BS: neither candidate is an asshole

Subject: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:26 AM

I am just going to offer my opinion here, because I would think that you would be interested in how the majority of Americans feel. I may be wrong about this, but it is my perception, right or wrong.

Neither candidate is an asshole. Both of these men have spent a great deal of their lives in public service, and I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say they have motivations of being the best leader of the nation they can be. They are not perfect, for sure, but they are doing the best they can to be statesmen. I am thinking back over the presidents since I can remember, and by and large, these men have stepped forward to serve their country to the best of their abilities. I sure wouldn't want the job. It is hard. They must realize that every thing they day or do or not say or not do for the term of their office is going to be second guessed for their term and by the historians forever. It is a very daunting task.

I feel that one of the candidates will better lead according to my philosophy, but either one of them is going to be my president and I will basically treat him and the office with the respect I was taught as a young child at home and in school.

One of my interests as you probably know, is travelling to other nations. I absolutely love seeing the other cultures and differences in the various nations I have visited. Some places are more inviting to me than others, but I have not visited anywhere that I haven't enjoyed the people. One cannot help, however, to compare his way of life with others. I feel fairly strongly that the United States of America, flaws and all, is the best place for me to live. I would hope that if I were in Italy, France, Denmark or the UK I would feel likewise about my home.

I am not trying to be argumentative with this thread, but merely want you to know that there are a lot of people out there in the US who feel differently than the general sentament seen here. As I do not think any of you are stupid for your belief system, I would hope that you would listen to what I have said as objectively as you can also.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amergin
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:28 AM

Bush is a scumbag. He is not worthy of the name asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:33 AM

wow, how terribly insightful.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:35 AM

Well said jimmyt! But you are wasting your time because EVERYONE here, knows everything about everything, and is therefore FAR wiser than anyone in authority!!!
               
                   flamenco, the true path
                        el ted
                      Sunny Beverley
                        England

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:42 AM

I am sure you are right and that a lot of people will support whoever is the President after the next election simply because he is the President. I am sure that a lot of Democrats did exactly that after the 2000 election at least up to 9/11 and some months beyond, although obviously there were also a lot who didn't.

But there is a problem, isn't there? My President, right or wrong? Or, since I'm in the UK, my Prime Minister, right or wrong? I can't go along with that one, I'm afraid. I don't think there is anything to be gained by simple abuse, but where a leadership has behaved in a way that you regard as seriously flawed or worse, don't you have a duty to criticise it, rather than simply say they are doing their best?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:50 AM

Thank you for your civil responses super ted and DmcG.

My answer to that situation, DmcG is that it is one thing to be critical and hold your leaders to the highest ideals, but it is another to be crude and disrespectful of the office. In essence, what I am saying is, vote your candidate in, or vote the one you think is not representing what your values are, out. It is not the individual I am necessarily discussing as much as the office itself. Thomas Jefferson, to paraphrase, said Democracy is a lousy form of government, but it is the best one available.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:06 PM

Don't know about asshole (as in intentionaly being one) but it is my opinion that Bush is dangerous. I consider him a greater threat to world peace than Sadam and Bin Laden combined.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:23 PM

Well, "asshole" is a boundless term of ill-defined opprobrium and as such applies to no-one in fact -- it is a costume we hand out for better or for worse. So perhyaps it is not strictly true to call Bush an asshole.

But I don't think he is very thoughtful. Or, at least, that his thoughts are very sensitive, deep, original or even accurate.



A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:24 PM

well, jon, if you feel that way, then you should vote Kerry. In our system, we do have a fair method of checks and balances ie congress, that certainly not allow anyone to be more dangerous than Sadam or Bin Laden, though, in my opinion

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:36 PM

jikmyt, if I lived in the us, I would be voting that way in your elections.

As for dangers, America proved how easily it could take down Iraq (perhaps even with a little help from the UK where I live...) and Afghanistan. I may be wrong but I am more scared of someone in charge of the most powerful country in the world and abusing that than I am of the actions of lesser powers, however wrong those actions may be - and please believe me, I think what sadaam did to his own people or 9/11 detestable...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 02:44 PM

"I will basically treat him and the office with the respect I was taught as a young child at home and in school."

There's something to be said for having a purely ceremonial head of state, so that people don't feel constrained to feel any respect whatsoever for the politicians who have made it to the top, unless they show they deserve it by their actions.

Mind, I never understand why being compared to a fundamental part of the human anatomy, without which we'd very rapidly be in very serious trouble, should be considered an insult.

Pretty obviously, the President of the United States is potentially the most dangerous person on the planet. He could pretty well destroy us all. That's why the rest of us get a bit worried about that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:19 PM

Mc Grath, I am trying to see this situation as objectively as I can, and I appreciate your honesty, but as I see it, the President cannot rise to the level of, say a Hitler, in the way our government is set up. If, in fact, you were really a bad guy, you would not be reelected in this country. That is how I see it.

Make no mistake about it, I have lots of reservations about this candidate and am not entirely sure where I will be on election day, but in view of the options, I feel he is by far the better of the 2 at this point in our history when it comes to protecting us from the terroristic issues we are confronted with at this time.

Over the last 35 years, I have been at least a moderate, with more leanings to Liberal philosophy than Conservative. I mostly wanted you folks to know that not everyone who is beating the campaign drum for Mr Kerry is a religious, non-thinking Luddite.   I think about this quite a bit, and am still in a quandry. I also think that the USA is and has been a great ally of western Europe for a long time and will continue to be, and it is hard to believe anyone considers us a threat.

We do consume too much oil though.   The whole concept of fuel consumption has by and large not sunk in to the average American. If we had to contend with fuel prices as Euripeans do, we would be a little more judicious with our suv purchases.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:29 PM

Would anal sphincter be better?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:35 PM

Amos,

with regard to W's not being thoughtful, I hate to say it, but he does have a way about him that makes him seem like a cowboy who thinks he is a badass or something. I have watched him many times though, and somehow I still can't quite figure out how he has managed to make so many people hate him. I have seen a lot of presidents since I was a kid and he has managed to have the most loyal followers and the most angry adversaries. What I think has alienated the world by and large is the fact that he does not act like a politician. I think most of the world of politicians is filled with empty rhetoric. WHen W says he is going to do something if the UN doesn't respond in a timely manner, he means business. Regardless of which side of things you might fall out on regarding the Iraq situation, I think most folks agree that he did exactly what he said he was going to do. In the world of politics this behavior is not the norm. The concept of a man standing for his convictions is refreshing to me. I have tried very hard to convince myself to vote for John Kerry, based on the fact that the next president has the potential to stack the supreme court, and I would prefer that we keep a balance there based on my liberal social leanings, but, darn it, I am disapointed that this guy is not the best candidate you can send out in the Democratic Party. Again, just my opinion.

I appreciate that you have responded to this thread with a civil tone, everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 03:54 PM

jimmyt,

I can't see Bush in the light you do. I do not at all trust the man. Kerry is a bit better, but if I had my druthers, which I don't, America--and subsequently the world--would have better choices. I don't see a big difference between the two. The Neocon agenda will work either way. Calling either of these me particular expletives is part of life and part of politics. I would hasten to add that the Kerry thread has been there for quite a while, and the Bush thread is new. You are a peace and relax person, and I appreciate that. So, of course people will respond on this thread in a somewhat gentle manner. IMO.

But allow me to say one more thing: calling Bush that is accurate; calling Kerry that is Republican wishful thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:02 PM

My point was that a President has the power to wipe most of us out. That's what those "command codes" they carry around for him in a liuttle box are all about. He's got at his fingeretips weapons of mass destruction that would make the kind of stuff that Saddam was claimed to have (even if he didn't actually have them) look like pea-shooters.

I'm not sure what the checks and balances are that exist to deal with a President of the United States who becomes seriously deranged, more especially in a non-dramatic fashion. I hope they are there in place.

And short of deranged there is deluded, and irrational. Or plain stupid. And short of nuclear armageddon there are plenty of other disasters that can be unleashed on us, including ecological ones.

This isn't particularly aimed at Bush. I was just explaining what I mean by saying that the President of the USA, any President of the USA is these days the most dangerous person on the planet.

..............

"...a way about him that makes him seem like a cowboy who thinks he is a badass or something"

But that "seem like" is surely the key word. Bush is not a horny handed rugged cowboy who came up the hard way, he's a privileged and cossetted East Coast aristo, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and putting on an act. A politician all the way, but with a different mask from some of the others.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: PoppaGator
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:50 PM

My opinion is that no one in his/her right mind would WANT to be President of the US, and therefore that anyone who would choose to run for the office suffers from serious personality flaws.

However, it is an important job (understatement!), and SOMEBODY has to fill it. So, to my mind, EVERY Presidential election -- not just this one -- boils down to a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Jimmyt, I wish I were as confident as you that the constitutional checks and balances will always continue to function as designed. Sometimes -- not always -- I really worry that the neocons will be able to brainwash enough of the electorate (through fear, Orwellian doublespeak, and big spending on 30-second TV ads) to cement their hold on the government.

They've already succeeded in getting us militarily involved in the one spot on earth where we're least likely to be able to get out, guaranteeing windfall profits to their pals the arms manufacturers and no-bid defense contractors for the indefinite future. What's next?

I agree with you that a Democratic president (even a less-than-ideal one) would be desireable because of the potential Supreme Court appointments. However, I think the need to stifle rampant warmongering corporate greed is an even more pressing reason to oust Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and their frontman Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:52 PM

I will agree that calling names is rude and mostly unproductive, but I have never understood the concept of "respect for the office." The office is an abstraction; the office will not help nor hurt you nor even be aware of your existence. The office is just a job description, and the man who has the job may be admirable or despicable, competent or inccompetent.

I will respect a good helmsman and trust his judgement over mine; but a helmsman who consistently runs aground deserves no respect at all and should be replaced. No matter what one thinks of the "office."

And to do exactly what you said you'd do can be good or bad, praiseworthy, condmnable or stupid. I would prefer the man who says he's going to burn my house to be a little less determined. His family might even prefer it.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 04:53 PM

"and SOMEBODY has to fill it."

I imagine they said the same about being Emperor of Rome. But in the long run it wasn't true, fortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

Respect for the office--

Like the respect that was demonstrated by Nixon.
Like the respect that was demonstrated by Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

Jimmyt,
As a Canadian, I do not claim to be any expert in your internal politics. However, if as an American citizen you have any concern with how your country is looked upon by the rest of the world you must realize that there is a great problem with Bush. Internationally he has acted as a bully and he lacks respect in most of the world. Not only did he bully his enemies but also his friends, because they did not see the world through his eyes. Respect must be earned by ones actions rather be demanded by ones office. In this Bush is a dismal failure. The asshole title is more polite than the one that I would apply.
                  Obie

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:13 PM

Jimmyt....Maybe neither Bush nor Kerry are arseholes,but you certainly are if you swallow the "democratic", "respect for the office " claptrap.
Both the UK and US governments have been proved to be lying,self serving hypocrites, quite willing to murder thousands of innocent men women and children,to further their interests.
By your postings on other threads, you dont appear to be a fool,but any one who respects these criminals must have another "axe to grind".

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:39 PM

JimmyT:

From his earliest days in office my view of Bush has been irreversibly contaminated by his lying. I recognize that he has a brute ability to push through on what he says he will do. But he has never been direct and forthcoming about huis reasons for doing things, and he has always rationalized and bent the truth and covered up and temporized and tapdanced.

Additionally I judge a man -- a man from yale anyway -- in part by their ability to command the language. Bush's is pathetic. I know fifth graders who use language more skilfully. In some folks this is not an impediment -- they don't come from a lettered background. In his case, however, it is indicative of self-indulgence and incompetence.


A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:55 PM

jimmyt - Even though I do not really have much respect (if any) for the Bush administration, and precious little for the Democrats either, I respect and appreciate the tone and general attitude of your post that started this thread.

To run for president of the USA a man would either have to be seriously disturbed, or deeply inspired, or callously ambitious, or egomaniacal, or some kind of a saint ready for martyrdom.

Or a combination of those... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:56 PM

Jimmyt,

I have to say that the US practice of teaching children to show reverence to "The Office" is puzzling to me. He's a man, that's all.
Also, the US system is founded upon checks and balances, a free press and the freedom to speak out.

If President Bush is not getting the respect he thinks deserves it is entirely his fault and the fault of his party. Here are four fundamental ways he is eroding that respect.

1. The Republicans, with very few exceptions, completely disrespected the office while Clinton was in Office. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

2. Bush was not elected with a strong mandate by any means. He lost the popular vote and if the vote in Florida had gone the other way, If they had recounted all of the votes there, as they would have in every other Democracy I know anything about. Bush would have lost by about 48 electoral votes, the difference was only a couple of votes, even with the Supreme Court decision. Bush did not have a strong mandate but he acts as if he won in a landslide. This is disrespectful to the majority of the country as are his promises to "unite" when he is doing what he can to divide. and his promise to be a compassionate conservative when his record shows that he is certainly neither.

3. Bush is telling the people that criticizing his policies and decisions is unpatriotic, is harming the troops is harming the war effort. He's in effect saying that no matter what you do don't criticize me because I'm the President and we are at war. He is showing no respect for the time honored traditions of democratic debate. He is showing contempt for the US political system. The same system which calls for respect for his office.

4. After 9/11 Bush and Bush's office was given more respect in this country and around the world than any man who has held his office since Roosevelt. He abused that respect. In his ghostwritten autobiography he says when he gets political capital, he spends it. Kerry, Edwards and the Democrats, stood behind the President on the subject of Hussein to show just the kind of support for the office that you are talking about and Bush is now using that against them. All of a sudden the tax breaks he'd been planning for years became part of the war on terror.

Saddam Hussein and the invasion of Iraq which his people had been jonesing for since 1991,... war on terror.

Clear Skies initiative, gutting the Clean Air Act... War on terror.

Energy plan written by oil lobbiests and Ken Lay from Enron... War on terror.

He treat us like we were children, He treated us like we were stupid. He doesn't seem all that smart himself. How dare he?

If his office is not getting the respect you think that it is. That's why. He's not getting respect because he is not showing any respect.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:33 PM

jimmyt,


Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:45 PM

I generally appreciate the overall tone of this thread. I have always thought it odd when 2 seemingly intelligent(I am using that term loosely about myself after being told by Akenaton what he thought of me) people can see the exact same situation or event and come out with entirely different perceptions of what they observe.   

I do take what is said here and mull it over with as much open mindedness as I can muster. At some point it seems prudent that civilised people can agree to disagree.

Anyway, my hope is that whatever is best for the nation and the world will ultimately come to pass. I also hope that British and Canadians are wrong about their concerns of the preceived threat of us Americans. Except for our rampant consumerism, I, for one, think we are pretty darn nice folks.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:51 PM

Upthread, jimmyt said, "as I see it, the President cannot rise to the level of, say a Hitler, in the way our government is set up."

Perhaps not. But when you have a Republican president with a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate, I think the president can pretty much rise to wherever he wants, if he works the system well. (Substitute Democrat for Republican as desired -- I merely used the R term because they are in power now.)

The only thing that has held Bush and his gang back since 2000 is, I think, that many Republican senators and congressmen are still fairly moderate Republicans -- which makes them good Americans. Thanks jah that the senate and congress weren't filled with neocons. Then I think that there would have been even more of a nightmare than there is.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:01 PM

I cannot view Bush as any kind of monster. However, I can suspect him of being more readily influenced by those around him than can be reasonably expected of people with leadership character traits. He has indeed taken the responsibility for dramatic decisions, and "stayed the course." Good on him for commitment and resolve. Nevertheless, my November 2 vote will be a vote against his administration -the power players that surround him- and against the doctrine of preemptive war. Nothing more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:23 PM

jimmyt, It is your current president I fear, not Americans in general.

I will openly admit that my views of Americans have varied over the years. The first "specimens" I met were loud, boastful, arrogant and obnoxious. To balance that up and turn it on my own place of birth, I shudder at the thoughts that some people may meet what was called a "lager lout" or one of our famed football thugs (not supporters) and get the impression that is a typical Englishman.

I since had more pleasant meetings and in particular, Mudcat amongst other forums has gone a long way to redressing that balance and I can honestly say I have enjoyed very pleasant company from your country including even one person staying with us for a few days. I in no way view you all as "nuke the bastards" style Rambos. In fact the evidence here suggests there are a good number of people who are quite the opposite.

I do have some concerns though. I'd guess they are best summed up by comments made to me by a brother of mine who spent some time over there and had load of hassle trying to get in on his holiday all because a freind of his had grown a canabis plant in his house (I'd guess around the time terrorist were learning how to fly aeroplanes). He said something along the lines that "Americans are really nice people but they are the most fucked up brianwashed people I've ever met".

I think that quite unfair as a statement but I do wonder is it possible that the success of America may make a good number of people unwilling to think in the same way as I as a cynical brit might think? Is it possible that more people would blindly accept whatever the president said than perhaps we might do with our PM, etc.

I apologise that some of my post does come over perhaps even as insulting but my intention is to ask questions that I'm struggling to express and not to slam fellow human beings. Most Americans, or indeed people from other nations I've "met" here would be most welcome to share a pint with me or even share our household for a holiday.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:49 PM

Jimmyt, you say your president can "stack the supreme court." That should be enough to put a doubt in your mind about those checks and balances you're so sanguine about.

By the same token, many still take the USA's free press for granted, and there was indeed a time when its press was one of the country's great strengths. Not any more. The press is bellicose, partisan and demeaned by sycophantic self-censorship. Remember how the Abu Ghraib scandal emerged into the public domain, no thanks to CBS which had the story but didn't run it on the grounds that to do so would have been unpatriotic?

Face it, jimmyt, if Kerry and Bush are anything to go by, the US has a massive problem attracting competent people to run for its highest office. My contempt for Tony Blair is close to pathological, but even he could dance rings round Bush in any argument, on any subject.

If you saw the first head-to-head debate (I had the misfortune to see it in full at last, a couple of days ago) you surely must have marvelled at just how stupendously, impossibly, risibly bad Bush was. If you still respect him after that, then I suspect it was not so much potty training you went through at school as brainwashing. Try to shake off the indoctrination and start to think for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:52 PM

I do, Peter

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:29 PM

just for curiosity, do they teach toilet training in the schools in ENgland? We pretty much have that issue cleared up by the time we head off to school.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:31 PM

We don't HAVE toilets in Canada. Even in 50 below zero we go in the woods.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:50 PM

The only school toilet training I remember was with my youngest brother in a school in Wales. He had to learn to put his hand up and say something that sounded (the Welsh is almost certainly wrong)like "Gair fynd i toiled" if he needed a pee in class time. The school was mostly English language but for some reason, and as far as I understand it, it seems his teacher insisted on Welsh for such a request.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:07 PM

That's true about Canada. And when you pee outside in the winter, you can break it off when you're done and use it as a Christmas tree ornament. (the urine, I mean!)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:07 PM

jimmyt - I understand what you are saying because I was taught that whoever wins the presidency should be respected, regardless of who you voted for.

When I came to Canada, it was one of the first differences I noticed about politics in Canada. Here, if you are an elected official, you are leaving yourself wide open to constant criticism. They even call the party not in power, the opposition. Their job is to criticize. Have you ever heard how the politicians here speak to each other? I find it amazing and somewhat crude. They insult each other and yell and display their anger in many, many ways.

I prefer Canadian politics - its all out in the open and nobody is covering anybodies ass. There seems to be very little "loyalty" or "nationalism". Its pretty wild but much more honest.

I have also noticed that its no big deal to change parties if you think you have a better chance for election or appointment.

d

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:42 PM

I think I understand what jimmyt means, however. The office of the presidency should engender our respect, and from time to time it does. I feel in the process of slamming the presidency that we may be slamming our friend. That's not a good thing.

The disrespect I have for politicians likely comes from having been one myself--albeit as a lowly town counsellor. Truth is, "anybody who likes law or sausage should never watch either one being made."

When I first saw this thread title it was like a gallon of blood in the water with sharks. But, I saw it was jimmyt's thread and I knew where it was coming from. He's right. Neither of these people are assholes. They are many other things, but how can we expect the candidates to live up to our expectations if we think that of them to begin with? And maybe that's where jimmyt was comin' from.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:23 AM

Actually, I just finished watching the third debate and I've changed my mind again! I think they are both assholes. In fact I think they are both silly, schmarmy, assholes.

d

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:19 AM

This is really an interesting thread. I'm glad that people have for the most part answered thoughtfully.

Therein often lies the difference. If we reply with our emotions, the word "asshole" will inevitably come floating to the surface, but if we reply with our brains, then the subject becomes far more layered and cpmplex.

I'm glad it was jimmyt who began this because his own personality has helped to keep people focused on his questions and observations.

For myself, the term "asshole" applies when I become angry with someone. In the case of the next President of the most powerful country that now exists in the the world, my feelings are ones of fear, not anger. I am deeply fearful of what will happen to the US, and subsequently the rest of the world, if George Bush has four more years at the helm of a deeply divided nation.

I think my mother stamped "question authority" on my forehead when I was born, so I have little more faith in John Kerry than I do with his opponent, but enough to vote for him and to encourage others to vote for him as well. In the end, as has been the case with each and every President, what they say and what they do will most likely be miles apart.

The "office" ANY office is only as good and deserving of respect as the person who occupies it. The idea of one person with that much power, (and you're kidding yourself if you think he is bound tightly enough by either the Congress or the Judiciary), who can make the decisions which bring thousands of men and women to other countries for whatever reason, in a show military force-is an idea with which I struggle constantly.

I've spent more of my life now having lived out of my birth country than in it, and a great part of the reason has been due to the "Man in the White House"-ALL OF THEM. (Funny that that term was coined about FDR, the last President I really respected, though even he did some pretty despicable things while in power.)

And it's all about Power-who has it, who wields it, and how it is used. Bush may not be an asshole but for me at this moment in time-he IS one scary s-n of a b-t-h.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,bbc at work
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:22 AM

Here's a new twist--my son, an intelligent, articulate new voter, favors the Green Party. He doesn't fool himself that they are likely to win, but he feels that, if we keep choosing between two flawed major parties, change will never come. What do you think?

bbc (not thrilled w/ my choices)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:07 PM

THank you for your opinions Ellenpolly. They are insightful.

Guest bbc, that seems like a logical alternative. CarolC however, is frustrated because she feels disinfranchised because a vote for an alternative candidate either has little on no impact on the election result. It seems that if enough folks were to feel this way, ultimately you could effect change. At least the theory works.

Brucie, I appreciate your kind words also as well as dianavan's attempt to see where I am coming from regardless of whether they agree or not.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:22 PM

This question of voting for a third party has come up on several threads.

It is one of those great ideas in theory that so far has never worked in the US in practice.

My mother voted for Dick Gregory back when all the candidates she had wanted to vote for (McCarthy, MacGovern, and Kennedy) either dropped out or were assassinated. What was left was Humphrey against Nixon. She didn't want to vote for either, and so wrote in her closest choice for someone with a completely different vision. Her choice, her vote....But who won?

Over my own voting years, I have felt the same way, and last time 'round I VOTED FOR NADER!!!!!!

So I have the choice of kicking myself forever in the knowledge that my vote helped put a horrific man in a position to steal the Presidency, or once again, vote with the pack against that same man.

We can talk about political theory all we want, but unless it comes to a revolution in American (and for that, even as a pacifist, I would come back to the States to be at least a medic) a three party system is doomed to fail.

DAMN!! I am so TIRED of being a pessimist!

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:11 PM

Thread drift in part: diana: Canada has not cornered the market on honest politicians. Do you not know of Bill Bennett? Bill Vander Zalm? Glen Clark? Are you unaware of peculiar landownership issues in the West End? Have you not wondered how Howe Sound could have been polluted beyond all imagination? How did all that happen? Question authority, please. I expect all that to be cleaned up before I return.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:56 PM

I've been away for three weeks and have not tuned in to Mudcat for the whole time. I tuned in today. It certainly hasn't changed. There are still the hate-mongering posts that have been written by the same miserable writers that have been doing so for two or three years now. What a bunch of unhappy people. What happend to the Mudcat? It use to be civil. There use to be respect reflected for the other person's point of view. No more. It's become simply a place to vent and spread hate.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:02 PM

Extremely odd thread to choose for that particular venting...

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:06 PM

I have a son intending to vote for Nader (or is it nadir?) I can understand him voting for Nader as much as he can understand me voting for Kerry. He has his realistic misgivings about his vote, just as I do. None of our misgivings are about personalities. If I didn't feel that Bush was such a dangerous man, I might consider Nader more seriously. I voted third party once in my life and would do it again. The closest to a serious third party candidate we've ever had was old What's His Name. Unfortunately, the more attention he got, the more he stuck his foot in his mouth.

My concern with Bush is that it may take a generation to undo the damage he has already done to our international reputation, to the health of our economy and any equitable financial balance among different levels of our society. God knows what he will do if given four more years, with no need to be concerned about being re-elected. At least I'm pretty sure that God knows. Now, Bush would probably say that God has already told him that He is voting for Bush.. :-)

But, good for you, jimmy! You've attempted to open up a respectful discussion where people rise above the playground name-calling. I'm afraid that this time of year is when Mudcat goes over the top in its attitude. Halloween seems downright mild. I rarely even open the political threads in here. Vitriol is not the alternative form of energy to save us from our dependency on oil.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:53 PM

And on the other side of the coin, I'm an independent who hasn't voted for a Democratic candidate in two decades. I've voted third party/indies. So the Anybody But Bush arguments put forth by diehard Dems are lost on people like me. I'm perfectly content voting FOR my candidates.

Last time I checked, it was still legal to do that in US elections. Though if the Democrats get their way after Kerry loses in November, they'll probably immediately introduce electoral reforms that won't allow third party and independent candidates on the ballot at all by 2008.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:59 PM

NEOCON--

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:07 PM

Though if the Democrats get their way after Kerry loses in November, they'll probably immediately introduce electoral reforms that won't allow third party and independent candidates on the ballot at all by 2008.

Guest:

I have no way of knowing if you have ever posted here before, because of your pusillanimous inability to use a unique identitiy--but if you are who I think you are, this is the dumbest thing you've ever said here. It reveals that you don't understand those about whom you are speaking. It would be for more likely that such a move be promoted by the neo-fascist camp, for it is fascist in its nature, but they would have nothing to gain by it. The Democrats would have some thing to gain by such a rule, but would consider it unprincipled and counter to basic constitutional freedoms.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:14 PM

pusillanimous

Sounds like a festering sore on one's genitillia.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:55 PM

Amos wouldn't have much to talk about if Kerry does win. some others won't also.

If Bush wins, these obsessives will I guess, continue to be gratefully miserable.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 06:38 PM

Life will move on, as we know it Martin, no matter who wins. Whatever one's candidate of choice, we all can do a Hell of a lot more to make this world better every morning when we get out of bed.
After the election is over, it will be time to move on and change those things which are in our power to change, no matter how small they may seem.

Sometimes voting seems like trying to drive a car without a steering wheel. I'm still convinced that it's worth doing anyway. Just don't get your heart set on the route you end up taking.

Hey, and regards to you, jimmy! U R my favorite conservative Republican. But not the only one I respect...

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:38 PM

Republican, is he? Ah, well, he's a darn good man for all that.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:43 PM

Im still puzzled why it's supposed to he an insult. I think most of us are very attached to this part of our anatomy.

The body politic needs to have one. Either candidate would fill the role pretty well, but I think Bush is better qualified to take on the responsibilities involved, while Kerry would make a more convincing President.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:44 PM

If I buy him the wool, will he make me one, too?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:44 PM

MG:

Bite my ass, how about? You can suggest I am being obsessive about Bush,. but, unlike you, I am willing to some degree to face the fact that a criminal clodbuster with a shootin' iron has been let loose in the Oval Office.

If Kerry wins I will have a great deal to talk about - I am alive, aware, and prefer to be in communication. Some folks prefer to make nothing out of anything and any person they can classify as "over there" so they can feel snidely superior. Enjoy, Shalom, and good luck! For me, communicate and L'Chaim!


A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:26 PM

"It would be for more likely that such a move be promoted by the neo-fascist camp, for it is fascist in its nature, but they would have nothing to gain by it."

Bullshit. The Democrats are already doing just that IN THIS ELECTION. They have brought lawsuits to get Nader off the ballot in Florida, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Arizona, Oregon--20 states in all. They tried to stop Sinclair Broadcasting from airing an anti-Kerry film.

The Democrats obviously they have plenty to gain--like the White House for instance--by circumventing and undermining the nation's democratic traditions, otherwise they wouldn't be working so hard to do just that.

But hey, we don't expect anything less from you and your Anybody But Bushite fanatic buddies--you are all floating down that river in Egypt, in search of ever lamer justifications for your man and your party being full of fascist global plutocrats, and playing this demagoguing game.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:30 PM

Fascism is preferable to nazism, and nazism is what ya get with Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 12:13 AM

GUEST...

The judge in the Pennsylvania case said that Nader's inclusion on the ballot was accomplished through egregious fraud, hundreds of fictitious signatures (including Disney characters!) being found when the lists were inspected.

The only reason for disallowing the Nader ballot on a state ballot is because of misrepresentations of this kind. I can't speak for party people. I am not a party player. I am an independent, democratically motivated voter and citizen.

As for your opinions about Kerry, you have voiced them often enough. Sorry we don't see eye to eye. You preserve your integrity by sticking to the third party options, and that is your sacred right. I try to do something I see as more efficacious, by supporting someone who has a shot and is -- as far as I can tell so far -- an honest person. That is mine. I commend you for using your brains, holding your own position and sticking to what you believe is right and true. I wish W would do the same, but he is a slimy weasel. I do not believe John Kerry is. If it turns out I am wrong, it will certainly prove out (I believe) that he is LESS of a weasel than Bush. If I send my vote to Nader, all it will accomplish in the arena is reducing Kerry's chance by one vote.

We are in a very close race, and I don't want to wake up wishing I had given Kerry my vote after all.

Your business what you do with yours.

A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 01:30 AM

Ellenpoly - Thanks for refreshing my memory. I was trying to remember who ran against Nixon! It was the first time I was old enough to vote, something I had waited for all of my life! I remember looking at my choices and realizing then what a sham democracy was. Some choice! I knew it then and I know it now.

heric - huh??? - "Canada has not cornered the market on honest politicians." I certainly do not think they are honest and I question authority more often than not. I was commenting on the so called "debate". It was just plain boring. At least the politicians in Canada aren't afraid of expressing their point of view. Of course, that does not mean they do not engage in "backroom politics". At least they give us a good show in parliament.

It was so obvious in the U.S. debate that both candidates were trying to seem more moderate, more neutral and did not want to make waves or alienate any voters.

Milk toast! Pablum!

d

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:57 AM

OK Amos, so I'll give you PA, and raise you the 19 other states the Dems are fighting to keep Nader off the ballot in. So how come the party that calls itself "Democratic" is so un?

Oh yeah, and about their attempt to censor the anti-Kerry film on Sinclair Broadcasting...pulling a Powell for their guy. Nice to see they only oppose political censorship when it is to their political advantage.

Nothing sleazy but any of those anti-democratic attempts to undermine the democratic traditions of the nation.

If that is your idea of "honest" I'd hate to see what you think is dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:25 AM

No Guest, not an attempt to censor. An attempt to promote honesty. Let the documentary be shown as a documentary, but don't try to fool people into believing it is "news". Would anyone fuss if Fahrenheit 9/11 was broadcast as "news", with GWB invited to be on the panel discussion afterwards. A few, maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 02:40 PM

TIA, you apparently aren't aware of the Democratic party's attempts to have the film censored. As in filed an appeal with the FCC in an attempt to prevent the film from being broadcast AT ALL.

That is censorship.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 04:05 PM

Ithink there's enough sheer crap being broadcast already.

But if they label it as what it is, I have no objection. It's buying the time and pretending it is news broadcasting which is the typical deceit offered by the RNC crowd, who tend to be ruthless to an extreme.

A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 04:16 PM

JimmyT,
JimmyT,

I appreciate your appeal for civility in discussing rather than venting anger.
The biggest problem we have today is giving in to fear and anger.

My opinion of Bush in my more lucid moments is that he is abusing the office of the presidency. He probably actually believes what he is doing is right.
But it has to be said for the likes of Al Capone, and yes even Hitler. Rationalizations for so-called "right actions" have caused many in power to do ugly things. Lying is one. Twisting words of an opponent around for political gain is another. Appealing to the baser attitudes of bigotry and fear is another. Committing young innocent men and women into an uncessary war is an atrocity in itself. Jingoism and pseudo-patriotism can be added to the list. Defending the rich at the expense of the poor and pretending to do otherwise is ugly. Refusing to deny the flagrant use of public airwaves to show a smear campaign about an opponent. Defending dirty tricks. The list goes on.

A lot can be said for different points of view regarding political philosophy.
I think many economic and political philosophers have been misinterpreted and misunderstood such as in the case of say Karl Marx or Jesus Christ.
A lot is open to interpretation.

But you have to look at actions. How a person behaves in my view is more important than what they actually say.

I don't see the level of malevolence in the behavior of Kerry as I do in Bush who. has used lies and distortions to win with a smirk on his face. Some will say that Kerry lies also. I need legitimate proof and not parroting from partisan sources. I am willing to discuss this rationally with anyone. I welcome a decent dialogue without name-calling and anger.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 05:21 PM

Amos,

No question that you are correct.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:27 PM

Frank:

"...Bush who. has used lies and distortions to win with a smirk on his face. Some will say that Kerry lies also. I need legitimate proof and not parroting from partisan sources."

And you have seen "legitimate proof and not parroting from partisan sources" that Bush has lied? He has made statements that were later found to be false- but did he know they were false when he said them?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM

That is very weak, BB.

That is the 'plausible (sp?) deniability' stuff. Didn't cut it with Nixon, and it sure don't with Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 08:41 PM

But it is ok for Clinton and Kerry?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:04 PM

Here's a lie, bb.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush took credit for the Patients' Bill of Rights in Texas. In reality, it only passed over his veto. Texas nurses were pretty angry that he took credit for it when he was the primary obstacle to getting it passed.

This is an easy one. You can find documentation on it in a great number of places.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

Why do you bring in Clinton, except to obfuscate? Bush has lied many times. Stick to the subject. Kerry hasn't lied.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:08 PM

… and nobody said it is ok for Clinton and Kerry. That's your idea.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM

Anyone ever think that perhaps Clinton Hammond is actually Bill Clinton, but operating out of HAmmond, Indiana as a ruse? Think about it! could be.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 09:57 PM

of course, any posting of Kerry's lies MUST be from a source that fails the SRS rule.

OK, if the following are NOT acceptable, please find PRO_BUSH sites that support your accusations of Bush lying... or stop presenting them as fact.

Kerry's lies

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 11:36 PM

of course, any posting of Kerry's lies MUST be from a source that fails the SRS rule.

Yeah, that's probably right. You aren't a reliable source, and when you post other folks' "facts" here, you sure as hell fail my rules of reasonable source checking. By the way, your most recent search link goes to such utterly unreliable sources as rushlimbaugh.com. Duh.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:07 AM

"please find PRO_BUSH sites that support your accusations of Bush lying... or stop presenting them as fact."

It would be as reasonable to say "Please find Flat Earth sites that support your claims that the Earth is round... or stop presenting them as fact." What you need is a neutral site. I haven't got them at hand, but you could look at the last few issues of Newsweek. I can find them by tomorrow if you're interested.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:10 AM

Dammit, Clint, now yer gonna start muddying the waters by bringing facts. Always one pooper at every party.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:35 AM

Here's one from two years ago (sorry, brucie; I know it's rude):
________
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:13 a.m. ET Oct. 26, 2002

The president said in a speech last month that Saddam is experimenting with unmanned drones capable of reaching the United States with weapons of mass destruction. When confronted with the geographical improbability of such a feat, a White House spokesman countered that the drones could be launched from ships. Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we don't know about, that scenario is equally implausible.
______

Now, Bush may be too dumb to know how far Iraq is from the US, or that Iraq never had aircraft carrriers, but his "darn good intelligence" isn't. He cannot have been told this by the CIA and they cannot have approved it; it's too dim even for them. He must have been trying to con us.

It's because of this kind of crap that I never believed Iraq was an imminent threat, and neither did anyone else that wasn't swept up in Bushite propaganda. Including far too many members of Congress.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM

How about this for a lie?

From transcript of the third presidential debate:

KERRY: When the president had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?"

He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

But in fact this link to CNN on March 13th 2002 has Bush saying that.

Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? [...]

BUSH: ... I don't know where he is. Nor -- you know, I just don't spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you [...]

Q: Do you believe the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead of alive?

BUSH: As I say, we hadn't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, you know, again, I don't know where he is.

I'll repeat what I said: I truly am not that concerned about him.

Though strictly speaking Bush used an old politicians trick there - he didn't say "I never said that", he said "I just don't think I ever said..." So when he's pinned down he can blame his Reaganite menmory.

(This comes via this site - Mark A. R. Kleiman - A Fair and Balanced Weblog)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 06:41 PM

"When confronted with the geographical improbability of such a feat, a White House spokesman countered that the drones could be launched from ships. Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we don't know about, that scenario is equally implausible. "

I guess you are not aware that the unmanned drones whiche se are currnetly using could easitly be launched fro a fairly small ship- they do NOT require runways of great length. If you bother to check on all the battleships launched after anout 1920, they ALL coulds launch manned floatplanes on a short rail launcer, and recover them with a crane after they landed on the water. I guess you have never looked at a cargo ship- LOT of cranes.... nd more than enough room for a rail launcher for even a manned vehicle.

"It's because of this kind of crap that I never believed " any of the statements made by liberals about what Saddam could not have done.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM

oh, on most of the cruisers, as well. They were used for recon flights.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:03 PM

I can think of a dozen ways that Saddam could have used an unmanned vehicle to attack the US- Just using the technology of WW II and earlier. But I guess if is not the way that you have decided he HAD to do it, it does not count.

Must be cheating- sort of like flying civilian airliners into buildings.....

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:20 PM

What the hell had "flying civilian airliners into buildings " got to do with Saddams' Iraq.
Bearded Bruce has lost the plot completely, his posts are becoming more eratic,and Im sure he'll end up in the recycle bin along with Doug R, JimmyT,ect ect...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:30 PM

Ake,

I was commenting that the presumption on the part of some liberals that the enimies of the US are required to use the weapons and techniques that those liberals decide is a foolish one. To say "Unless Iraq has an aircraft carrier we don't know about, that scenario is equally implausible. " when no aircraft carrier is required is stupid.


I SAID "But I guess if is not the way that you have decided he HAD to do it, it does not count. "

THAT is what the airliner comment refers to- since we all knew that the terrorists could not get a big enough car bomb into the WTC, there was no danger of it being blow up...

I think that perhaps it is you, and your friends that have "lost the plot completely,". If you care to make comments about what I am posting, feel free- but "his posts are becoming more eratic,and Im sure he'll end up in the recycle bin along with Doug R, JimmyT,ect ect" does not exactly address any of my post, now does it?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM

Virtually any government on the planet could, if it wished to, carry out an attack on the USA which would kill an awful lot of people. And as has been demonstrated pretty decisively, you don't need to be a government to do that.

And there is no reason whatsoever to think that Saddam Hussein had any intention whatsoever of doing that, not because he was or is a nice bloke, but because there could have been no possible advantage to him from doing it, and an extremely heavy price to pay. Why even when a bunch of his most hated enemies did it, off their own bat, the upshot was the invasion and devastation of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam's regime. (Which was very probably one of the hoped for consequences of September 11th on the part of those who planned it.)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:44 PM

" but because there could have been no possible advantage to him from doing it"

I am glad you are so certain of this- but I think Saddam might possibly disagree with you. IMO, of course... and of course it would have been HIS decision, NOT yours.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 07:59 PM

BB....Stop wriggling and address Mcgraths response.

I find it incredible that there are still people around who are prepared to defend UK...US actions in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 08:05 PM

Well of course he might have been daft enough to think that, but then so could the leader of any of the other countries in the world.

But no evidence has come to light that suggest that he had any such intention.

If Bush has it in mind to launch pre-emptive wars against all the people who might, if they had a brainstorm, attack the USA, he's got an awful lot of wars to wage.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 08:11 PM

Ake,

I thought my comment DID address McGrath.

Stop wriggling and address MY comment.

the presumption on the part of some liberals that the enemies of the US are required to use the weapons and techniques that those liberals decide is a foolish one.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:29 PM

I'm not sure I get the sense of that comment, bearded bruce.

I think it means that you believe that the conclusions that some people have reached, about what is likely to happen in the way of attacks upon the USA by far weaker enemies, is different from the conclusion that you have reached, and that people who disagree with you on such matters are foolishly mistaken.

You also seem to be saying that at least some of the people with whom you disagree with on this matter are what you would describe as "liberals". Though surely that is beside the point. What would be significant would be the disagreement over these matters, not the general political opinions of the people with whom you disagree.

It all seems a little abstruse. You'd have to put a little more flesh on the bones before it would be possible to either disagree with it or agree with it.

But, so far as I can see, there just doesn't appear to be any evidence of any foreign governments attacking the USA since Pearl Harbour. That isn't the direction to look.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:46 PM

My point was that the statement that an aircraft carrier was required is an example of poor thinking- it is not required. By stating it was, the person made a point that the Bush administration was wrong- but based on an incorrect set of conditions.

If it takes a blue widget to x, and Saddam did not have a blue widget, then Sadddam could not...


BUT THE BLUE WIDGET WAS NOT REQUIRED.

Thus, the comment in
From: GUEST,Clint Keller - PM
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 12:35 AM

has no relationship to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 09:51 PM

"Now, Bush may be too dumb to know how far Iraq is from the US, or that Iraq never had aircraft carrriers, but his "darn good intelligence" isn't. He cannot have been told this by the CIA and they cannot have approved it; it's too dim even for them. He must have been trying to con us.

It's because of this kind of crap that I never believed Iraq was an imminent threat, and neither did anyone else that wasn't swept up in Bushite propaganda. Including far too many members of Congress."


The crap is on the part of ther person saying an aircraft carrier is required, and that because Iraq did not have one, the Bush administration "must be trying to con us"

They may or may not be trying to con you, but the posting by Guest ,CLint Keller is not a valid reason to state that.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:00 PM

So, brucie, Clint has not yet brought in any facts. I eagerly await them...

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:14 PM

Beardedbruce:

You are allowed to determine what YOU think is a fact. However, that allowance does not extend to a carte blanche wherefrom you determine what I think is a fact. Clint nailed it. You didn't.

Hell, bb, the 'man wearing a grey suit and carrying a suitcase' means ANYONE can walk around with a nuclear device. Such a suitcase could be CANOED into the USA from Canada. Or from the sea. The world thinks airplanes. Forget airplanes. Think canoes and grey suits and suitcases. Don't complicate things more than they have to be.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:19 PM

brucie,

How does that negate the falsehood of requiring an aircraft carrier when one is not needed, and then saying that since there was no aircraft carrier, ,...etc?
I KNOW how easy it is to place a WMD anywhere- it seems to me that most here do not.

What exactly did clint nail? That his source in the post about the aircraft carrier was incompetent?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:41 PM

Gee, I've been having a fast & furious argument and I ain't even been here.

That was the first example I ran across, I wanted to go to bed and it sounded good to me. It still doesn't sound bad, even if you scratch the aircraft carriers. What kind of drones, launched how & guided how? Did Saddam have buzz-bomb technology? But perhaps I, like George was deceived by my intelligence sources. The difference is I was right on this one and George was wrong.

Still, the idea's not preposterous. The Japanese in WWII launched balloons with fire bombs on the jetstream, and I believe a few of them did get here to the Pacific Northwest, but they didn't work properly. it's the (possibly ship-launched) drones that I boggle at. If George'd talked about something like a plan to send shipping crates containing dirty bombs from non-Iraqi ports I would've been nervous. That'd be cheaper & more practical. I could believe in low-tech from Iraq.

In any case, McGrath has a much better example. I will gladly yield if you'll address his post on 16 Oct 04 - 02:09 PM.

And please, don't call me "some liberals."

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 10:49 PM

"Though strictly speaking Bush used an old politicians trick there - he didn't say "I never said that", he said "I just don't think I ever said..." So when he's pinned down he can blame his Reaganite menmory."


Hey, it is good enough for the Clintons and for Kerry- so why not?

BTW, the thread about Kerry lying ended after I put the QUOTE of him saying MACHINEGUNS. I think that I have proved my point- BOTH of them lie- Both will continue to lie to get (re)elected, and to curse one while ignoring the other is a hypocritical thing to do.


Some people consider the Bill of rights to be an important part or our ( US ) freedoms- Just not Kerry.

And, NO, I DO NOT like the Patriot act, as I have stated before.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:40 PM

Who is in possession of WMDs is really not an issue. Many countries have had them for a long time. Iraq doesn't seem to have any (that could be found, anyway). Saddam Hussein is no longer the ruler of Iraq. The USA is still there. And it seems it won't be leaving anytime soon. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:43 PM

"Hey, it is good enough for the Clintons and for Kerry- so why not?"

I think you know why not.

But my point is this: you asked for proof from a reliable source that Bush lied; you got the proof, and now you dismiss it as ok because Clinton did it. What's *your* point?

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:48 PM

…but in case you really don't know "why not," it has to do with many deaths resulting from Bush's lies and those of his administration. Not to mention the damage to the environment and to our civil rights.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:45 AM

"I just don't think I said that" is smarter than saying "I didn't say that", but there is objective no way of ever proving what someone thinks.

But when someone says "I don't think I said that", when in fact they do know they said it, it's still a lie. If it had been a genuine mistake, surely Bush would have subsequently apologised for getting it wrong in the debate, when he implicitly accused Kerry of telling a lie and fabricating a quote?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:45 AM

"I just don't think I said that" is smarter than saying "I didn't say that", since there is objective no way of ever proving what someone thinks.

But when someone says "I don't think I said that", when in fact they do know they said it, it's still a lie. If it had been a genuine mistake, surely Bush would have subsequently apologised for getting it wrong in the debate, when he implicitly accused Kerry of telling a lie and fabricating a quote?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 11:25 AM

The man is a natch'l liar...

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 12:30 PM

So, in closing, ladies and gentleman, I come back to my original premise that neither candidate is an asshole. I still feel that they are both motivated by some, if not all statesmanlike attributes. It is just a matter of which side you come out on this.

I hear you ranting about the evilness of one candidate or the other.   I have other forums where I canhear the exact opposite, by people just as intelligent as this forum.

By and large, you have conducted this thread with not too much pushing and shoving, with the exception of only a couple who abviously only feel they can make their point by downgrading and humiliating their opponent. For those people, I really hope something pleasent comes along in their lives to help them deal with their bitterness.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:05 PM

In RE: BB's ever more frantic flailing, (click here)

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:17 PM

"But when someone says "I don't think I said that", when in fact they do know they said it, it's still a lie. "

Like Ms Kerry, when asked about saying "unamerican"....

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:38 PM

'Scuse me, there, Mr.BB, Sir, but you're apparently unaware that Mrs Kerry isn't a candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:43 PM

ANd neither is O'Reilly, or the Swift Boat vets, or any number of others criticised here...

I already showed Kerry to have lied.

You have showed Bush to have lied.

So, what exactly are you saying, Greg F? Since one lie invalidates everything a person says, how can you believe anyone???

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM

Well thanks for your good wishes JIMMY, and I would like to present you with the Mudcat 2004 award for sanctimony and hypocricy.
An award which is extremely difficult to win, given the quality of the opposition.
Lest anyone is fooled by your current Mr nice guy personna, I can remember quite a few snide comments on other threads,to anyone who questioned your extreme right wing views.
Personally, I feel that when the actions of our "representatives" involves the massacre of innocent women and children in our name,I am entitled to show a bit of fury now and then.
Perhaps you and your kind just dont care very much....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 07:59 PM

Akneton:

Would you be willing to expand a bit on what you are saying? I am a little lost in the thread. Thanks,


A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: jimmyt
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:19 PM

Akenaton, You are very welcome to question my views all you want. It is a free country, well at least this one is. If you think I am an extreme right wing person, you are hopelessly mistaken. To the groups I am around I am considered a liberal. I am happy to share my opinions on issues I have opinions on.

I do not see how it makes you feel any better by putting another person down. But, I guess, whatever makes you happy. I started this thread merely to state that there are other people out there who have very different views than those you have, and they have reasons for why they feel this way. I did not intend to be sanctimonious, merely to try to let folks know my views. I do not pass judgment for people who feel differently than I do. I know there are many instances in which I would probably be right in the middle of the liberal group. I have my reasons for feeling like I do, and religion is not one of them and neither is greed. I would like to think that stupidity is also not the explanation. But for a group who touts the slogan "Celebrate diversity," you sure have a funny way of showing it. I am honestly quite surprised that you have all this anomosity to someone you have never met, nor has ever spoken nor written a word about you.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:28 PM

All lies are not created equal.

Some lies are social: You're looking well today, bb. (As if I knew.(

Some are exaggerations: A zillion jobs have been lost under the Bush administration. (Although it's true he's the first president since Hoover to have a net loss during his administration.)

Some are hypocritical: I'm sorry your husband is dead, but it's worth it. (But my children aren't going over there. Nor is any member of my family, or any member of Mr Rumsfeld's family. or Mr Wolfowitz's, or Karl Rove's, or…)

And some are damned lies: The Clear Skies act will give you clean air. Saddam is connected to Al Quaeda and 9/11. These lies are homicidal.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:34 PM

I quite agree with jimmyt about it being futile to work ourselves up into a fury about these kinds of things and people. Getting in a temper just blunts the edge of justifiable anger, and reduces outr ability to direct it effectively.

The actual character actors who strut around on the public stage aren't in themselves all that important. If they weren't there, someone essentially similar would be in their place, and if they were lives had led them in a different way, so that they were private acquaintances rather than public figures, I doubt very much if we'd think of them as anything special, definitely not special enough to hate.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:38 PM

That aspirin factory is a real threat .

There might have been someone in that camp we wanted to kill.

It is too dangerous to get involved in Bosnia. We might have casualties.


Peace in our time....


Ok, how would you classify these, Clint?

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:47 PM

Speaking on behalf of my friend jimmy, he is a very reasonable man with a different perspective than I have on politics (and not much else, I might add.) On social issues he is probably more "liberal" than many Democrats in this pond, and more importantly, he puts his beliefs into action, giving generously of himself with very little desire for recognition. Jimmy is open to discussion and re-evaluation and doesn't immediately leap to insults when faced with someone who disagrees with him.

Jimmy is like all of us... far more three-dimensional than can be expressed by the limited glimpse we get of each other in here. It is the people who immediately start heaping insults on others who are the closed doors.

I am proud to call jimmy a friend. He is one of the most gracious, generous people I know. I know that it makes life simpler to label everyone and divide us all into opposing camps. But, it's a nasty way to live and doesn't allow room for seeking common ground.

And I am a liberal Democrat who cringes when I think of George Bush, and the thought of him being re-elected.

U DA MAN, jimmy. Don't let anyon tell you otherwise..

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 08:48 PM

They're all lies, bb, every damn one of them, and nobody in their right mind would vote for Bill Clinton or Neville Chamberlain this November.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:04 PM

But if they were running against Bush, you would be saying otherwise.


Kerry has made statements that indicate to nme that he does not value the Bill of rights. I do not trust him, his view of what he has done in the past, or his ability to lead this country.

I disapprove of the Patriot Act- because it establishes a precedent. I will defend YOUR right to free speech, because to do otherwise would endanger my own. I do not like for ANY group to be given a special status that makes them exempt from the laws of the land.

I am tired of people who feel that because I have a different viewpoint than they do, I must be sick, stupid, or insane. I have tried not to make personnel attacks, but there are those on here that I consider to have proven that they are not worth the effort of responding to. I listen to outragous statements about Bush, with no justification other than hate, of both his politics and seemingly himself, and when anyone dares to criticize the Chosen One, Kerry, hard evidence is demanded- if a single point is not proven, the entire statement is thrown away. When an attack is made on Bush, there seems to be no requirement to even pay lipservice to the facts.

If you cannot apply the same standards of proof to both sides, there is no pont in even having a discussion. I hope all of you here are happy that Bush WILL win, not because he is right, or the better person, or even has a better grasp of reality:, but because the Democrats have not run anyone FOR president, just against Bush. How much more negative can you be? And the majority of voters will look at both sides with disgust, and vote Bush back in for four more years.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

But, hey, bb, they're NOT running against Bush. I hoped you'd notice that.

I don't object to your views, I object to your arguments.

Like telling me what I'd say in some circumstance. Countering some statement you just know I'd make isn't a discussion; it's a monologue. Bill Clinton may be a rotten guy, but that's not a reason for voting Bush.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:30 PM

Bush may be a rotten guy, but that's not a reason for voting for Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 09:57 PM

"Bush may be a rotten guy, but that's not a reason for voting for Kerry. "

It's a real good start.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 10:03 PM

No, clint, it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 11:29 PM

Is too!

IS NOT!

Is TOO!!

IS NOT!!!!

Looks to me that Matt T. hit it right on the head.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:23 AM

Good point, Greg.( And Matt.)

clint

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:08 AM

Echoes of playground days.. "You're stupid!", "Oh yeah, YOU'RE stupid!" "I am not!" "Yes you are!", "Stupid, stupid, stupid!"

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:50 PM

And fully in keeping with the style of this election, from what I've seen from a distance.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM

Kerry has made statements that indicate to nme that he does not value the Bill of rights. I do not trust him, his view of what he has done in the past, or his ability to lead this country.


BB:

I challenge you to quote such remarks and compare them to Bush's impulse to legislate morality through the Constitution, Ashcroft's mayhem on the Bill of Rights through the Patriot Act and related offenses, and tell me you think Kerry is a threat to the Bill of Rights.

A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:28 PM

look Look LOOK

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:47 PM

Interesting if the predictions are right. It's not something I've looked at before but:

1: There seem to be solid blocks, eg. West coast and NE blue and a huge red block in the middle. Are there big regional divides in the US?

2: On the random sample of states I have looked at, there doesn't seem to be too great a change from last election. This of course again makes me wonder about 1. but also suggests to me that by in large it doesn't really matter what a politician does or may do but many people are "born" either repubulican or democrat. It's one I think I have heard raised here before but...Is that a reasonable suggestion?

Happens in the UK BTW, there are traditional Labour or Conservative areas and voters.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 05:11 PM

The map's color pattern has changed almost imperceptibly in the few months I have been watching. But today is the first day I've noticed Kerry with the advantage in the electoral college.

As for regional voting, many people have quipped that the Bush style neocons represent the Revenge of the South.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 06:54 PM

Go team, GO!


A

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:38 PM

It's even better today. The grand totals shown at the top include the numbers for "barely Kerry" and "barely Bush," which shouldn't be done, as those numbers are statistically insignificant. Today (for the first time I believe) excluding those statistical ties still gives the majority to Kerry- 228:183.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:49 PM

Basically it looks as if it is going to be down to Florida. And Jeb Bush has been sorting that out for the last four years to ensure the count goes to Bush anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: neither candidate is an asshole
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:35 PM

Today Tim Russert said that the election will be decided by three states: Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Whomever takes two of those shall be the President.