths re: why we're going in, no planning for the peace, lack of a broad international coalition , reliance on Chalabi and his merry band of thugs, ignoring the [u]real thread [al Qaeda], etc ad nauseum.

And on your point saying that soldiers would whoop bush:s ass instead. nope, sorry. on my way to tokyo i sat next to an american soldier flying home from iraq for a two week visit with his family. a great opportunity for first hand conversation, and his opinion mirrored mine...'i signed up for this job, and wrong or right i will fulfill the duty that i agreed to perform.'
Neither of us can prove this point. Fact is, neither of us know what the soldier would do had he known his mother would protest his death in that fashion. But I'm willing to bet that the mother did so for two reasons: 1) to let out some of the anger she had at the Bushies, and 2) to honor her son. We can disagree whether she did so in an appropriate manner, but she's his mom - I'll trust her on that one.

your response would be like me not liking my boss at the office, calling my mom to bitch about how horribly depressed i have become, and then her in turn suing the company that i was working for to cover my therapist bills. sorry, isn:t going to work.
Except you're not dead. And the degree of anger your mother would feel if you didn't like your boss infinitely smaller than if you had gotten killed. And, I'm confused, where do the therapist bills come in? Are you talking about Rush now?

and when i said that this was a tired argument, i didn:t mean between you and i personally, just in general. i can be pretty much guaranteed that you:re not going to agree with a word i just wrote and will respond with more counters that i:m not going to agree with...that:s why i just wanted to state my opinion and then leave it alone.
Oh, yeah .. well .. SHUT UP! SHUT UP! NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Jokes.

Poop Man Bob

08-30-2004, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by KING BLING
CAN WE STAY ON TOPIC? > THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

We'll get back to it. Nothing is preventing you and others from discussing it. Two discussions at once in one thread - it can happen, I promise.

docs

08-30-2004, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Napoleon Dynamite
such an idiot!
my thoughts on bush

Nekro

08-30-2004, 05:58 AM

Oh, yeah .. well .. SHUT UP! SHUT UP! NA NA NA NA NA NA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! It's so true.

mr.yuck

08-30-2004, 06:33 AM

I watched part of the speach he put on in wheeling West Virginia tonight. He put on such a compelling performance to re elect him with reasons such as: So his wife can be the first lady for another 4 years and because he likes to hunt and fish.

Take that however you want.

Nekro

08-30-2004, 06:56 AM

About the opening prayer. (atrios.blogspot.com) (http://haloscan.com/tb/atrios/109381254760837264)

TheoHuxtab|e

08-30-2004, 09:48 AM

[img]http://www.obsess.com/junk/war.gif'>

uncle-boy

08-30-2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by uncle-boy
ass and titties.

Daddy Screw

08-30-2004, 12:39 PM

good thread

POIESIS

08-30-2004, 10:39 PM

i find this whole bizarre thing really amusing yet really unsettling.
call me a pessimistic cynical dinkhead, but kerry doesn't do squat
for me. i just see an overall continuation of the current trajectory
under his management, and the inevitable further solidifying of domestic and
interventionist policy. it would be nice if this great groundswell of awareness
and opposition really sank deep into the collective mind and people
really started to study the system itself instead of so much exclusive
scrutiny of the few scumbags running things. unfortunately i don't
see that taking hold with kerry getting in, which is why i half agree with some of
the progressives who believe 4 more years of bush would really
set things on fire and put america's perverted system under intense
rethinking.

POIESIS

08-30-2004, 11:23 PM

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v29/Tesseract/condighoul.jpg'>

fermentor666

08-30-2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by POIESIS
i find this whole bizarre thing really amusing yet really unsettling.
call me a pessimistic cynical dinkhead, but kerry doesn't do squat
for me. i just see an overall continuation of the current trajectory
under his management, and the inevitable further solidifying of domestic and
interventionist policy. it would be nice if this great groundswell of awareness
and opposition really sank deep into the collective mind and people
really started to study the system itself instead of so much exclusive
scrutiny of the few scumbags running things. unfortunately i don't
see that taking hold with kerry getting in, which is why i half agree with some of
the progressives who believe 4 more years of bush would really
set things on fire and put america's perverted system under intense
rethinking.

That's true, but the question is could we survive 4 more years of Bush, and if we do survive then at what cost to our liberties? This is the administration that is now able to hold prisoners with no right to fair trail, lawyer, or outside communication indefinitly under the broad definition of "terrorism". Also the administration that quite seriously recommended delaying the upcoming election, which would require a rewrite of the constitution and theoritically put an end to democracy in this country. With no re-election to worry about, Bush will be able to push the real right-wing, God-oriented agendas that everyone has been speculating about for the past four years. And why not start another war if he knows that another president will have to clean it up. Or who knows, could be on some Angela Langsbury shit and have Bush assasinated so Cheney could take power and the real coup would begin. (referencing the original Manchurian Candidate).

Either way, I'm fucking voting for Kerry. If anything it will give me more of a chance to be able to go outside thirty years from now without SPF 300 sunscreen on to protect me from the lack of ozone.

gatita

08-31-2004, 12:25 AM

I dont necessarily want to vote for Kerry, but hes definitely the lesser of two evils, and Im not voting for the green party.

I saw the bike protest as well... a lottttt of people. It was definitely fun.

In my opinion, if Bush was re-elected, ALL HELL would break loose. Rioting and looting in all major cities. People would go crazy... especially if another "ballot" miscount happened. I definitely dont want to witness a re-election. I love America, and I especially love NY, but I think Id have to move to Europe or Canada for 4 years.

trackstand

08-31-2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by freeze
pmb, i didn:t respond to you because pretty much this has become a tired argument...nothing i say will change your mind and nothing you say will change mine. i stated my opinion and you stated yours. you don:t agree with me and i don:t agree with you, just wanted to leave it at that. i responded to sf1 or whatever because for whatever reason, his childish reference to me being a cop just because he doesn:t agree with me pissed me off at the moment. no hard feelings, i just don:t have the energy to engage in an argument that will get neither of us anywhere with the other.

Fuck you pig, I hope someone brutally murders you in front of your wife and kids and they cannot stomach their cereal for months after the fact.

Nekro

08-31-2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by POIESIS
i find this whole bizarre thing really amusing yet really unsettling.
call me a pessimistic cynical dinkhead, but kerry doesn't do squat
for me. i just see an overall continuation of the current trajectory
under his management, and the inevitable further solidifying of domestic and
interventionist policy. it would be nice if this great groundswell of awareness
and opposition really sank deep into the collective mind and people
really started to study the system itself instead of so much exclusive
scrutiny of the few scumbags running things. unfortunately i don't
see that taking hold with kerry getting in, which is why i half agree with some of
the progressives who believe 4 more years of bush would really
set things on fire and put america's perverted system under intense
rethinking. What does Kerry have to do to excite you? Fuck lindsay lohan live in prime-time?

If you think that Kerry's going to continue doing what bush has been doing, you are a complete moron. Look at the man's record, look at what he's promised to do, then compare it to what bush has done. Where can i start?

Bush cut income taxes about 5% across the board. The result was that a few rich people saved a ton of money and the rest of us got a few hundred dollars. It also meant that state and local governments ended up raising payroll taxes. Bush also eliminated the tax on dividends. The net effect was that he cut taxes on the unearned income of the rich while raising taxes on wage-earners.

Our wildlife refuges and national parks belong to all of us. Bush wants to let private companies destroy them for profit. Kerry doesn't.

I can keep going.

POIESIS

08-31-2004, 05:38 PM

well i'm sorry to piss on the kerry parade..i should mention that
if i was american, i'd be voting kerry as well, just not with any glee.
i may be a 'complete moron'(i prefer dinkhead actually),
but i think you missed the point of what i was getting at..
which is...this election isn't going to reverse the damage done,
nor is american government under kerry going to radically
shift america's standing in the world. what are the 2 big issues?
iraq and terrorism(don't try and tell me it's the economy..read the polls).
iraq will continue under kerry.
and terrorism will continue, and we'll keep being pals with the
saudi's, israel, and the pak's, and this endless war on terror will continue
without scrutinizing the real root of it. not to mention transnational corporations will
still be at the table of every policy decision.
america didn't catch a bad rap exclusively
under bush in the last 4 years(yes i am completely aware how
bad he has fucked things up).
we all know the extent of their gangsterism and it's effects, okay?
i'm talking about the real state of things, the whole insanely complex ball of wax, the future past the next 4 years, a future
for the world managed under the fist of american capitalism and a
war that doesn't recognize boundaries and incurs disgusting atrocities(again,
not just the past 4 years). you got 2 choices. the rich guy, or..the rich guy.
kerry gets his props..he has fantastic hair, and he even looks like a president.
he's even talks a good talk..
but he's a politician, and politicians lie for a living.
if you look back over the last few decades, the atmosphere of rhetoric
from power and fear mongering and some of the expressed
concerns by excellent progressive writers at the time, it is
VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to what is happening now. yet here
we all are in 2004. kerry may not rock some silly tax cuts for his
rich buddies and make speeches where he confuses the words feces and
fetus, but he WILL continue to do the bidding of the military industrial
complex and keep the national security state humming along nicely.
like i said, it scares me that this groundswell of concern for your policies abroad
and at home will fall back asleep when the guy with nice hair gets in.
btw, just to keep things on the friendly tip, this is browner..i love you
nekro.

<KEY3>

08-31-2004, 05:43 PM

The one thing Kerry can do that Bush cant
is approach the UN and say "I'm sorry this
whole thing turned out like it did, can we
please be friends again and try to work as
a team to help the people who are really
being hurt by this war."

Bush can NEVER (nor would he) admit to any kind of mistake.

oh..... how long untill they unveil a captured Osama?

KaBar2

08-31-2004, 05:47 PM

The Republicans, just like the Democrats, have billionaire friends and supporters. They also have working-class conservative supporters (like me) and every other stripe of constituent. The Republicans are not a very conservative party---they ran up a huge deficit, they support all manner of foreign involvements around the world, etc., etc., etc. They talk a good game, but when it comes right down to it, they are all about Big Government, just like the Democrats. The neo-conservatives are probably the worst of the lot.

Bush will either get elected, or not. If Mr. Kerry becomes President, the Republicans will fall back and retrench, in an attempt to prevent him from passing much legislation that changes the status quo. There will be a few more pieces of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing laws that get through on a heavily spun "bi-partisan" schtick, but the bottom line, none of the major players, Republican or Democrat, give a rat's ass about the "common man."

If the Democrats pass some sort of welfare legislation that increases the amount of money given for housing to welfare families, GUESS WHO WINDS UP WITH THE MONEY? It goes to obscenely rich owners of welfare hotels in New York, etc., who are guess what? Major contributors to the Democratic Party. The poor welfare people never even see it.

If the Republicans make a big grandstand play for something like "better body armor for Our Boys In Iraq" that means some gigantic Republican Party contributor finally got the contract. So a $400 bullet-resistant vest gets sewn up in camouflage Gor-tex (guess which famous political family owns the GORE Tex patent?) and bought on a mil-spec Government contract for $1,000 apiece.

You think for one second if the Demopublicans get elected they will pull out of Iraq? Fuck no, they won't. Who got us into Vietnam? Eisenhower ®, in a small way, Kennedy (D) in a much bigger way, "Mr. Civil Rights" LBJ (D) in a REALLY much bigger way. Nixon ®, facing a nation almost in open rebellion, ended the Draft, declared "victory" and removed the U.S. troops. He also assisted hundreds of thousands of anti-communist Vietnamese government employees, military men and U.S. Embassy employees and their extended families to immigrate to the U.S., all of whom were rabid communist-haters and enthusiastic supporters of the Republican Party.

The Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin. If you want some genuine change, vote Libertarian. Your candidate won't win, but at least you will have the satisfaction of saying to yourself that you didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.

The war in Iraq is about oil. So what? Every war is about something other than whatever the propaganda spin-meisters say it's about. The war in Iraq is about a whole lot of things, including oil, strategic advantage in the Middle East, securing Israel's northern flank, secretly assisting our "enemies" in Iran (ever hear of the Iran-Contra scandal under the Reagan administration? The Iranians were MORE THAN HAPPY to assist Oliver North in slaughtering the Sandinistas by providing AK47's, RPD's, RPG's, etc., as long as we gave them shoulder-fired Stinger missles with which to shoot down Iraqi aircraft. And where did the Stingers come from? ISRAEL. Yeah, they're our "enemies" all right.)

There are wheels within wheels here, always. Behind the scenes, the insiders make millions, and regardless of who is in the White House, the System will continue to create the Good Life for those that are on the inside---Democrat, Republican, Communist, Socialist, whatever. In my opinion, it's largely a set up from the start. Not completely, but largely.

Drunk Sober

08-31-2004, 05:56 PM

Its all a scam! republicans or democrats, youre just voting to feed another fat fucking elite pig for the rest of thier life. I smell the New World Order! Both parties are throwing low-blows beyond belief. Never have I seen so much propaganda in my life! (maybe besides Obey Giant!)

Poop Man Bob

08-31-2004, 07:16 PM

You're all right! I'm voting Nader!

Weapon X

08-31-2004, 07:23 PM

Kabar, that was a well written statement. big ups.

In lots of dictatorships and what not, the election process is disrupted, just like 2000. It WILL happen again.

Anyway, for every sandal wearing, rainbow coloured strap on a totebag, short haired art student livejournal blogger who puts up stencils about "fuck bush" or whatever who doesn't vote, I would like a nickel.

<KEY3>

08-31-2004, 07:40 PM

Oops.... for WeaponX.

[img]http://www.unb.ca/isao/ishandbook_files/5proof.gif'>

even with the exchange rate...... it's still got a beaver on it!!!!

*nevermind the exchange rate thing. He'sa canuck too!

Poop Man Bob

08-31-2004, 08:10 PM

Uhm .. Key .. I didn't write anything about a nickel.

mental invalid

08-31-2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
[img]http://www.bikesagainstbush.com/images/bike_stopbush_285x140.gif'>

[center][img]http://a1112.g.akamai.net/7/1112/492/2002091464/www.wired.com/news/images/full/love_f.jpg'>

my girl said she saw this guy getting arrested while doing an interview any truth to that??

Poop Man Bob

08-31-2004, 08:29 PM

[img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040831/i/r3829590006.jpg'>

From Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040831/ids_photos_ts/r3829590006.jpg):
Texas delegate Pat Peale wears a bandaid with a purple heart on it on her chin during the first day of the Republican National Convention in New York August 30, 2004. Democrats and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAulliffe reacted angrily after seeing Peale on national television appearing to mock the Purple Heart ribbons awarded to Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry in Vietnam. Peale was quoted as saying she had gotten a purple heart earlier in the day 'swimming a river I think it was.'

Interested in contacting Ms. Peale?
ppeale@nortexinfo.net

I told her, in part: "And you got the purple heart "swimming in a river?" Let's be serious - we both know you can't swim with that turkey-neck thing you've got going on. Use the bandaid to hold that up instead."

the_gooch

08-31-2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by mental invalid
my girl said she saw this guy getting arrested while doing an interview any truth to that??

yeah, they showed it on cnn or msnbc. the cops said they saw him in the act, when infact the stuff he was standing over was done the day before.

the reporter ( i forget who) told the nypd captain (who had to be radioed in cause the sgt. and the arresting beat cop didn't know how to handle it) that the guy didn't do anything and infact has the beat cop on video lying when he radioed in.

naturally the law is always right, and the perp was hauled in. haha

by the way that stuff is water soluable chalk, not spray paint. it was also hooked up to a cell phone which got text messages, and after the message was received it would spray out the message. so, since all the shit was electronic the bomb squad had to "inspect it"

honestly that guy is a pussy, just grab spraypaint and make you message permanent! you don't need all that fancy bullshit, thats why he got caught!!

Nekro

08-31-2004, 09:03 PM

Wow, those bandaids are so tasteful!

<KEY3>

08-31-2004, 09:59 PM

those bandaids make me really damn mad.

I like to think that if someone, anyone, questioned my
Grandfather's (rip) record of his service in WWII,
he would knock their lights out right then and there.

That woman probably has NO idea what Kerry went through, so she can just fuck off, for reals.

Weapon X

08-31-2004, 10:12 PM

yeah, man, I almost flipped when I saw that picture pmb posted. Man, do I want to just kick her in that yellow grin of hers!

Drunk Sober

08-31-2004, 10:33 PM

I'm telling you, shit is getting real dirty this year. These repubicans and demoknats are stooping to all time lows. I think another civil war would be a lot funner than all this shit talking going on!

docs

08-31-2004, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by the_gooch
yeah, they showed it on cnn or msnbc. the cops said they saw him in the act, when infact the stuff he was standing over was done the day before.

the reporter ( i forget who) told the nypd captain (who had to be radioed in cause the sgt. and the arresting beat cop didn't know how to handle it) that the guy didn't do anything and infact has the beat cop on video lying when he radioed in.

naturally the law is always right, and the perp was hauled in. haha

by the way that stuff is water soluable chalk, not spray paint. it was also hooked up to a cell phone which got text messages, and after the message was received it would spray out the message. so, since all the shit was electronic the bomb squad had to "inspect it"

honestly that guy is a pussy, just grab spraypaint and make you message permanent! you don't need all that fancy bullshit, thats why he got caught!!

he went to jail for sprayin chalk on the streets ?....whaaat an idiot

Jimmy Jump

08-31-2004, 11:23 PM

this bullshit about the "lesser of two evils" is soooooo 2000. the propaganda about the candidates is no worse than any other year. you gotta do a little research on your own and find out what the candidates are about. and by research i dont mean the unbiased opinions you find on internet chat boards..

some shit to throw into the mix..
Bush vs. Bush (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html&setplayer=real_media)..

[img]http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2004/bo040829.gif'>

Poop Man Bob

09-01-2004, 04:51 AM

Holy shit. Watch the Bush twins make complete asses of themselves. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/083104-26v.htm)

Dick Quickwood

09-01-2004, 05:18 AM

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=53720272/K=north+ko...ns_040831063635 (http://rds.yahoo.com/S=53720272/K=north+korea+source%3Ayahoo/v=2/SID=e/l=NSR/R=6/*-http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040831/pl_afp/us_vote_republicans_040831063635)

wacytabacy

09-01-2004, 05:36 AM

you know what the deal is boy!

fermentor666

09-01-2004, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
Holy shit. Watch the Bush twins make complete asses of themselves. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/083104-26v.htm)

Watching this, I feel like I'm watching a high school prep rally. Name-dropping and lame jokes, little annoying giggles.

I want to go Gunkata on those two fucking bitches and their whole family.

GUNKATA!

pixie

09-01-2004, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by trackstand
Fuck you pig, I hope someone brutally murders you in front of your wife and kids and they cannot stomach their cereal for months after the fact.

can i just say that it's dumbasses like you who give the democratic party it's bad name. you're acting just as close-minded and ignorant as any goddamned republican could dream of being. the kid is trying to back out of the argument that can't be won and is not trying to offend anyone by simply agreeing to disagree. fucking grow up and learn some goddamn tolerance

on a different subject
those bush twins are retarded and i definitely feel i have become stupider from watching that clip... guess you can't blame them too much when their dad is a complete moron

POIESIS

09-01-2004, 12:11 PM

i cringed waaay more seeing arnie's stupid rant. and guiliani..needs
a good punch in the face. anybody else feel like they are being
hypnotized by that massive, slightly waving in the wind flag?
and isn't it wonderful how the republicans have all these high profile people
in their corner, while the dem's big star is out trying to windsurf?
wonder what that's all about..

mr.yuck

09-01-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by fermentor666
Watching this, I feel like I'm watching a high school prep rally. Name-dropping and lame jokes, little annoying giggles.

I want to go Gunkata on those two fucking bitches and their whole family.

GUNKATA!

I would totally jizz on Jennas grill.

fiberoptical

09-01-2004, 04:14 PM

Violent means to end violent opression. Rise up.

Brownbread?

09-01-2004, 05:03 PM

Mr.Yuck Jenna sure could get it but the shape of her head looks like something from Hey Arnold.

Watchin the Bush twins was like wacthing someone drown. Aren't they suppose to be pro comedians? Thats so damn sad, it seems as if they were reading those 4th grade lines from a teleprompter.

Weapon X

09-01-2004, 05:07 PM

Hey, poop man, I don’t fuck with realplayer. Can you link up a key word or two so I can find the correct video through google or something? My friend would get a real kick out of this when he comes over, I’m sure.

LOL, but seriously folks…September 11th.

mental invalid

09-01-2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
Holy shit. Watch the Bush twins make complete asses of themselves. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/083104-26v.htm)

i squirmed more watching them, then i do for curb your enthusiam....

heres my recap:

rudy - 83 - i thought this would be a home run...i
sorta thought he rambled a bit, i mean 40 minutes
and i thought his envoking of the 9-11 was some
what crass...he should do it, but maybe have done it
better...after all there is no way around the fact
that the 911 commission was almost axed by
bush/cheney...i find it ironic..

mccain - 85 - i was hoping for a more rhetoric filled
cry, that would make me want to grab a gun and shoot a
towel head, and i thought his ending was anti-climatic, but i
think he did a good job of bridging partisan divide...

laura bush - 90 - shes a peach, i think her husbands
an idiot but she serves him well

ah-nold - 93 - envoking nixon! i mean you get bonus
points for that alone! i gotta say i still think he
sort of a joke, but his personalization of communist
russia, his birth as a republican and his survey of
"you know youre a republican if" was great and
delivered well...

i just find it ironic that the frist and the hasserts
have been regulated to the 6-8pm slot...while the gay
rights(ah-nold) the anti-gun rights (rudy) and the
anti-tax cuts (mccain) have been put on center stage,
and you know why, cause it cause people like me to say
well fuck i guess their not bad...and you know what if
those guys were running the party and not the
religious and conservative right, then i may be a
swing voter, but i aint falling for that conservative
compassion shit...what does that mean anyway? they
will use KY jelly when they fuck me in the ass?? thats
nice of em...i mean my god have you gandered at the
RNC platform? no rights for gays? at all? i mean geez
i hear ya with the marriage thing, but i dont want a
party that has that sorta hatred even if its a
miniscule issue when compared to other issues...

the bush twins!!

i heard their speech writer got a job working at the
dunkin donuts drive through...

Poop Man Bob

09-01-2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Weapon X
Hey, poop man, I don’t fuck with realplayer. Can you link up a key word or two so I can find the correct video through google or something? My friend would get a real kick out of this when he comes over, I’m sure.

I've searched, but all I can find are Real Player versions. I'll let you know if I come across something that might work for you ..

SF1

09-01-2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by cleansheets
Violent means to end violent opression. Rise up.

effyoo

09-01-2004, 07:09 PM

man, i had to turn that those bush girls off halfway through.
reminded me of Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie.

I caught bits of Arnolds speech last night, too, and I think mental invalid summed up what i thought about it nicely. Well delivered and engaging.

Nekro

09-01-2004, 07:46 PM

Yeah, too bad it was bullshit. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/1/125455/5661)

23578

09-01-2004, 08:06 PM

i don't even have to check that link to know arnold is bullshit. he's a moderate, that's probably why he comes across a little better than the other wack jobs. the bush twins are like a necessary evil. bush has to show his wife and kids, it evokes the sensitive, sensible bush image he trys to duplicitously convey every chance he can. he's such an idiot, i can't believe he's been so flip floping on the "winning" issue.

effyoo

09-01-2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Nekro
Yeah, too bad it was bullshit. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/1/125455/5661)

from that link
The facts? There was no presidential debate in that election. Nixon never debated Humphrey.

according to that link you posted, Arnold never said anything about a debate.

23578

09-01-2004, 08:22 PM

ha, yeah, me saw that too.

what it should have said was: bullshit, in 1968, as now, arnold can't speak proper english or proper german, so how could he understand anything about anything in either language unless perhaps it was spoken in arnoldese? little austrian humor for you there.

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 12:49 AM

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/fatdave/big_brother.jpg'>

Nekro

09-02-2004, 01:06 AM

Most disturbing picture ever.

On a side note, you might want to host that on photobucket or something, dailykos is kind of hard up for bandwidth.

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 01:07 AM

Snap. I did for my site, but not for here. Good call.

KING BLING

09-02-2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Drunk Sober
I'm telling you, shit is getting real dirty this year. These repubicans and demoknats are stooping to all time lows.

You know, I don't feel that the Democratic side has really done much at all outside of the norms in the past few elections. All the hype about MoveOn.org's campaigns (if this is what you were refering to, it is what everyone else does) being the equivalent of The Kerry bashing boat ads is ridiculous. The ad says what we all know: at a time where thousands of inner city and rural poor kids were being forced to go to war, this rich kid got a hall pass from his dad...I mean he might not be found guilty in a court of law but the evidence is there...

Its fair enough if Kerry is just saying "I don't want to go there" but for all of us, I don't think we need to start thinking in political and media rheotoric...

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 01:17 AM

From dailykos.com (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/1/184058/3472), this is great:

Damn, this thing reads worse than it sounds. I mean, if I'm a communications guy, I try to use the twins to appeal to women (which the GOP has lost completely) and young voters (even if none are watching the convention coverage). So how did they do?

JENNA BUSH: It's great to be here. We love Arnold. Isn't he awesome?

Thanks to him, if one of us ever decides to marry a Democrat, nobody can complain, except maybe our grandmother, Barbara. And if she doesn't like it, we would definitely hear about it.

We already know she doesn't like some of our clothes, our music, or most of the TV shows we watch.

Gammie, we love you dearly, but you're just not very hip.

She thinks "Sex and the City" is something married people do, but never talk about.

Hmmm, this is clearly targetted toward youngsters, since apparently young kids all think their grandmothers are crusty old bitches who just need to die, and barring that, should be told to stuff their years of wisdom down the toilet and shut their traps.

And they like "Sex and the City", which should make those Christian wackos really happy. But the twins are blond. And they talk about Sex in the City. So they may have scored some points with the twenty-something male crowd.

We spent the last four years trying to stay out of the spotlight. Sometimes, we did a little better job than others.

We kept trying to explain to my dad that when we are young and irresponsible, well, we're young and irresponsible.

"Yeah, getting drunk and smoking pot is fun, and dad just doesn't get it! And it's nice to have a Secret Service detail to get us out of sticky situations. It's fun being irresponsible, which is easy to do since our parents didn't instill any values in us. And anyway, we're just following dad's example."
BARBARA BUSH: Jenna and I are really not very political, but we love our dad too much to stand back and watch from the sidelines.

We realized that this would be his last campaign, and we wanted to be a part of it.
"It's easy to support our father when we don't actually pay attention to the damage he's causing.
Besides, since we've graduated from college, we're looking around for something to do for the next few years.

Kind of like dad.
Are they saying that their dad will lose, or that he will win? Either way, this is pretty, um, horrible.

As for the twins, they'll be okay. Daddy's friends will hook them up. Just like their father, they'll never have to work a day in their lives.
JENNA: Our parents have always encouraged us to be independent and dream big. We've spent a lot of time at the White House, so when we showed up the first day, we thought we had it all figured out. But apparently my dad already has a chief of staff, named Andy.
Ummm.... okaaay...
BARBARA: When your dad's a Republican and you go to Yale, you learn to stand up for yourself.

I knew I wasn't quite ready to be president, but number two sounded pretty good.

Who is this man they call Dick Cheney?
The president.
JENNA: I think I know a lot about campaigns. After all, my grandfather and my dad have both run for president, so I put myself in charge of strategy. Then I got an angry call from some guy named Karl.
Groan... Karl apparently didn't like the "Pub Crawl" the twins had set up.
BARBARA: We knew we had something to offer. I mean, we've traveled the world; we've studied abroad. But when we started coming home with foreign policy advise, dad made us call Condi.
And the twins were smarter.
JENNA: Not to be deterred, we thought surely there's a place for strong willed, opinionated women in communications. And next thing we know, Karen's back.
As an aside, how many "swing voters" out there know who "Karen" and "Andy" and Karl" really are? Heck, even Condi is probably unknown to a majority of Americans.
BARBARA: So we decided the best thing we could do here tonight would be to introduce somebody we know and love.

JENNA: You know all those times when you're growing up and your parents embarrass you? Well, this is payback time on live TV.
They got that right.
BARBARA: Take this. I know it's hard to believe, but our parents' favorite term of endearment for each other is actually Bushy.
Ewwww....
And we had a hamster, too. Let's just say ours didn't make it.
Kerry saves hamsters. The Bushes kill theirs.
JENNA: But, contrary to what you might read in the papers, our parents are actually kind of cool. They do know the difference between mono and Bono. When we tell them we're going to see Outkast, they know it's a band and not a bunch of misfits. And if we really beg them, they'll even shake it like a Polaroid picture.
Ewww....
BARBARA: So, OK, maybe they have learned a little pop culture from us, but we've learned a lot more from them about what matters in life, about unconditional love, about focus and discipline.
Didn't they just say up-speech that they're young and irresponsible?
They taught us the importance of a good sense of humor, of being open-minded and treating everyone with respect.

And we learned the true value of honesty and integrity.

JENNA: When you grow up as the daughters of George and Laura Bush, you develop a special appreciation for how blessed we are to live in this great country.

We are so proud to be here tonight to introduce someone who read us bedtime stories, picked up car pool, made us our favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and cheered for us when we scored a goal, even when it was for the wrong team.

BARBARA: Someone who told us we actually looked cute in braces, always welcomed our friends and was there waiting when we came home at curfew.

JENNA: Ladies and gentlemen, one of the two most loving, thoughtful people we know.

BARBARA: Your president and our dad, George W. Bush.

Did someone actually vet this speech?

poopydiaperz

09-02-2004, 02:28 AM

GO AHEAD AND TALK SHIT BUT IF YOU TALK SHIT ABOUT BUSH IN TEXAS YOU WILL MOST LIKELY GET A 12 GAUGE SHELL BLASTED RIGHT THROUGH YOUR FOREHEAD. TELL A VIETNAM VET THAT YOU WANNA SLOB ON KERRYS DICK. GEE I WONDER WHO AL QUEDA AND AL QATAR WOULD VOTE FOR. YOU BUNCH OF PUSSY ASS LITTLE DICKZ. SOME OF YOU ARE A DISCRACE TO AMERICA BURNING YOUR OWN FLAGS AND SHIT. STOP EATIN THEM SOMAS AND XANAXES. OOH BY THE WAY WATCH BUSH WIN ANYWAY.. AND THEN YOU CAN E-MAIL ME AND COME TO MY STATE AND WE'LL GO TO A GAY BAR AND I WILL FUCKIN RAPE YOUR ASS!!

CIPHER_one

09-02-2004, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by poopydiaperz

and then you can e-mail me and come to my state and we'll go to a gay bar and I will fuckin rape your ass.

when typed out like this it almost sounds like a come-on.

pixie

09-02-2004, 02:52 AM

pmb: your criticism of the bush twins is hilarious, i think you did a wonderful job of expressing what a lot of us were thinking... i for one couldn't even make it through their whole introduction without vomiting or breaking my computer, so thanks for taking one for the team

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by pixie
pmb: your criticism of the bush twins is hilarious, i think you did a wonderful job of expressing what a lot of us were thinking... i for one couldn't even make it through their whole introduction without vomiting or breaking my computer, so thanks for taking one for the team

No, no, no .. I tried to make it clear. They're not my comments. They're from Markos at www.dailykos.com (http://www.dailykos.com)

pixie

09-02-2004, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by poopydiaperz
GO AHEAD AND TALK SHIT BUT IF YOU TALK SHIT ABOUT BUSH IN TEXAS YOU WILL MOST LIKELY GET A 12 GAUGE SHELL BLASTED RIGHT THROUGH YOUR FOREHEAD...

it is definitely people like you who make me want to re-elect bush... seeing as how his supporters are so open-minded, tolerant, and accepting of free speech and the likes. sounds like you need to take a goddamn xanex

grasshoppa

09-02-2004, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by KaBar2
The Republicans, just like the Democrats, have billionaire friends and supporters. They also have working-class conservative supporters (like me) and every other stripe of constituent. The Republicans are not a very conservative party---they ran up a huge deficit, they support all manner of foreign involvements around the world, etc., etc., etc. They talk a good game, but when it comes right down to it, they are all about Big Government, just like the Democrats. The neo-conservatives are probably the worst of the lot.

Bush will either get elected, or not. If Mr. Kerry becomes President, the Republicans will fall back and retrench, in an attempt to prevent him from passing much legislation that changes the status quo. There will be a few more pieces of wolf-in-sheep's-clothing laws that get through on a heavily spun "bi-partisan" schtick, but the bottom line, none of the major players, Republican or Democrat, give a rat's ass about the "common man."

If the Democrats pass some sort of welfare legislation that increases the amount of money given for housing to welfare families, GUESS WHO WINDS UP WITH THE MONEY? It goes to obscenely rich owners of welfare hotels in New York, etc., who are guess what? Major contributors to the Democratic Party. The poor welfare people never even see it.

If the Republicans make a big grandstand play for something like "better body armor for Our Boys In Iraq" that means some gigantic Republican Party contributor finally got the contract. So a $400 bullet-resistant vest gets sewn up in camouflage Gor-tex (guess which famous political family owns the GORE Tex patent?) and bought on a mil-spec Government contract for $1,000 apiece.

You think for one second if the Demopublicans get elected they will pull out of Iraq? Fuck no, they won't. Who got us into Vietnam? Eisenhower ®, in a small way, Kennedy (D) in a much bigger way, "Mr. Civil Rights" LBJ (D) in a REALLY much bigger way. Nixon ®, facing a nation almost in open rebellion, ended the Draft, declared "victory" and removed the U.S. troops. He also assisted hundreds of thousands of anti-communist Vietnamese government employees, military men and U.S. Embassy employees and their extended families to immigrate to the U.S., all of whom were rabid communist-haters and enthusiastic supporters of the Republican Party.

The Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin. If you want some genuine change, vote Libertarian. Your candidate won't win, but at least you will have the satisfaction of saying to yourself that you didn't vote for the lesser of two evils.

The war in Iraq is about oil. So what? Every war is about something other than whatever the propaganda spin-meisters say it's about. The war in Iraq is about a whole lot of things, including oil, strategic advantage in the Middle East, securing Israel's northern flank, secretly assisting our "enemies" in Iran (ever hear of the Iran-Contra scandal under the Reagan administration? The Iranians were MORE THAN HAPPY to assist Oliver North in slaughtering the Sandinistas by providing AK47's, RPD's, RPG's, etc., as long as we gave them shoulder-fired Stinger missles with which to shoot down Iraqi aircraft. And where did the Stingers come from? ISRAEL. Yeah, they're our "enemies" all right.)

There are wheels within wheels here, always. Behind the scenes, the insiders make millions, and regardless of who is in the White House, the System will continue to create the Good Life for those that are on the inside---Democrat, Republican, Communist, Socialist, whatever. In my opinion, it's largely a set up from the start. Not completely, but largely.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/grasshoppa/kabar.gif

Out of all the people on this board, nobody does a better job of explicating the issues then kabar. Unfortunately, your words of wisdom are often wasted here kabar. They fall on the deaf ears of those that only see complaints and antagonism as the means of resolution.

pixie

09-02-2004, 03:00 AM

sorry, i'm just a dumbass then and definitely don't even have a long enough attention span to read the entire thread... sorry :dazed:

Nekro

09-02-2004, 03:06 AM

The swift boat ads are totally different from moveon's ads. If you're not interested in campaign finance regulations, heres the short version: Moveon is a group with hundreds of thousands of members who gave them money to run their member-approved ads. The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (SBVFT) are a small group financed by a couple rich Republicans with ties to the Bushes and Karl Rove.

For the politically inclined, here's the longer version: The SBVT are a 527 group, named for the part of the tax code that allows them to exist. Basically, it's the new route for soft-money political contributions where rich people can give tons of money to a group separate from but allied with the official campagins. The groups aren't allowed to coordinate their actions with the actual campaign.

Moveon.org is a group with a couple different arms. They're a political action committee (PAC), which organizes its supporters to help out the presidential campaigns with contributions, volunteer work, and supplementary advertising. They've raised $3.5 million for various candidates in this election cycle, and about $2 million in 2000. If I recall correctly, they're not allowed to air advertisements within 60 days of an election, and have to disclose a list of their contributors.

The links between the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth and the Bush campaign are clear and obvious. Their claims are also mostly bullshit, as evidenced by this rebuttal. (http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html)

The Bush/Rove campaign is the ultimate in smear machines. There is no level they won't stoop to: during the 2000 primaries they spread the same kinds of rumors about John McCain and worse- they had "pollers" call up voters in North Carolina and ask voters what they would think if he had fathered an illegitimate black child. Mr. McCain has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh.

These republicans don't care about anyone but rich, racist, white, fundamentalist christian males. In the republicans' world, you're on your own. In their world if you're rich that's great; you deserve it. In their world if you're poor too bad; you deserve it. If you're black, gay, or a woman in the republicans' world you're on your own, you can fend for yourself.

The democrats believe that we're all in this together, that the people that have gained the most from our society have the obligation to give back the most to society, that the poor should be helped, that we should be respected in the world instead of reviled, the democrats believe in the potential of America to be great for all its citizens- not just the well off and well connected.

grasshoppa

09-02-2004, 03:07 AM

pixie- Weren't you the one demeaning those who are closed minded?

Nekro

09-02-2004, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by poopydiaperz
]STOP EATIN THEM SOMAS AND XANAXES. I don't know if you can even begin to comprehend the irony in this statement.

pixie

09-02-2004, 03:22 AM

i was demeaning the closeminded, why, did i say something intolerant? i mean, i understand the kid from texas' statement, but i think that shot guns to the head and rape carry it a little overboard. he's a republican, good for him, good for any republican, unfortunately i disagree with their political position, however, i will not tell them that upon their next visit to chicago they will get capped... common courtesy???

StarzAbove

09-02-2004, 03:25 AM

I'm tired of seeing it in the news 24/7 can't wait till november elections

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 03:34 AM

poopydiapers - I live in Texas.

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 03:37 AM

Nekro - excellent post above.

fermentor666

09-02-2004, 03:51 AM

This sounds like a job for Spider Jerusalum.

[img]http://www.zonanegativa.com/noticias/260104/transmetropolitan48.jpg'>

Gunkata, bitches.

SF1

09-02-2004, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by poopydiaperz
AND THEN YOU CAN E-MAIL ME AND COME TO MY STATE AND WE'LL GO TO A GAY BAR AND I WILL FUCKIN RAPE YOUR ASS!!

...FAGOTS FOR BUSH!?!?:huh2: :yuck:

KaBar2

09-02-2004, 06:09 AM

This often-repeated claim that the Republicans are the party of the rich, white, Christian fundamentalists is not accurate.

First of all, while the average Republican is usually not poor, most of them are far from "rich," depending, of course, on how one defines "rich." I did a project where I work to teach my patients about investing their money (the average kid on my unit is about 15) and we discovered that investing $1.43 of your pay FOR EVERY HOUR YOU WORK, assuming you work 40 hours a week, will result in you becoming a millionaire by the time you are ready to retire at age 65, if your investments return 6%. Most mutual funds are doing at least that well, and most stocks are doing better than that. A $1.43 an hour works out to be roughly the price of two packs of Marlboros and a six-pack of beer a day. So you got a choice. You can smoke and drink beer, and wind up with shit lungs and cancer, and probably an alcoholic, or you can pass on the cigs and the brews, invest the money instead, and be a millionaire when you retire. So far as I know, investment firms could not care less about your political affiliations. They are mostly all about money, not politics. So you young Democrats oughta give it some thought.

Secondly, a substantial percentage (approaching 50%) of Republicans are female, and a very small percentage are gay (the "Log Cabin Republicans" is a gay Republican group.) I know a number of very conservative black Southerners who say things like "I'm a Republican at heart, I believe in all the same things they do, but I always vote Democratic." (??? Say what? Why? ) Female Republicans hold many very important and powerful positions both within the President's administration, and within the GOP itself. It's true that no Republican woman has yet been run for President, but in my opinion that is just a matter of time.
What is really the sticking point is that the Republican women are not left-wing feminists (who like to think they speak for all American women.) Apparently, American feminine opinion is less monolithic than the left-wing feminists would prefer.

The gay Republicans, I must admit, are an anomaly. They are conservative economically and politically, but liberal on social issues. They often work with the liberal wing of the Republican Party, but both groups are so small as to be statistically almost invisable.

In order for the Republican Party to have received slightly more than half the votes cast, the vast majority of Republicans must be middle-class working stiffs. The truly wealthy in the U.S. comprise only 5% of the population. The top 15% or 20% income bracket is still worried enough about money that they want lower taxes; smaller, less active government; fewer laws and nobody on welfare, except people who are genuinely disabled in some way.

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 01:11 PM

Watch Zell Miller's meltdown on Hardball. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5886749/?#040901i) The link to the video is on the lefthand side, at the entry by Chris Matthews at 1:57 AM ET.

[img]http://hosted.ap.org/photos/R/RNC18809020300-big.jpg'>

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 01:17 PM

HAHAHAHA! ZELL MILLER WANTS TO CHALLENGE CHRIS MATTHEWS TO A FUCKING DEUL! He's so pissed it's ridiculous ... who the fuck says that?!?

Please, watch the link I posted above.

S@T@N

09-02-2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by cleansheets
Violent means to end violent opression. Rise up.

I've heard this in many places. For that to happen now would be foolish..

If it were to happen when Bush made his next brash move on policing
the globe, it would strengthen the international view of the American
people and fix some of the shit he caused.

mental invalid

09-02-2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by poopydiaperz
GO AHEAD AND TALK SHIT BUT IF YOU TALK SHIT ABOUT BUSH IN TEXAS YOU WILL MOST LIKELY GET A 12 GAUGE SHELL BLASTED RIGHT THROUGH YOUR FOREHEAD. TELL A VIETNAM VET THAT YOU WANNA SLOB ON KERRYS DICK. GEE I WONDER WHO AL QUEDA AND AL QATAR WOULD VOTE FOR. YOU BUNCH OF PUSSY ASS LITTLE DICKZ. SOME OF YOU ARE A DISCRACE TO AMERICA BURNING YOUR OWN FLAGS AND SHIT. STOP EATIN THEM SOMAS AND XANAXES. OOH BY THE WAY WATCH BUSH WIN ANYWAY.. AND THEN YOU CAN E-MAIL ME AND COME TO MY STATE AND WE'LL GO TO A GAY BAR AND I WILL FUCKIN RAPE YOUR ASS!!

i had no idea zell miller was on 12 oz...

hey zell, do us a flavor, kill yourself....

see this is why we shoulda let mexico have texas...

nomadawhat

09-02-2004, 05:31 PM

that speech by bush's daughter was terrible!!! i couldn't make it the whole way through. i was listening on the radio and after every comment they made, one or both of them did some sort of snort/laugh shit. it was so fucking annoying. you are not funny!! it seemend like some of the applause they were getting was out of sympathy because there was a slight dealy before any reaction.

and where does cheney get off saying they are sucsessful in creating jobs in his speech??? where do you get your info dick?

Nekro

09-02-2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by KaBar2
This often-repeated claim that the Republicans are the party of the rich, white, Christian fundamentalists is not accurate.

First of all, while the average Republican is usually not poor, most of them are far from "rich," depending, of course, on how one defines "rich." I did a project where I work to teach my patients about investing their money (the average kid on my unit is about 15) and we discovered that investing $1.43 of your pay FOR EVERY HOUR YOU WORK, assuming you work 40 hours a week, will result in you becoming a millionaire by the time you are ready to retire at age 65, if your investments return 6%. Most mutual funds are doing at least that well, and most stocks are doing better than that. A $1.43 an hour works out to be roughly the price of two packs of Marlboros and a six-pack of beer a day. So you got a choice. You can smoke and drink beer, and wind up with shit lungs and cancer, and probably an alcoholic, or you can pass on the cigs and the brews, invest the money instead, and be a millionaire when you retire. So far as I know, investment firms could not care less about your political affiliations. They are mostly all about money, not politics. So you young Democrats oughta give it some thought.

Secondly, a substantial percentage (approaching 50%) of Republicans are female, and a very small percentage are gay (the "Log Cabin Republicans" is a gay Republican group.) I know a number of very conservative black Southerners who say things like "I'm a Republican at heart, I believe in all the same things they do, but I always vote Democratic." (??? Say what? Why? ) Female Republicans hold many very important and powerful positions both within the President's administration, and within the GOP itself. It's true that no Republican woman has yet been run for President, but in my opinion that is just a matter of time.
What is really the sticking point is that the Republican women are not left-wing feminists (who like to think they speak for all American women.) Apparently, American feminine opinion is less monolithic than the left-wing feminists would prefer.

The gay Republicans, I must admit, are an anomaly. They are conservative economically and politically, but liberal on social issues. They often work with the liberal wing of the Republican Party, but both groups are so small as to be statistically almost invisable.

In order for the Republican Party to have received slightly more than half the votes cast, the vast majority of Republicans must be middle-class working stiffs. The truly wealthy in the U.S. comprise only 5% of the population. The top 15% or 20% income bracket is still worried enough about money that they want lower taxes; smaller, less active government; fewer laws and nobody on welfare, except people who are genuinely disabled in some way. That's all well and good, but the ultimate test of any political party is the laws they work for and policies they put into place. The republican party's policies (they control all three branches of government, so the last 4 years are the perfect picture of what the country should look like under their watch) overwhelmingly favor the rich, white, and well connected.

Let's start with the two major themes of the 2000 bush campaign: education reform and the tax cut.

Taxes were cut about 5%, accross the board. My dad makes about $400k a year (he's an orthopaedic surgeon). We got 2 of these out of the bush tax cut last year:

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/max2k/DSCN0691.jpg'>

If you're among that majority of people that aren't excactly wealthy (read: less than $100K a year to be in the top 5%, more than $300K a year to be in the top 1%), (for the sake of argument let's say you earn $35k a year and you're single) you might have gotten this out of your bush tax cut:

[img]http://www.ebgames.com/ebx_assets/product_images/520135.jpg'>

We'll throw in a couple extra games and accsessories to allow for any fluctuations in my calculations.

Any way you spin it, 2 new cars beats the shit out of a PS2.

Bush also made a big push to eliminate the taxes on dividends. I don't know about you, but I'd like to see the taxes on money you actually earn cut before we cut the taxes on money that you just sit and wait for.

I'll cover education in another post.

phism

09-02-2004, 08:05 PM

OUTSOURCING ANNOUNCEMENT

Washington D.C. - Congress today announced that the Office of President of the United States will be outsourced to overseas as of June 30, the end of this fiscal year. The move is being made to save $400K a year in salary, a record $521 Billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead.

"The cost savings will be quite significant" says Congressman Adam Smith (R-Wash) who, with the aid of Congress research arm, the General Accounting Office has studied outsourcing of American jobs extensively. "We simply can no longer afford this level of outlay and remain competitive on the world stage," Congressman Smith said. Exporting American jobs has been a popular trend lately, ironically at the urging of President Bush.

Mr. Bush was informed by email this morning of the termination of his position. He will receive health coverage, expenses and salary until his final day of employment. After that, with a two week waiting period, he will then be eligible for $240 dollars a week from unemployment insurance for 13 weeks.

Unfortunately he will not be able to receive state Medicaid health insurance coverage as his unemployment benefits are over the required limit. "I'm in shock," Mr. Bush stated. "I thought for sure I'd have some job security around this here place. I have no idea what I'll do now," he further lamented.

Preparations have been underway for some time for the job move.

Sanji Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India, will be assuming the Office of President of the United States as of July 1. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his parents were here on student visas, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 USD a month but with no health coverage or other benefits.

Due to the time difference between the US and India, Mr. Singh will be working primarily at night, when offices of the US Government will be open.
"I am excited to serve in this position," Mr. Singh stated in an exclusive interview. "Working nights will let me keep my day job at the American Contract Programmer. I always knew I could be President someday."

Congress stressed patience when calling Mr. Singh as he may not be fully aware of all the issues involved with his new position. A Congressional Spokesperson noted that Mr. Singh has been given a script tree to follow which will allow him to respond to most topics of concern. The Spokesperson further noted that "additional savings will be realized as these scripting tools have already been used previously by Mr. Bush here in the US. Such scripts will enable Mr. Singh to provide an answer without having to fully understand the issue itself."

Congress continues to explore other outsourcing possibilities including that of Vice-president and most Cabinet positions.

pixie

09-02-2004, 10:09 PM

Nekro, I think you make a damn good point that too many people ignore. $200 does not compare in anyway to the rebates the rich receive. I also enjoyed your post seeing as I, a swf earning $35,000 a year just bought a ps2... but i would much rather have the car

does anyone else ever get the feeling that this administration eerily resembles a 1984 setup...
1) with the patriot act, big brother really is watching
2) the fact that we are at war with the middle east and have always been at war with the middle east (even though in the 1980's we funded Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, and even funded Iran behind his back, not to mention that we helped the Taliban and bin Laden) and finally
3) I don't know how many of you have seen shutmdown's thread about the pentagon attack, but it seems that the past is alterable and the administration can make us believe what they want...
dirty, it just makes me feel dirty...

Poop Man Bob

09-02-2004, 10:11 PM

Nekro kicking ASS!

Weapon X

09-02-2004, 10:24 PM

"OOH BY THE WAY WATCH BUSH WIN ANYWAY.. AND THEN YOU CAN E-MAIL ME AND COME TO MY STATE AND WE'LL GO TO A GAY BAR AND I WILL FUCKIN RAPE YOUR ASS!!"

SO FUNNY!

checkit...if you're francophone, you can say "Fermer la Bush!". it's a clever play on words that I just came up with.

so not funny, actually.

nomadawhat

09-02-2004, 10:40 PM

what time is bush speaking tonight?

POIESIS

09-03-2004, 12:00 AM

well well well, here's some new information (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/02/allison/index.html) on dubya's missing year...
this, along with the barnes comment (and the dems growing some
balls) should be enough to put the heat back on scumrock oner.

Nekro

09-03-2004, 12:08 AM

Word is that Ben Barnes kept his role in getting people into the texas Air National Guard quite hush-hush until the swift boat veterans came out, now he's going on 60 minutes to lay the smackdown. Get ready for an interesting post-convention ANG media blitz.

POIESIS

09-03-2004, 12:29 AM

let's hope so.
here's (http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=365&row=0) a bit more on it all, also some kernels on ben barnes.

mental invalid

09-03-2004, 01:08 AM

i hope everyone is watching the coverage via channel 13, PBS...

if youre not, youre wasting your time...

S@T@N

09-03-2004, 02:39 AM

"We are on the path to the future, and we are not turning back."

Great job Dubya. Keep hiring your daughters to write your speeches.

Nekro

09-03-2004, 02:58 AM

OK, now to education.

The Bush Education plan (popularly known by its catchphrase "No Child Left Behind") establishes a few guidelines for public schools. The main, overarching idea was to hold schools responsible for effectively teaching their students. From the Department of Education website:

Under the act's accountability provisions, states must describe how they will close the achievement gap and make sure all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency. They must produce annual state and school district report cards that inform parents and communities about state and school progress. Schools that do not make progress must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance; take corrective actions; and, if still not making adequate yearly progress after five years, make dramatic changes to the way the school is run.

This means that elementary and middle school students get to take another series of standardized tests each year. These tests disrupt the classroom in numerous ways: they take several days to complete, weeks to prepare for, and force teachers to spend more time "teaching to the test" instead of on their own curriculums. There is no national standard, allowing each state to set its own definition of where each student should be (38 states reported above-average results one year).

There is also no additional funding provided to support this mandate, leaving districts to fend for themselves.

Students in schools that fail 2 years in a row have the option of transferring to another school within their district, including charter schools. Thing is, if one school in a district sucks; the rest of them probably will too. Also, charter schools have hardly lived up to their hype (the nytimes article quoted is subscription only): (http://www.leftofthemiddle.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/80)
The first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools shows charter school students often doing worse than comparable students in regular public ... The findings, buried in mountains of data the Education Department released without public announcement, dealt a blow to supporters of...

Moreover, the whole "school choice" movement is basically a front for people who want to send government money to religious schools.

The NCLB act also forces high schools to distribute their students' names, addresses, phone numbers, and birthdays to military recruiters or face the loss of all their federal funding.

The best predictor of how well a child will do in school is how much education their parents recieved. The way to bettering education in America is to make it less costly to go to college.

Because of the bush tax cuts, many state governments have budget deficits. Because the states, unlike the federal government, cannot have a running deficit, tuition costs at our public universities have skyrocketed. This has put a college education out of reach for thousands of intelligent, driven young Americans.

John Kerry has a plan to help more people go to college. (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/college.html) George Bush has no such plan.

Compassionate conservatism is bullshit. They're still fucking us in the ass, they're just using KY jelly and calling it something different. Pay attention to it and it's as fake as W's down-home texas image.

Telo

09-03-2004, 03:09 AM

Listening to him right now...

Ehhhh.. not feelin him.. Of course what the hell are speeches/conventions anyways?? just a bunch of fucking promises and self awarding jibber jabber...

Nekro

09-03-2004, 03:13 AM

I found the text online, I was reading out loud along with the speech. My mom was amazed at my insane ability to predict republican talking points.

Nekro

09-03-2004, 04:40 AM

[img]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/09/02/national/03bush1.jpg'>

Look, it's the bushes.... on ice!

pixie

09-03-2004, 04:57 AM

let me just say that i am actually jealous of all of you who are able to watch this live and see our wonderful president in all his glory... seeing as i am currently living in another country with a 14 hour time difference i only get to watch clips of what happens, so i do appreciate the links that have the live feed... although it does make me feel slightly masochistic

Nekro

09-03-2004, 05:02 AM

Check CNN, they have a live feed 24/7.

Jimmy Jump

09-03-2004, 05:14 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
[B]Watch Zell Miller's meltdown on Hardball. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5886749/?#040901i)

oh man, oh man, Zell Miller. No better man than Zell to sway the elusive "undecided voter" to the republicans..
great link by the way..
and how about that speech by Arnold. Dude should stick to blowing some shit up and saying a catch phrase to relate it to an issue..

pixie

09-03-2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Nekro
Check CNN, they have a live feed 24/7.

you mean cnn.com? the only problem is, when bush is live, say 8pm in new york, it's 9am the next day where i am, and i'm undoubtedly at work... thanks for the tip though :)

fermentor666

09-03-2004, 06:04 AM

Where's the pandemonium and the violence? Where's the people protesting outside the Garden 24/7? Where's the anarchists shutting shit down like Seattle '99? I'm so dissapointed.

pixie

09-03-2004, 06:08 AM

i thought this was pretty funny... from comedy central's indecision 2004 (http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/indecision2004)

Election Decoder
Let's Grand Ol' Par-tay! Edition
The Indecision Election Decoder's lights are flashing, which means it's ready to take the latest political moments, process them and tell you how it really is.

This week, the Decoder flipped on its Turbo-Bullsh*t Detection® system as the Republican Party took to the airwaves to prove to the American public (9/11) why they (9/11) should be put in the White House (9/11) for four more years (9/11).

Fact: In an effort to seem a bit more moderate and middle-of-the-road, the Republicans roll out the most likable, popular personalities in their party.

Decoder Sez:Remember that movie "Can't Buy Me Love," where dorky Patrick Dempsey pays the pretty, popular cheerleader to act like his girlfriend and make him seem more cool? It's kind of like that. The Republicans are hiding their Jerry Falwells and bringing out their Giulianis and their McCains. And don't forget star quarterback Arnold Schwarzenegger -- he's SURE to get the Republicans elected Prom Queen in November, right?

Fact: Protestors take to the streets of New York; hundreds of arrests are made daily.

Decoder Sez:If only people put as much effort into other costumes, maybe the Greenwich Village Halloween Parade wouldn't be so boring. Little known fact: That fake money that those "Halli-bacon" protestors with Cheney masks printed? It's legal tender in at least three states.

Fact: After four years of avoiding the spotlight, the Bush Twins emerge on stage at the Convention, ready for their close-up.

Decoder Sez:Sure the Bush Girls' speech was a bit esoteric. Who else but a true pop-culture junkie would get those obscure references to Sex and the City and OutKast? If the Twins aren't careful, they might sink further into the seedy artistic underground -- next thing you know, they'll be showing off their matching crotch tattoos at Burning Man...

SIPPINJUICE

09-03-2004, 06:11 AM

anyone see the 3 protestors, only 2 were televised. Man that takes some balls to do what they did no matter what party they were from. P.S. no protests at kerry's speech.

JUDONO?

09-03-2004, 06:16 AM

so the RNC was on tonight and so were the raiders against the rams, guess what i was watching. Fuck bush!!!Go raiders!!!!

POIESIS

09-03-2004, 07:24 AM

man, i just watched his speech and as much
as i gagged and cringed he delivered.

pixie, you can watch the whole thing online
at www.c-span.org (http://www.c-span.org)

fermentor666

09-03-2004, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by SIPPINJUICE
anyone see the 3 protestors, only 2 were televised. Man that takes some balls to do what they did no matter what party they were from. P.S. no protests at kerry's speech.

What did they do?!?

POIESIS

09-03-2004, 07:41 AM

zell mr. flopsy pants miller in his own words:
http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm

pixie

09-03-2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by fermentor666
What did they do?!?

exactly, what did the protestors do???

TheoHuxtab|e

09-03-2004, 09:13 AM

I just went to the bikesagainstbush.com website, eager to put in some anti-Bush messages, only to find out that the fucker got arrested, along with the rest of his entourage. Apparently he got arrested while interviewing Ron Reagan and blabbing and advertising his whole graffiti campaign to the world. Likewise, the NYPD confiscated the bikes and threw them in jail.

Way to go idiot!

random

09-03-2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Poop Man Bob
[img]http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040831/i/r3829590006.jpg'>

From Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040831/ids_photos_ts/r3829590006.jpg):

Interested in contacting Ms. Peale?
ppeale@nortexinfo.net

I told her, in part: "And you got the purple heart "swimming in a river?" Let's be serious - we both know you can't swim with that turkey-neck thing you've got going on. Use the bandaid to hold that up instead."

for some reason this got me angry enough to actually write an email..

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rid...r3829590006.jpg (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040831/i/r3829590006.jpg)

You disgusting pig. You think all you're doing is supporting a political opinion, when in fact you're trivializing the actions of ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT AND DIED FOR OUR COUNTRY. How dare you condescend to support those who are fighting in this war, when you have NO RESPECT for those who fought in wars previous. You absolutely disgust me, as well as the majority of AMERICANS, REGARDLESS OF PARTY LINES.

HOW DARE YOU TRIVIALIZE THE ACTIONS OF THOUSANDS TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN POLITICAL BELIEFS. For this action you are a despicable human being, hoping to gain off the deaths of hundreds of thousands, just to prove a point that is inherently flawed. All the while American troops are dying, as you support their deaths by supporting a policy that uses AMERICAN CITIZENS as PAWNS in an act of geopolitical hegemony while hiding under the guise of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

HOW DARE YOU.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY THAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MARGINALIZE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS?

While you wear this false "purple heart," there are STILL American soldiers dying in this CURRENT conflict, and many are CURRENTLY receiving purple hearts.

IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU WILL APOLIGIZE TO THE (AMERICAN) PEOPLE FOR SUCH A BRAZEN ACT OF DISRESPECT TO THOSE FROM WHOM YOU ASK PROCTECTION.

You don't deserve the liberties for which our soldiers have fought and died.
___________________________

i know, it sounds uber-patriotic, and i'm definitely not that, i just wish these people would realize what they're doing has larger implications than can be seen by looking into their own pocket books.

TheoHuxtab|e

09-03-2004, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by random
for some reason this got me angry enough to actually write an email..

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rid...r3829590006.jpg (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040831/i/r3829590006.jpg)

You disgusting pig. You think all you're doing is supporting a political opinion, when in fact you're trivializing the actions of ALL THE PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT AND DIED FOR OUR COUNTRY. How dare you condescend to support those who are fighting in this war, when you have NO RESPECT for those who fought in wars previous. You absolutely disgust me, as well as the majority of AMERICANS, REGARDLESS OF PARTY LINES.

HOW DARE YOU TRIVIALIZE THE ACTIONS OF THOUSANDS TO SUPPORT YOUR OWN POLITICAL BELIEFS. For this action you are a despicable human being, hoping to gain off the deaths of hundreds of thousands, just to prove a point that is inherently flawed. All the while American troops are dying, as you support their deaths by supporting a policy that uses AMERICAN CITIZENS as PAWNS in an act of geopolitical hegemony while hiding under the guise of FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

HOW DARE YOU.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY THAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MARGINALIZE THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS?

While you wear this false "purple heart," there are STILL American soldiers dying in this CURRENT conflict, and many are CURRENTLY receiving purple hearts.

IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THE UNITED STATES, YOU WILL APOLIGIZE TO THE (AMERICAN) PEOPLE FOR SUCH A BRAZEN ACT OF DISRESPECT TO THOSE FROM WHOM YOU ASK PROCTECTION.

You don't deserve the liberties for which our soldiers have fought and died.
___________________________

i know, it sounds uber-patriotic, and i'm definitely not that, i just wish these people would realize what they're doing has larger implications than can be seen by looking into their own pocket books.

Damn. I didn't even know what this was about. I just saw a picture of some ugly hag with yellow teeth that was a Bush supporter. Yeah, repulsive enough. But when I read your e-mail, as a person that served in the US Navy in both Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, it for some reason got me a little angry to want to punch that woman in her jaw. And that's a lot since I generally don't approve of men hitting women.

Great e-mail man.

pixie

09-03-2004, 12:24 PM

Convention product of the week

A badge featuring an elephant mounting a donkey with the motto ?gKeep Bush on Top?h.

economist (http://www.economist.com)

Rodney Trotter

09-03-2004, 01:23 PM

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/guessagain/aug0408.jpg'>

DITDxCULT

09-03-2004, 03:45 PM

Kerry's Response to the RNC

Kerry takes the gloves off

John Kerry has had enough of the litany of half truths and personal attacks against him that have filled the GOP convention hall all week in New York. The Kerry campaign has just released the following prepared remarks, to be delivered tonight at a campaign rally in Springfield, Ohio.

"We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

"The Vice President even called me unfit for office last night. I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.

"Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America."

Nekro

09-03-2004, 03:59 PM

Comprehensive, entirely readable article on the US tax rates as compared to the past and the rest of the world. (http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html)

<KEY3>

09-03-2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by pixie

economist (http://www.economist.com)

word.....

it's been said before.... the economists dont want slant,
they want real facts because money is involved and money isn't partisan.

KaBar2

09-03-2004, 05:59 PM

That was a good article, and actually, I do not disagree with his basic premise---tax cuts are a device to reduce the power and scope of Government. Since the government must be downsized, all the people on the sugar tit that have been used to getting money extorted from the wealthy given to them by government programs are going to be very unhappy that they will soon be on their own. I'd be very happy to completely pay my own way in this world, if the government would kindly get it's hand out of my pocket.

I don't see Sweden as any paradise, with it's 52% tax rate. I am disheartened by the social changes occurring there. Eventually, I think marriage and the traditional family will all but disappear in Sweden. Too bad for them. As they become weaker and weaker; hungrier, more aggressive cultures are beginning to intrude into Swedish life. Won't be too much longer before Swedish culture will be irreversably dominated, but that's the way of the world I guess. It's happening here too. Fifty years from now, the U.S. will probably be an anarchic, ghettofied hellhole with strongly fortified enclaves of normalcy here and there, but what the fuck, we brought it on ourselves by just caving in on the culture war. I figure that with 70-plus percent of African-American kids born out of wedlock, soon marriage and family will be pretty much history among a large portion of minority people and poor whites. Every bit of this can be laid at the feet of social welfare "reforms" that discourage men from taking care of their own family and living the responsible life of an adult man, instead of the life of an adolescent boy "playa."

Slavery couldn't do this. Jim Crow couldn't do this. The poverty of the Great Depression couldn't do this. The black family and the black church weathered the worst shit circumstances had to offer. But along comes AFDC and welfare, and now black children are growing up without a Daddy all over the whole country. WHAT A FUCKING MONSTER LIBERALISM HAS PRODUCED. No Dad= no discipline, no protection, no self respect, no trust, no faith. No Dad= gangbanging and drugs, low self esteem and no hope for the future. Black children fared better under segregation. At least their parents loved and protected them from all the shitheels of the world. Now poverty and "prejudice" has been reduced, but at the cost of a loving, healthy family life. What a lousy exchange for the kids.

Going back to the way things were before the New Deal doesn't sound too bad. We're on our own, and always have been, so one should probably prepare to take care of oneself and one's family. It's not anybody's job to do that but our own. Doing so would be a shitload easier if we could get government OFF OUR BACKS. The rich are rich---so what? Good for them. You want to be rich? Best get to work on it, because the government is not going to do a fucking thing for you, and the rich folks do not owe you a damned thing. Every advance you make in your life is completely and totally up to you, personally. To tell people that the government has the responsibility to take care of them is a lie and is harmful to society. YOU must take care of YOURSELF. Nobody owes you anything, so dump the feeling of entitlement.

THE CORONER

09-03-2004, 06:24 PM

you know what, the way i look at it, it dont matter if 65% or even 75% of the people vote for Kerry, he wont win.
al gore won in florida, he had the most amount of votes, but he lost.
what do u think is going to be any difference, american politics have changed from the person with the most amount of votes actually winning, to whoever has the least amount of votes winning by going through the court systems. either way i predict another four long, long years of bush
goddamnit
but thats just the way i see it

<KEY3>

09-03-2004, 06:29 PM

If Kerry gets over 70% the popular vote but
still looses because of the Electoral College system....

I see riots in the streets.

random

09-03-2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by KaBar2
I don't see Sweden as any paradise, with it's 52% tax rate. I am disheartened by the social changes occurring there. Eventually, I think marriage and the traditional family will all but disappear in Sweden. Too bad for them. As they become weaker and weaker; hungrier, more aggressive cultures are beginning to intrude into Swedish life. Won't be too much longer before Swedish culture will be irreversably dominated, but that's the way of the world I guess. It's happening here too. Fifty years from now, the U.S. will probably be an anarchic, ghettofied hellhole with strongly fortified enclaves of normalcy here and there, but what the fuck, we brought it on ourselves by just caving in on the culture war. I figure that with 70-plus percent of African-American kids born out of wedlock, soon marriage and family will be pretty much history among a large portion of minority people and poor whites. Every bit of this can be laid at the feet of social welfare "reforms" that discourage men from taking care of their own family and living the responsible life of an adult man, instead of the life of an adolescent boy "playa."

one can argue the same thing from the opposite standpoint. i.e., it's the fact we're now impoverishing these social programs that will result in an "anarchic, ghettofied hellhole with strongly fortified enclaves of normalcy here and there."

Poop Man Bob

09-03-2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by <KEY3>
If Kerry gets over 70% the popular vote but
still looses because of the Electoral College system....

I see riots in the streets.

70%?! They're polling neck and neck right now ..

nomadawhat

09-03-2004, 08:00 PM

when will the after convention polls be released? today? over/after the weekend? any word on if their campaign is expecting a boost?

random

09-03-2004, 10:18 PM

The Fundamentalist Agenda (http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html)

S@T@N

09-03-2004, 10:58 PM

Please don't allow this man another 4 years. (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov)

Nekro

09-04-2004, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by KaBar2
That was a good article, and actually, I do not disagree with his basic premise---tax cuts are a device to reduce the power and scope of Government. Since the government must be downsized, all the people on the sugar tit that have been used to getting money extorted from the wealthy given to them by government programs are going to be very unhappy that they will soon be on their own. I'd be very happy to completely pay my own way in this world, if the government would kindly get it's hand out of my pocket.

I don't see Sweden as any paradise, with it's 52% tax rate. I am disheartened by the social changes occurring there. Eventually, I think marriage and the traditional family will all but disappear in Sweden. Too bad for them. As they become weaker and weaker; hungrier, more aggressive cultures are beginning to intrude into Swedish life. Won't be too much longer before Swedish culture will be irreversably dominated, but that's the way of the world I guess. It's happening here too. Fifty years from now, the U.S. will probably be an anarchic, ghettofied hellhole with strongly fortified enclaves of normalcy here and there, but what the fuck, we brought it on ourselves by just caving in on the culture war. I figure that with 70-plus percent of African-American kids born out of wedlock, soon marriage and family will be pretty much history among a large portion of minority people and poor whites. Every bit of this can be laid at the feet of social welfare "reforms" that discourage men from taking care of their own family and living the responsible life of an adult man, instead of the life of an adolescent boy "playa."

Slavery couldn't do this. Jim Crow couldn't do this. The poverty of the Great Depression couldn't do this. The black family and the black church weathered the worst shit circumstances had to offer. But along comes AFDC and welfare, and now black children are growing up without a Daddy all over the whole country. WHAT A FUCKING MONSTER LIBERALISM HAS PRODUCED. No Dad= no discipline, no protection, no self respect, no trust, no faith. No Dad= gangbanging and drugs, low self esteem and no hope for the future. Black children fared better under segregation. At least their parents loved and protected them from all the shitheels of the world. Now poverty and "prejudice" has been reduced, but at the cost of a loving, healthy family life. What a lousy exchange for the kids.

Going back to the way things were before the New Deal doesn't sound too bad. We're on our own, and always have been, so one should probably prepare to take care of oneself and one's family. It's not anybody's job to do that but our own. Doing so would be a shitload easier if we could get government OFF OUR BACKS. The rich are rich---so what? Good for them. You want to be rich? Best get to work on it, because the government is not going to do a fucking thing for you, and the rich folks do not owe you a damned thing. Every advance you make in your life is completely and totally up to you, personally. To tell people that the government has the responsibility to take care of them is a lie and is harmful to society. YOU must take care of YOURSELF. Nobody owes you anything, so dump the feeling of entitlement.

Do you like having an army to protect our country? Do you like having roads to drive on? Do you like having public schools for your kids to go to? Do you like having police and firefighters in your town to keep you safe, or would you rather rely on yourself? You need taxes to pay for that stuff.

In the past 3.5 years the republicans have created massive new entitlements, a huge budget deficit, and expanded the federal beaurocracy. They're not getting the government "off our backs," whatever that means. The republicans are about keeping themselves in power, even if it means totally abandoning their principles of self-reliance and small government.

The republicans are not for small government. You don't massively expand medicare and federal involvement in public schools if you're in favor of self-reliance and small government. They're for financially insolvent big government. The democrats are for actually paying for what the government is spending.

On the social issues, I don't see where the republicans are so awesome. I don't see the republicans lining up to repeal no-fault divorce laws, which are the reason the "tradtional family" is in decline. I don't see the republicans lining up to stiffen penalties for deadbeat dads. All I see is some people using the word "values" as a way to make people hate gay people, popular culture, and a woman's right to choose (you can't be pro-life when you support the death penalty).

You might want to rethink your views on Sweden. While marriage is certainly in decline there, it doesn't mean that fathers are abandoning their children- couples are simply choosing cohabitation over marriage. This hasn't led to all the young people going into gangbanging and drugs. In fact, it's led to them graduating en masse from their free, publicly funded universities.

foodstamps

09-04-2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by nomadawhat
any word on if their campaign is expecting a boost?
what the pundits are saying is that this should give a slight boost to Bush's poll standings. Take into account that these very same pundits were expecting a considerably high boost for Kerry after the DNC. Why the difference? I recall one writer theorizing that the huge expectant for the Democrats, which infact resulted in a very little boost, was to give a dissapointing outlook on the results of the DNC. If Bush does notibly better than the expected boost, this of course would have the opposite effect than the seemingly "poor" results of the Democratic National Convention.

uncle-boy

09-04-2004, 05:56 AM

bush gained 11 points

pixie

09-04-2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by S@T@N
Please don't allow this man another 4 years. (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov)

that is fucking hilarious, how many times did he actually say sovereignty in that little clip? fucking moron.

i can't believe he gained 11 points from that damn convention... i hope all of you (dems) on this board who actually live in america are getting out there and, sorry to sound so cliche but... i hope you're helping to rock the vote. i don't want another four years with this guy...

Nekro

09-04-2004, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by uncle-boy
bush gained 11 points It won't last, JK is laying the smackdown starting now.

angelofdeath

09-05-2004, 09:44 PM

obviously this board is comprised of basically one group of people, but i gotta give respect to Kabar2. the man definately has a handle of things. this country is what you make it. your stupid to sit and wait for a hand out. dont bitch about rich people, why dont you actually go to work and work a little harder.

a few other points...
one thing i have noticed is after this election, if kerry wins, alot of fucking people are going to be out of jobs making all the anti bush gear. talk about a trend. i wouldnt be surprised if these industries then shift to anti kerry apparel when he flip flops on something and pisses people off.

also the latest newsweek poll, puts bush at 52% and kerry at 43% and nader at some insignificant number. but we all know this can/will/probably will change. if anything i have noticed more kerry support, but thats because i live in an overly democratic state.
man i'll be glad when this shit is over. actually what would be cool is to see michael moore start attacking kerry if he gets elected.

KaBar2

09-05-2004, 10:58 PM

Get ready for the mud bath. I predict that both the Republicrats and the Demopublicans will be accusing each other of everything under the sun.

Nekro, I don't totally disagree with your objections to the Republican agenda. They are far from perfect, and the same is true for the Democrats. BOTH PARTIES are forced, by political realities, to campaign from the extremes to get elected, and once elected, they are forced to GOVERN FROM THE CENTER. Therefore, the Republicans talk a good conservative game, and then run up a zillion-dollar public deficit. The Democrats, in their turn, talk like Socialists to get elected, and then are forced to back away from their campaign rhetoric because to do otherwise is to drown the baby in Socialist bathwater. Both parties are essentially serving the same people.

What has really made a difference in the big picture is PROFOUND CULTURAL CHANGES in basic American values. It's the lack of community in our neighborhoods, the lack of parent-teacher solidarity, the increased drug and alcohol abuse--no not so much the increased use, but the increased popular acceptability of drug and alcohol abuse. At the same time we have increased programs to discourage smoking, we have increased smoking rates among teenagers. At the same time we have a get-tough-on-crime mentality, we have an increase in unethical, criminal behavior at all levels of society, especially iat executive levels of major corporations.

These changes have been brought on by attempts to force people to accept social changes that they abhorred. Volatile housing markets were created by forced integration. "White flight" from integrated urban neighborhoods meant suburban real-estate booms. These suburbs were built largely by the same powerful politicians who helped engineer the racial desegregation and school integration. Not only the white population engaged in flight--the middle-class black population eagerly departed from the economically-disadvantaged ghetto neighborhoods to the newly-available homes in formerly all-white neighborhoods, depriving the ghetto neighborhoods of family-owned businesses, church and PTA leadership, community organization participation, and so forth. Those left behind have sunk into a morass of poverty and hopelessness.

Where before, the child of addicted parents or under-achieving parents could look around and see black churches thriving, black businesses near his home, black parents raising up wholesome families, today that is largely not the case in urban ghetto neighborhoods. I've been to several black neighborhood here in Houston where EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS OF ANY SCOPE was owned by Koreans or Vietnamese. White businesses will almost never serve majority-black neighborhoods any more, because the crime rate makes it far too dangerous to do so. It seems like the only business owners willing to serve ghetto neighborhoods are newly-immigrated Asians, who are sending their children to college as rapidly as they can do so. They have very strong cultural and family bonds, so they hire only relatives or fellow Asians to work in their stores, which infuriates the local black customers.

Where before, there were enterprising BLACK businesses in these neighborhoods, and the neighborhoods were more-or-less "normal", even though they were poor, today these same neighborhoods have a sort of war-zone mentality and atmosphere. I read a thing online written by the current King of Hobos, "Adman" Waters, who said "You can tell when you are riding through a dangerous neighborhood in South Chicago (on a freight train) because you can see the sparkle and twinkle of broken glass everywhere --on rooftops, in the streets, in empty vacant lots. It wasn't like that when I rode here years ago."

This is it exactly. Before, people had some pride in their surroundings because the businesses and neighborhoods were owned by local people. Today the residents of the ghetto own virtually nothing, and they feel entitled to be supported. "The world owes me. As long as I gets my check, I don't care what they do." Nobody bothers to sweep up broken glass anymore, apparently. Why should they? Their check arrives, regardless.

If you go to the present suburban homes of former ghetto business owners, they are virtually indistinguishable from the homes of their white neighbors. They engaged in "white flight" too, flight to areas where they would not have to put up with "ghetto" behavior from their fellow blacks.

The kids I know who are in trouble come from divorced homes where there is no father, whether they are rich or poor. I don't believe that a kid will automatically have trouble if his parents aren't married, but the likelihood that he will is greatly increased unless he has a committed, stable, loving parental relationship with two parents. Whether or not they are married is a lot less important than whether or not they are totally committed to the relationship and the family. If the kid's actual Dad isn't there, he definately needs a father figure that is as committed and loving as his real Dad should have been. The black kids on my unit are bereft of any real love from a father figure, and it is killing them. They are hopeless, helpless, and angry, filled with emotional pain and lashing out blindly at society all around them. This is the price of all of our stupid social engineering that undermines the family with Government "support." We are raising a nation of selfish, self-centered, amoral "playas" and if we don't change it, we are going to lose an entire generation of children.

Basic, conservative, family values, which you seem to condemn; are necessary for people to develop into normal, healthy human beings. Family meals; owning books and reading to children; consistant, loving discipline; belonging to a church, synagogue or mosque and attending worship often; having a powerful sense of right and wrong, of appropriate and inappropriate behavior, knowing that one is loved and cherished by one's parents; appreciation for education, learning and knowledge; a sense of patriotism and love of one's country---these things make it possible to be a normal person. Lack of these things means one will grow up stressed and angry and feeling excluded.

All of the elements of "thug life" are a virtual blueprint for anti-social, criminal behavior that virtually guarantees one's childhood will be a disaster and one's adulthood a failure. Self-hatred turns into hatred of society, and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of exclusion and alienation.

Trying to solve this problem with a Government program is a complete waste of time. It is a problem that will only be solved with a CULTURAL CHANGE among the people themselves. When people cannot stand the negative results of negative choices any longer, then they will choose positive choices.

I hope.

villain

09-06-2004, 12:50 AM

Good thread! :D

What I'm seeing here is a great schism between corporate and people power. As evinced in the 2000 election and perhaps even more strongly so now.

Believe it or not there are actually people in government who are doing good things. (I know it's hard to believe) I believe the dichotomy is more emphatic in goverment with those who support environmental programs and those who don't. When I was listening to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on NPR the other day he was talking about how Bush has put into power corporate lobbyists of all stripes into positions where government typically would protect our lands and resources. Not so now. He has outlined on his website www.nrdc.org (http://www.nrdc.org) (Natural Resource Defense Council) over 400 pieces of legislation that Bush has enacted that weaken environmental laws and give corporations more power. He has in fact rolled back 30 years worth of environmental protection legislation. Also one of the major contributors to Bush in 2000 were some 1500 illegal coal burning power plants... which are now of course no longer illegal even though they are the most damaging type of power plants to the environment. Just look at what it's doing to china. Protecting the environment should be a bipartisan issue. Mr. Kennedy is worried that it's being stigmatized as solely the province of the democratic party.

John Kerry also has a strong record on the environment. Look it up. He also cares about the troops. He not only supports legislation helping the troops but he wrote it as he said... He cowrote legislation for the montgomery gi bill among other things I can't think of off the top of my head.

John Kerry has a clear plan for bolstering the economy. One of his points which is most striking to me is his promise to end tax breaks for our corporations operating overseas. This alone could potentially end sweat shops, and outsourcing. This is only one of many good ideas he has. If he is a man of his word, which his record shows him to be, he cannot possibly be another head of a callous corporate beast. Regardless of whether or not he married into the Hienz family fortune.

I agree with much of what Kabar has to say. Though I'm aproaching from another angle to provide some counterpoint. As far as investments. Mutual funds are often stuffed with junk stocks, many are being audited. It seems the safest bet in the stock world but may in fact be the most risky. As far as investment in straight up stocks goes it's not so simple as putting in a couple bucks here and there. Often you are required to buy several bundles of hundreds and if we are talking about the blue chip fortune 500 top dog dow jones bunch we are talking 20-50$ or so dollars per share. So we are talking initial investments of thousands and thousands of dollars. You could always invest in penny stocks, but we should all know that most small businesses fail.
The stock market is mostly down anyways lately.... besides perhaps some pharmacueticals, oil, and defense.
If clinton was president you could almost be garaunteed that 1% increase or so annually that kabar talked about.

As for our apocryphal social decline... Yes it is a major problem. I don't think I'd be blaming the hippies though. I don't know any hippies (real hippies) who became dead beat dads.... but then again i don't know many hippies. Fatherless families became a problem since the dawn of the industrial revolution when the nuclear family became fissile missle materiel to fuel the monolithic megacorpomachine. Men left thier farms to work in factories. Away from home, away from families. I would say that this did become exacerbated in the late sixties and seventies and eighties and today by white flight, cocaine, pcp, crack and popular culture fueled by capitalism which basically has been teaching us to be selfish and amoral and desiring of more for ourselves. Ever heard of Arab immigrants getting loans to start businesses in the ghetto? That might have something to do with it as well.

Umm... that is all for now. I have pressing matters to attend to.

villain

09-06-2004, 01:08 AM

Forgot to add to my list of problems causing the decline of american society -heroin which is more of a problem in the barrio, and - the decline of real wages since the 1970s ....- an influx of immigrants readily exploited by unabashed corporations... and.... I'm sure there are more.

Err... edit* Also forgot to mention good luck in getting any of this stock from these stable, large corporations. Chances are they are all bought up.

Weapon X

09-06-2004, 01:24 AM

villain, I appreciate that you mention environmental concerns in there.

I don't have the time now, but I'll make sure to put my 2 cents in. I'll add to your little spiel about bush and the environment, villain.

villain

09-06-2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Weapon X
villain, I appreciate that you mention environmental concerns in there.

I don't have the time now, but I'll make sure to put my 2 cents in. I'll add to your little spiel about bush and the environment, villain.

Cool man, cool. Looking forward to it.

POIESIS

09-07-2004, 12:46 AM

this (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wus05.xml) just breaking..hold on to your anger folks, the pentagon
just opened an investigation into john kerry's war decorations.
meanwhile, bush the fuckhead glides along with his asshole poll 'bounce'. but there is hope.
there's this (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040905/ap_on_el_pr/bush_national_guard), this (http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=365&row=0), this (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/02/allison/index.html), and
finally this little tid o' shit (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14609301&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=bush--took-cocaine-at-camp-david--name_page.html).

POIESIS

09-07-2004, 07:07 AM

THIS (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0906-01.htm)

pixie

09-07-2004, 10:33 AM

it bothers me so much that this information isn't more well-known among the general public. it's so infuriating that an ex-alcoholic/coke-head... who dodged vietnam by 'working' in the texas national guard can not only be our president but can try and discredit john kerry, who whether or not he is a better person or a better man i cannot say, but at least he didn't shirk his duty...
and the people who just blindly vote for bush because he supports the working man or he is the strong one to protect our country... i wish they would just pick up a newspaper, even it's conservative, and just read about bush. i mean, even a conservative newspaper can't cover all this crap bush has even openly admitted... right?

pixie

09-07-2004, 10:43 AM

Quiz:

1. What was George W. Bush's response when Bob Woodward asked how he thought history would judge the Iraq war?

a) "I say that freedom is not America's gift to the world. Freedom is God's gift to everybody in the world. I believe that. As a matter of fact, I was the person that wrote that line, or said it. I didn't write it, I just said it in a speech. And it became part of the jargon."

B) "When you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought."

c) "You can't see what you think is a threat and hope it goes away. You used to could when the oceans protected us. But the lesson of September the eleventh is, is when the President sees a threat we must deal with it before it comes to fruition, through death, on our own soils, for example."

d) "We won't know. We'll all be dead."

2. How did George W. Bush pronounce the name of Abu Ghraib prison, the site of the abuses that he claimed to have been "disgusted of" and "disgraced about"?

a) "Abugah-rayp."

B) "Abu-gareff."

c) "Abu-garon" and "Abu-garah."

d) All of the above.

Answers: 1. d) 2. d)
the new yorker (http://www.newyorker.com)

angelofdeath

09-07-2004, 12:42 PM

cmon guys most of these arguments attacking bush are weak at best. my own personal opinion is that john kerry is not the answer. if you dont like bush, fine, but cmon john kerry is worse. you talk about finding out the truth about, why dont you find out the truth about kerry. ask him why he voted 51 out of 55 times against pro gun legislation, yet is PRO GUN. how can Kerry be the answer when he voted for war in iraq, yet voted against aid for the troops. arent most of you concerned about iraq, cmon he voted for it. he destroyed his medals, one or 2 of which were from SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS, flew flags upside down, and yes even is HONORED in ho chi ming city as a great asset leading to the viet cong victory. the dude is a schmuck hands down. but you cannot have conservative values and be "cool" if your under 30... i forgot.

Poop Man Bob

09-07-2004, 01:04 PM

Did you base your decision on who you're going to vote for on a mass e-mail that was forwarded to you from a Republican friend? You've got the talking points down stat.

Voted against aid for the troops? He voted against the exact version proposed by the Bushies. What? He didn't support exactly what the Preznit wanted? That's unpatriotic!

I'm willing to bet many of those "pro gun" legislation involved cop-killer bullets, less regulated sales of firearms, and allowing semi-automatic weapons to be on the streets.

Did Michelle Malkin get ahold of you and show you her proof for Kerry's "self-inflicted" wounds? Stop making shit up.

He's honored as the greatest asset to the viet cong victory? Hell, even freerepublic.com articles say no more than his picture is up in a museum in Ho Chi Minh. The rest is all conjecture and opinion.

Now - tell me, if Kerry is not the answer, how is Bush? What makes you support Bush? Be honest.

pixie

09-07-2004, 01:12 PM

Endorsement of the week

?gIf [John Kerry] self-inflicted himself with a grenade, then I'm voting for him! Anybody that stupid has got to be better than the guy we have now.?h

Joe Pantoliano, star of the ?gThe Sopranos?h, on the furore over Mr Kerry's medals. Washington Post, August 29th

the economist (http://www.economist.com)

imported_Tesseract

09-07-2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by pixie
Quiz:

1. What was George W. Bush's response when Bob Woodward asked how he thought history would judge the Iraq war?

d) "We won't know. We'll all be dead."

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA, man i hate bush with passion but you gotta give it to the guy, best sense of humour ever

angelofdeath

09-07-2004, 02:54 PM

"Did you base your decision on who you're going to vote for on a mass e-mail that was forwarded to you from a Republican friend? You've got the talking points down stat.

Voted against aid for the troops? He voted against the exact version proposed by the Bushies. What? He didn't support exactly what the Preznit wanted? That's unpatriotic!

I'm willing to bet many of those "pro gun" legislation involved cop-killer bullets, less regulated sales of firearms, and allowing semi-automatic weapons to be on the streets.

Did Michelle Malkin get ahold of you and show you her proof for Kerry's "self-inflicted" wounds? Stop making shit up.

He's honored as the greatest asset to the viet cong victory? Hell, even freerepublic.com articles say no more than his picture is up in a museum in Ho Chi Minh. The rest is all conjecture and opinion. "

cmon poop... do you base your liberalness on the accuracies of Michael Moore?
we all know there is as much truth in what i posted as there is in the truth you believe. politics are politics and take a chill pill man. if you ask me both choices are twits.

StarzAbove

09-07-2004, 03:18 PM

I'm so glad this is over with

random

09-07-2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by angelofdeath
cmon poop... do you base your liberalness on the accuracies of Michael Moore?

what does this even mean??

we all know there is as much truth in what i posted as there is in the truth you believe.

speak for yourself

if you ask me both choices are twits.

but you really think this country would be better off with bush for another 4 years? do you think at all about the millions of people who are worse off than you are, and how the bush administration's policies have affected and will affect them?

Bush's ruinous economic plans
By Robert Kuttner | September 1, 2004

WE WILL shortly hear from the president himself, but the outlines of his domestic program for a second term are already all too clear. Take five key areas of economic policy -- health, Social Security, energy, taxes, and the deficit.

All five have this in common: In each case the administration program doesn't really address the underlying problem. Rather, the purpose is either to help an industry ally, stir up the party base, or advance an ideological goal (or all three).

Health Coverage. Health insurance premiums have risen by more than one-third since Bush took office, leaving more and more people uninsured or underinsured. Families USA calculates from Census Bureau data that one nonelderly American in three was without health insurance at some point from 2002 to 2003. Meanwhile, employers and insurers are moderating their own costs by increasing copays and deductibles paid by consumers.

The president's proposed health program, a massive expansion of so-called health savings accounts, doesn't address the twin problem of dwindling coverage and rising costs. It simply accelerates the shift of those costs onto consumers and gives affluent people one more tax break. Health savings accounts are useful mainly for the healthy and the wealthy because they don't buy coverage that is both comprehensive and affordable.

Social Security. The Bush plan to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part, is back. But there is no way that privatizing the system will shore up its finances. Rather, it will do just the opposite by diverting payroll tax revenue needed for Social Security payouts into new private accounts. To keep the promise of Social Security intact, Bush would need either massive new borrowing or massive tax hikes. But the more likely result is reductions in benefits. Of course, these cuts, like the damage from his deficits, would hit long after Bush left office.

Energy. There's a growing consensus among experts that the most recent wave of oil price hikes is not mainly the result of market manipulation, refining bottlenecks, or the Iraq occupation but the harbinger of the long-predicted depletion of the world's extractable oil reserves. With the huge populations of China, India, and other emergent economies joining the global consumer society, demand is simply outstripping supply.

Bush's program is essentially deeper and wider drilling, lubricated by friendly tax and environmental policies. His support for conservation or alternative energy sources is token at best. Last week three Bush Cabinet secretaries, just in time for the Republican National Convention, belatedly conceded that science has proven the reality of global climate change caused by carbon emissions. Bush said he was unaware of the report.

Taxes. The tax program for a second Bush term will be more of the same. One goal will be to make the tax cuts of 2001 to 2004 permanent. A new twist will be a shift to consumption taxes -- either a value-added tax, a national sales tax, or new tax breaks for money saved rather than spent. The result will be an overall reduction of taxes paid by those wealthy enough to save substantially and a shift onto workaday voters who spend most of what they earn. This will be advertised as a program to create jobs and reward entrepreneurship, but it sure didn't work in Bush's first term -- the only presidency since Hoover with fewer payroll jobs at the end than the beginning.

The deficit. Hardly anyone, Republican or Democrat, truly believes that the Bush tax-and-spending program will do anything other than make the deficit problem worse. The Congressional Budget Office, whose director is appointed by congressional Republicans, projects endless deficits in excess of $400 billion a year. If Bush succeeds in making recent tax cuts permanent and adding new ones, the deficits will be even more serious. With military outlay rising, the administration's only game plan is to backload the effect of tax cuts until after this president leaves office and cut domestic spending even further.

As the latest Census report makes clear, the typical American is economically worse off than in 2001. The GOP game plan is to keep voters' attention riveted on the memory of 9/11 and the threat of terrorism. Otherwise John Kerry will eat Bush's lunch on the pocketbook issues.

It's a remarkable commentary on the ability of the administration to wave the flag and change the subject that Bush isn't held more accountable for the huge gap between his policies and their results. As the president himself so memorably attempted to say, "Fool me once, shame on you . . ."

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect.

KaBar2

09-07-2004, 06:36 PM

His votes against firearms were just exactly that---an attempt to further the cause of disarming the American people.

There is NO SUCH THING as "cop-killer" bullets. Teflon coated bullets were designed to produce less wear-and-tear on the inside of a magnum pistol barrel, not to penetrate body armor. Besides, very few bullet-resistant vests can turn any sort of magnum round, and virtually none of the LE vests (designed to be worn under a police uniform) can turn any center-fire rifle bullet. Even a pipsqueak poodle-shooter round like the 5.56mm (M16A2, M4) plows right on through everything except a heavy, thick, reinforced-with-ceramic-assault-plates military assault vest. NO vest can stop a main battle rifle round like 7.62mm NATO, 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R, .30-'06, 7.5mm French and so on, and not even a truck or an armored personnel carrier can stop a heavy machinegun round like the .50 M2HB or the 12.7mm DshK.

Body armor is only effective against very underpowered pistol cartridges such as the .22LR, .32, .38 S&W, .38 Special or the 9mm. They are somewhat effective against larger calibers such as the .45 ACP, .44 Special, .357 Mag, but even a weak rifle round like the .30 US Carbine will penetrate LE vests.

The idea behind the "cop-killer" bullet was to plant the idea that certain ammunition, if it was capable of penetrating police officer's body armor, was "designed to kill cops." WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT. If they could get society to believe that a Teflon coated 9mm was a "cop-killer bullet" then what about Grandpa's .30-30 deer rifle, which will penetrate every bullet-resistant vest ever produced? DON'T LISTEN TO THESE LIBERAL FASCISTS--THEY ARE TRYING TO DISARM YOU.

The problem isn't "cop-killer bullets." The problem is criminals who have absolutely no respect for themselves and the rest of society, who think that they are entitled to victimize others without consequences, and who are not restrained in the slightest by the Law. Equally guilty are liberals who want to treat these murderers with kid gloves.

It is very easy to avoid prison and capital punishment. Simply choose to live your life within the confines of common decency and the law. Presto! No more police problems.

random

09-07-2004, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by KaBar2
LIBERAL FASCISTS

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Lib"er*al, n. One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer; in English politics, a member of the Liberal party, so called. Cf. Whig.

adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative] 4: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather" [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded] 5: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" [syn: free, loose] n 1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative] 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

:confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

Poop Man Bob

09-07-2004, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by angelofdeath cmon poop... do you base your liberalness on the accuracies of Michael Moore?

You lost any credibility you had previously. Great argument. Don't respond to anything I actually said, just mention a divisive public figure and claim I'm using him as a source.

Nekro

09-07-2004, 07:42 PM

I have absolutely nothing against people owning guns. If you want to own a gun, that's cool with me. I just sort of get pissed when gun owners start shooting people. Then you don't have the right to own a gun anymore.

Here's my view on social problems: It is the primary job of parents, not government, to keep their kids in school, off drugs, and on the track to college. The government cannot and should not attempt do these things for parents, however it can help out in certain ways.

Weapon X

09-07-2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by villain
I believe the dichotomy is more emphatic in goverment with those who support environmental programs and those who don't. When I was listening to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on NPR the other day he was talking about how Bush has put into power corporate lobbyists of all stripes into positions where government typically would protect our lands and resources. Not so now. He has outlined on his website www.nrdc.org (http://www.nrdc.org) (Natural Resource Defense Council) over 400 pieces of legislation that Bush has enacted that weaken environmental laws and give corporations more power. He has in fact rolled back 30 years worth of environmental protection legislation. Also one of the major contributors to Bush in 2000 were some 1500 illegal coal burning power plants... which are now of course no longer illegal even though they are the most damaging type of power plants to the environment. Just look at what it's doing to china. Protecting the environment should be a bipartisan issue. Mr. Kennedy is worried that it's being stigmatized as solely the province of the democratic party.

Go to the Georgebush.com site. From there, go to the photo album. Then, check the pics of environment (under ‘agenda’). You will find that the only pictures in there are of ‘Dubya’ and Gayle Norton, Secretary of the Interior, hanging out.

You will notice no activity in national parks or protected wildlife areas. The greater emphasis is on little recreational areas.

I find it hard to believe that you people have a hard time bringing up Bush’s environmental record.

The devastating effects on the environment through war not withstanding, I couldn’t give a fuck about a bunch of towel heads and a bunch of football worshipping ignoramuses. I don't give a shit about your gun control and your religion and state issues. FUCK IT ALL!

As a Canadian, I am very worried about my own natural resources. The Prudhoe Bay oilfields in the northern part of Alaska pump out way more pollution than most big cities in North America. Each year, there is an average of 400 spills of crude oil, diesel fuel, ethylene glycol and other hazardous substances.

That’s in Prudhoe Bay, which has been doing well in pumping out oil. 30 miles to the east of it’s most eastern pipeline, there is a 1.5 million acre plain that is a crucial part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It’s the birthing grounds for the Porcupine Caribou herd, as well as the denning spot for the Beaufort Sea Polar Bear population. Also, it’s nesting grounds for approximately 150 species of birds.

George Bush’s people have made claims that there is no way that they would harm any of these animals if they were to drill (drill they will, most certainly). Well, Jimmy Carter, that tree hugging, weed smoking, star worshipping, burlap wearing, living on the streets, bum hippie, says otherwise, as do everyone else with a brain.

Bush has made drilling ANWR a huge priority. He says that the electricity crisis in California is making this a necessity. But less than 1% of California’s electrical power is generated by oil. Also, the decimation of the wildlife in ANWR would barely make a difference in the US’s dependence on foreign oil.

From what I understand, Republicans in the New England states have issues with this, as they are down for protecting the environment. I believe that they may be the only reason why this hasn’t gone down yet.

Dick Cheney has sensed that John Kerry’s (and, polls say the majority of Americans) opposition may thwart their plans to drill there, so they have now planned to drill in the Rockies. “It doesn’t matter to me where the gas comes from, in the long run, just so long as we get gas moving into the country,” says George Bush.

Congress recognized the uncertainty of the refuge’s oil supplies twenty-one years ago and decided not to extend wilderness protection to the coastal plain. Instead, Congress ordered studies of the plain’s oil potential and wildlife.

Since then, there have been a number of tests showing more uncertainty, this time regarding just how much oil is under Prudhoe Bay’s surrounding areas, protected or not. The Republicans and Tony Knowles, Alaska’s governor (D), have decided that only the tests that showed the possibility of there being a HUGE amount of oil are the only tests that matter.

This is where I get pissed…

The Republicans and the oil lobby groups have been publishing pictures, among other things, where you see a number of Porcupine Caribou grazing with oil derricks in the background. The caption will read something like “Do the Caribou Even Care?”

They do. There have been numbers of tests taken on these animals, and it shows that the pregnant caribou have been undergoing high stress levels, and that the birth rate among females near the Prudoe Bay oil fields has been declining big time. The calf survival rates between those who are reared near the oil fields, and those that aren’t are significantly different.

Oil lobbyists will say that the herd’s numbers have jumped since 1968, which is true. But that’s only because of the mild winters they have been facing. All caribou in the north have grown in population. This will not last long.

Fuck it, I’m tired of typing, and this is nothing. Seriously, the States have been fucking around for too long, and Bush is just one bad extreme. If voting Kerry helps, then do it.

What the hell, though. How many of you Americans even give a shit about any animals except that fat golden retriever in the living room downstairs? Do they teach you about the delicate nature of the various ecosystems in your schools? I doubt it. Not from what I’ve seen.

You people can talk all you want about the grim certainty of the future world war, or some bullshit War on Terror (as if that’s been going real well). Those of you who read books on the fucked up state of our planet know that we are already at war with ourselves, and our planet. And we are losing – big time. Think about that just a little when you’re at the voting booth. Maybe Al Gore can headlock Kerry into submission, and your kids can have a good time playing in the playgrounds without risk of disease.

Weapon X

09-07-2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by KaBar2
The problem is criminals who have absolutely no respect for themselves and the rest of society, who think that they are entitled to victimize others without consequences, and who are not restrained in the slightest by the Law.

Oh, you're talking about your country. Particularly the government, right?

ODS-1

09-07-2004, 09:25 PM

The Daily Show had the best coverage ever. Jon Stewart keeps getting more and more radical as time goes on.

ODS-1

09-07-2004, 09:33 PM

[img]http://www.infoshop.org/newspics/rnc2004/r980366098.jpg'>

Poop Man Bob

09-07-2004, 10:36 PM

We're hitting back.

TexansForTruth.com: Was George Bush AWOL In Alabama? (http://69.59.167.160/tft/AWOL_Large.mov)

Æ°

09-07-2004, 11:18 PM

But then he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

KING BLING

09-08-2004, 03:08 AM

I used to care about politics, and I guess in some moods that comes out even here...but it is pretty much the most frustrating and tedious thing on earth...

This isn't directly aimed at you Kabar, but if it angers you and anyone else when "liberals" use terms like "cop-killer"...but how about

"pro-lifers" supporting the death penalty

"no child left behind" as more and more grown poor and schools are under funded while being pressured by 'fuzzy math' expectations

"weapons of mass destruction" If they existed, we helped put them there

"death tax" another tax on the wealthy to be transferred into middle America or the defecit, but its called "death" so it must be bad

"welfare reform" draconian and arbitrary policies that offer no fish, do nothing to teach a man to fish...and essentially say 'eat the worms'

and so many other buzz words. Its double speak, it's all that way...thats why our new forest policy entails cutting down portions of the forest to preserve them...like the past few million years or so didn't work...and we call it the "Healthy Forest Initiative"

...but alas, wouldn't want such a vital subject as one particular type of bullet to get in the way of what is otherwise an honest world...

Nekro

09-08-2004, 03:27 AM

Ben Barnes is going to lay the smackdown on bush's claim to honorable national guard service.

Weapon X

09-08-2004, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by KING BLING
I used to care about politics, and I guess in some moods that comes out even here...but it is pretty much the most frustrating and tedious thing on earth...

This isn't directly aimed at you Kabar, but if it angers you and anyone else when "liberals" use terms like "cop-killer"...but how about

"pro-lifers" supporting the death penalty

"no child left behind" as more and more grown poor and schools are under funded while being pressured by 'fuzzy math' expectations

"weapons of mass destruction" If they existed, we helped put them there

"death tax" another tax on the wealthy to be transferred into middle America or the defecit, but its called "death" so it must be bad

"welfare reform" draconian and arbitrary policies that offer no fish, do nothing to teach a man to fish...and essentially say 'eat the worms'

and so many other buzz words. Its double speak, it's all that way...thats why our new forest policy entails cutting down portions of the forest to preserve them...like the past few million years or so didn't work...and we call it the "Healthy Forest Initiative"

...but alas, wouldn't want such a vital subject as one particular type of bullet to get in the way of what is otherwise an honest world...

haha, dude, that's sick!

POIESIS

09-08-2004, 12:09 PM

A Mythic Reality
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: September 7, 2004

The best book I've read about America after 9/11 isn't about either America or 9/11. It's "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an essay on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent. Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it explains why President Bush, despite policy failures at home and abroad, is ahead in the polls.

War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn't our ally is our enemy.

This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power.

One striking part of the book describes Argentina's reaction to the 1982 Falklands war. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, the leader of the country's military junta, cynically launched that war to distract the public from the failure of his economic policies. It worked: "The junta, which had been on the verge of collapse" just before the war, "instantly became the saviors of the country."

The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic qualities to even the least deserving ruler. National adulation for the junta ended only after a humiliating military defeat.

George W. Bush isn't General Galtieri: America really was attacked on 9/11, and any president would have followed up with a counterstrike against the Taliban. Yet the Bush administration, like the Argentine junta, derived enormous political benefit from the impulse of a nation at war to rally around its leader.

Another president might have refrained from exploiting that surge of support for partisan gain; Mr. Bush didn't.

And his administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology that makes such exploitation possible.

Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends.

What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.

Last week's convention made it clear that Mr. Bush intends to use what's left of his heroic image to win the election, and early polls suggest that the strategy may be working. What can John Kerry do?

Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won't work. Mr. Bush must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience."

To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn't an effective war leader - he only plays one on TV.

This charge has the virtue of being true. It's hard to find a nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush administration's foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic incompetence.

If I were running the Kerry campaign, I'd remind people frequently about Mr. Bush's flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end of major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage of Iraq dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in the original invasion.

And I'd point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for his carrier landing - he even received underwater survival training in the White House pool - he didn't prepare for things that actually mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell.

Will it work? I don't know. But to win, Mr. Kerry must try to puncture the myth that Mr. Bush's handlers have so assiduously created.

ps-i read hedges book just before the war broke out..highly recommended.