BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 08:19 PM

Y'all just reminded me of another more general thing on the great significant night: did anyone keep count of how many times Bush specifically accused Kerry of being a liberal? He almost might as well have said a &%@*^% liberal. However Kerry attacked, did he ever try to use "conservative" or anything like it as a smear label? Lord, if Bush imagined Kerry to be a RADICAL, I don't think he could say it without foaming at the mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: RichardP
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 07:35 PM

Nerd,

It may be true that a majority of Liberals have been big spenders and a majority of conservatives have been small spenders.

However, it is an example of the commonest but worst philosophical error - post hoc ergo procter hoc - to suggest that you can therefore conclude that every big spender is liberal and every small spender is conservative (with or without capital letters.

Liberal is what liberal believes and Conservative is what conservative believes. What ever else is true. Bush'e beliefs are CONSERVATIVE writ as large as possible.

Richard

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:53 PM

He's not "masquerading" at all- he and his handlers are up front about what they are doing & want to do, and the record of what they've done so far speaks for itself. vide The Project for a New American Century & etc.

Its the dumbass voters that continue to believe this gang of assholes are "conservatives"- simply because they style themselves as such.

It's stupidity - not terrorism - that is the current greatest threat to the U.S.

God Help America.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:09 PM

Also, Bush is not a conservative. He spends more than any liberal president, runs up greater deficits than any liberal president, ruins the environment, etc. He is a radical masquerading as a conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 08:57 PM

I should have guessed. I remember the happy, smiley-face societies all playing nicely together bit, but I missed the part about the hat. You were right, though - brucie posted it up here. (I tried to find it earlier, and couldn't.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 07:58 PM

Bush - who else? "Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat."�Washington, D.C., Sept. 17, 2004.

(This comes from this site)

But I was sure someone had quoted it in this thread - maybe it was in soem other.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 06:32 PM

McGrath, who said "at the whim of a hat?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 02:56 PM

"at the whim of a hat".

My first assumption was that Bush had "drop of a hat" and "rim of a hat" floating around in his mind, and somehow they got blurred and combined.

Butb then I thought, perhaps he might have had some recollection of Stagolee lurking in his memory?:

What do I care about your two little babes,
Your darling loving wife?,
You done stole my Stetson hat
I'm bound to take your life;
He was a bad man,
That mean old Stagolee.

I wonder if it'll make it into some future editon of the Oxford English Dctionary as a new meaning for "whim"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 09:23 AM

tarheel, I wouldn't criticize you because you think Bush is the better candidate, but I tire mightily of you friggin' conservatives who say shit like, "i'm conservative and i love my country and i support bush and vote republican!...". Let me just tell you something bucko. I am a veteran who has spilled blood for this country. I pay taxes, love my children, support my church, and love this country. I am patriotic, and you fucking conservatives don't have the lock on loving your country or being patriotic. My view is that by being a progressive and asking questions, I am being patriotic. So just vote how you feel you must, but lay off the horseshit statements. You don't own the high ground on these issues.

Rant fucking off,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 02:48 AM

Fred, I agree with, "Yes, Virginia, some people admire and fantasize about the winners on top, fair and square, or, um, not, and they hate and look down on those a rung below them."

Further to that I would add that the people below can see the people above but the people above can't really see the people below.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Sam L
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 02:22 AM

I too have been seriously trying to look at it from both angles, but I still feel "anyone but Bush" has its points, globally speaking. He's not qualified for Chief Executive. He's not quite a great communicator. I can't get very happy about Kerry, really, but. I believe Bush may have made a few right decisions, but I fear it's like a stopped clock telling the time.

The only thing that really stuck with me from Moore's 911 movie was not one Senator. The rest seemed overwrought about daily news, or somewhat questionable as a proposition. Please, please, don't re-elect a single Senator. What on earth are they good for?

Homer Simpson was voted greatest man in America by a landslide. You can trash our president, you can trash our also-rans, but be careful what you say about our heros. Or we'll bomb you or something because of your known ties with Al Kinda. I'm talking about a man. A man--who gave up a ride in the Duff Beer blimp in a really stupid attempt to try to make his daughter Lisa feel better about herself. A man--who... now I'm getting choked up--ah, go fuck yourselves!

   There was a great scene in the Sopranos when Tony's analyst spoke of what was needed if they were ever going to get at the truth, and Tony said "Da trute--I'm a fat crook from Jersey" which summed it all up pretty neatly. The truth isn't so big an elusive mysterious conspiracy-theory freaking goddamn deal, after all. Yes, Virginia, some people admire and fantasize about the winners on top, fair and square, or, um, not, and they hate and look down on those a rung below them. Yes. That's what I think, I think that's the way it is, as a matter of fact.

   I don't say there aren't other ways of looking at Bush, or other ways of liking him, or mean to insult anyone who supports and likes him. But I don't know them, or what they think, and I'm just trying to understand the people I know. I like and respect these people in ways, and learn from them, and if Bush loses, I will go on that way. But if Bush wins I think I will have to let some tenuous friendships go. I just can't quite get around it, hard as I try. I'm not that well informed. I can't match wits with the best of 'em on political forums. I just keep hearing David Bowie singing This Is Not America, with the Pat Metheny Group, Sha na na na na na. And a little piece of me really will die.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:58 PM

Well, PeeDeeCee (9 Oct 1:14 AM), you're right. Plenty of Americans are plenty embarrassed, not to mention outraged, to have Bush as the alleged "president", for a long catalogue of reasons we've discussed ad nauseam.

But then there are others, xenophobic (whether or not they know what the word means) reactionaries who basically are also "Second Coming" Republicans---wouldn't vote for a Democrat if he came down from the sky accompanied by angel trumpets.

However there are probably a majority of voters, Democrat, Republican, and independent in the US, who, in addition to opposing Bush for the above list of reasons, are thinking individuals, and therefore will send Bush back to his people, the subjects of the second paragraph, in November.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 10:18 PM

He'll have the big one if that happens, Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 10:12 PM

But I said it first, dianavan.

And it matters to me more as I do live in this country.


Isn't asking a question as is the topic of this thread on a website such as this which is probably 95% folksinger liberal so highly skewered that really it is the same as if it were as a discussion on a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity website.

I wonder how many here would be treading water in one of those discussions.

I have really been trying to look at the whole thing from both angles. What I have to admit that I do see is such an "anything but Bush" attitude, that a lot of what is at stake is no longer an issue for them. I'll tell you what. Those people are going to have a heck of a harder time dealing with it if Bush wins than I am if Kerry wins. Michael Moore just might need to eat a couple of pizzas just to get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:56 PM

That is an insult to good horseflesh.

Well, but to be serious...tarheel, the rest of the World is concerned about the American election because America scares the rest of the World and affects the rest of the World. We don't expect you to be concerned about Canadian elections, because we are well aware that we don't scare anybody. :-) (nor do we wish to)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM

By the way, your President is a horse's ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:44 PM

Jaysus, Tarheel, ya don't want foreign nationals commenting on the United States and its President than use messages, not BS.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:39 PM

Ahhhhh, will that be Bush or BushLite???...

Like GUEST, I'm real concerned that Kerry is another corporate man. Jus different corporations...

I'm also concerend that he doesn't speak about the working poor which tens upon milllions of folks comprise.

He also doesn't speak of publicly funded elections or things he might do to rstrore democracy by introducing a constitiutional ammmendendment that would require all districts for the House of Representatives be competitive. He also doesn't speak of the imporatnce of third or forth or fifth parties... I would think that if he were indeed the liberal that Bush says he is that these issues would be importnat to Kerry...

With that said, I am leaning toward voting aginst Bush even though it will take some serious holding of the nose to do so...

Sure wish Kerry was liberal...

But he ain't. The only thing he's got going for him is that he is not Bush...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST,tarheel
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:37 PM

well,if no one else is gonna have the guts to say it,i will! i feel bush won,but of course i'm prejudice! i liked bush before kerry ever thought of running for president! so...i know i'll get the usual crap from all the "libbies" in here,but i don't care!it seems you all have your opinion and feel ok with others as long as they're opinion doesn't have a 180 degree of differences from yours!...hey,i'm conservative and i love my country and i support bush and vote republican!...please,no crap from you uk or other country folks not involved in our election!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:19 PM

It reads like a mystery, a novel. It's well written.

    -- Dubya's assessment of the 9/11 Commission's report, and a statement I'm sure will make the country feel a whole lot better, Crawford, Texas, Jul. 26, 2004

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM

Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat.

    -- Maybe this is one of Dubya's down-home Texan expressions, but it's puzzling nevertheless, Washington, D.C., Sep. 17, 2004

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 08:42 PM

So people like the Bush's style because they think he's no better than they are. and they don't have a a very high opinion of themselves?

Makes a kind of sense, I suppose. Sort of Homer Simpson in politics. Except that Bush comes across as much more like Mr Burns.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 07:47 PM

Clear as mud.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 07:46 PM

All Kerry had to do to win was break even, and not lose any momentum. It is clear that he did that at the very least. The third debate ought to be a doozy as Bush is feeling the heat. He is still the odds-on favorite, but it is going to be really, really close.

All the best,

Mick on his way to a gig.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 07:34 PM

Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?

I don't know who did, but I do know who didn't. The American people didn't win. That's a fer shore.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Sam L
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 07:24 PM

Neither candidate is what I'd call the best the parties have, but maybe I'm wrong.

I don't really feel like arguing with people about politics lately. I happen to think Bush is very underqualified for the job, and is a divider, not a uniter. Even if I agreed with his decisions and initiatives, I think I'd feel that a little diplomacy might help. Some wits would grease the wheels. Maybe he's a war president, but he's more of a Sonny than a Michael on the standard Corleone scale, if that's what you want. No wonder he's wearing a vest.

I don't much like Kerry, but it wouldn't hurt our perception in the world to elect the othrn, especially if you think they're interchangeable anyway.

Why people like Bush. Well there's the anti-intellectual thing, and always has been, so he's got that locked up pretty well. And I think some people simply find it refreshing to have someone who is happy for his advantages, and unapologetic, and looking out for his pals. That's what they'd do. The efforts to shame most Americans on things like this may hit, but they miss anyway. They're merely correct, and don't shame their targets at all. If you look at popular culture, I think you'll notice that we're liking stories of looking after our own interests, and to hell with everything else. Or, if I'm wrong, at least the Self-Help book market is still doing better than the Helping Others. And I've heard people say, about the war, "Well, we need the oil." That's all. No amount of accusation that the war is about oil will sway this opinion, so give up.
    This is my take, based on spying, and listening. I think people find Bush refreshingly cynical and unidealistic, and they like him also as an ersatz monarch, because they're tired of the whole dull, tedious, never-ending, weary chore of representative democracy. Argue ideals and righteous indignation all you want to people who are sick of it, but ask yourself if you really think it helps, or if you're just flattering yourself in the process. Guess what they think. They'll think you're a self-important fool, is all. If I was going to argue, I'd stick to pointing out that Bush is not very good at looking after his own or national interests. He's no Michael Corleone, he's Sonny, and he's going to screw up worse if he has the chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 07:05 PM

Actually, Kendall, Emerson had nothing against consistency, per se. A motre complete quotation is worth posting and speaks directly to the BuShite junta:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency, a great soul has simply nothing to do... Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradicts everything you said today.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 06:28 PM

Martin - 'What you do and do not decide is reputable in your opinion is highly irelevant to me.'

Exactly what I was trying to say to you.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 05:56 PM

let's just say reputable sources.

Let's also say that your decisions to me as an ex-patriot and as a generally biased feminist would not give me a fair shake anyway.

What you do and do not decide is reputable in your opinion is highly irelevant to me.

Please reconsider your "we" concept outlook of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 05:30 PM

Martin - Was that a reputable source or reputable sources?

What do(does) your reputable source(s) say? Maybe those of us who actually watched the debate will have the oppurtunity to decide whether or not your source(s) are reputable or not.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:22 PM

I specifically, and truthfuly, said it wasn't about politics.

I can think of people whose politics I more or less share, whom I wouldn't think are at all likable. And I can think of a fair number of people whose politics I detest whom I would see as likable.

To me, talk about Bush as "likable" is as puzzling as if people were to speak about Ari Sharon's slender physique, or Michael Moore's suave dress sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:08 PM

I agree brucie, Kerry is reprehensible, just like Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:50 PM

Nothing is new here. Except that the shit that hit the working class and poor in the wake of the repressive and regressive right wing "Morning in America" is finally catching up with and hitting white middle class liberals. Hence their roaring their terrible roars about how unfair it all is TO THEM.

That's true, GUEST, but it doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:36 PM

Well McGrath, it sounds to me like your hatred is blinding you to the man, while leading you towards an unquestioning acceptance of the anti-Bush hysteria your liberal beliefs insist are true.

Look, I'm all for Bush whacking the politician. I'm even for Bush whacking the man. But I'm not so blinded by hate and prejudice of people with radically different political and worldviews than my own, to think they have no redeeming qualities as human beings.

God, if I'm ever that bigoted I hope someone will shoot me, and end my cynical misery.

But that will be the legacy of this US election, to be sure. Hatred of Bush that got so out of line that people deluded themselves into believing that he was worse than every other right wing Republican president in history. Which isn't even remotely the case. Hell, what Bush/Cheney/Rove has done was merely dot the i's and cross the t's of the American plutocracy's revolution at the lobbyist trough and ballot box, that was begun in the Cold War Eisenhower administration, and improved upon by Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton before him.

The bankrupting of the American political system has been in the works since the Cold War. The war on terror is no different than the war on communism. Homeland Security is no different than the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Saddam no worse than the Shah of Iran.

Nothing is new here. Except that the shit that hit the working class and poor in the wake of the repressive and regressive right wing "Morning in America" is finally catching up with and hitting white middle class liberals. Hence their roaring their terrible roars about how unfair it all is TO THEM.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:22 PM

Bush came across as whiney and petulant. But then that seems to be his normal style so far as I can see, and yet people keep on saying that he's such a likable guy, and that this is his strongest appeal to the American public, so it most be that that kind of guy is the sort of guy that a lot of Americans actually find likable.

Like Jack the Sailor, I find that very disquieting. That's likable? "He's the sort of guy you'd like to come to your barbecue" they keep saying. Not my barbedue, tat;s for sure. And that isn't about politics - I can just about imagine how some people might like his politics. What I can't get my head round is how anyone could like the man. (Or rather, the character he has created for public consumption, which I suspect may well bears little relation to the reality.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:21 PM

Kerry supporters need to ask themselves a few simple questions. Does your government consider you less of an American than you were four years ago? Did you personally do anything to deserve a demotion to second class citizenship? Did the Democrats stand up for you when your civil rights were assaulted? Did Kerry or Edwards utter a word in your defense?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:03 PM

Who is "We? dianavan? Everybody? I think it mostly just you speaking as an American ex-patriot.

I did not see the debate last night. I'm picking up from various reputable source what happened.

I was doing what most musicians I would think like to do on a Friday night. Playing and singing with other fine musicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:01 PM

There is nothing credible about the world's largest military bullying the rest of the world to remain in control of the oil, even if it is what drives the world's largest economy's engine.

The idea of a US senator who voted for the Patriot Act, defending the US constitution, is a joke, lawyer or not. And there is no reason why we should "give him a try". We already have his Senate record, and most especially his recent Senate record in which he supported every single major Bush legislative initiative, to go by.

We will NEVER reform the current corrupt system, by voting to maintain the status quo of the current corrupt system. You all need to take your status quo, inside the blinkered thinking box blinders off, and put your true reform minded thinking caps on.

Kerry and the corrupt Democratic party is NOT the answer to what ails the US. No matter how much those of you voting for Kerry wish to make it so.

You all sound very Peter Pan-ish naive. The only thing that will change the current path of destruction the US duopoly is being driven down by it's corporate masters, is a revolution at the ballot box.

And Kerry ain't no electoral revolutionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 01:47 PM

I agree with your last post, GUEST.

I do hate it when Kerry says he has a PLAN because I am not really sure what that plan is. To his credit, it seems that he is willing to open dialogue and try to restore U.S. credibility.

I, too, believe that reform is necessary. Bush thinks reform means stripping people of their human rights. I don't think Kerry agrees with that. I'd rather see Kerry in there than Bush. Nobody else has a chance. If Kerry is a good lawyer, he will defend the U.S. constitution and allow freedom of speech, freedom of moverment and the right to assembly. He hasn't been tested yet but for God's sake, give him a try.

We know Bush doesn't support those freedoms.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 01:02 PM

The answer is to fight terrorism with economic justice, democratic fairness, and equitable treatment of all the world's citizens, not militarism and high tech weaponry. The answer is to stop propping up despots in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, just so our global capitalists can get in and exploit ther nations' cheap labor and resources. The answer is to stop the war on the third world by the first world, by forcing the first world to change it's exploitative, regressive, destructive, and greedy ways through peaceful means, like the ballot box, supporting political dissent in the first world, instead of trying to bury it, which is what the liberal Democrats in all the world's so-called democracies are doing right now. Put fucking Israel in it's place, and pull the US funding plug of their military, and give the Palestinians a homeland RIGHT NOW. Pull out of Iraq RIGHT NOW.

There are a million things to do to make the Middle East and the world, including the US, safer from Islamic terrorism. But that isn't what the Republicrat and Dempublican leadership of the US has planned. It's more oil wars and war profiteering as far as the eye can see, as long as we, the citizens of the US, keep giving them the power to do it every four years without making a peep, allowing for protest and dissent, or, god forbid, working for parties and candidates who would actually REFORM our corrupt political system of governance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:54 PM

Damn straight this country needs third party participation, Fishpicker. But as long as the corporados own and operate the duopoly, and thereby the government, they won't be allowing any third party candidates to participate. Look at how the Democratic party has interfered with Nader even being legally put on the ballot? Or how about the idea of including the candidates from the largest third parties to participate in the debates? Fat chance of that! Not in the wake of Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura!

If Nader had been allowed to run a campaign without the legal intereference from the Democrats, and to participate in the debates, it is conceivable he could have pulled as many or more votes as Perot did when he got 18%. But no political party in power will ever allow a new party/independent candidate to succeed in bringing about true reform of a corrupt political system.

Northern Ireland is the perfect example of how reformist political parties get treated by the status quo political parties.

We saw in Ireland just how fast a legitimate political party can wreak havoc among the status quo politicians, when Sinn Fein was allowed to function as a regular political party, and started giving the pathetically wishy washy SDLP and Alliance parties at the polls. The result has been a circling of the wagons between the Brits, the Unionists, the SDLP, and the Alliance party in the North, and Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, and Labour party in the South, to keep Sinn Fein from making any political inroads north or south.

Which has also resulted in a decade long stalemate in the peace process, being effectively blocked by the mainstream political parties.

Same thing is happening here in the US. Neither Republicrats or Dempublicans will risk allowing for a dynamic where a third party or independent candidate could win the way Jesse Ventura won in Minnesota--which was to win the office by splitting the vote three ways, instead of two, and squeaking in with a handful more votes than the other two guys by capitalizing on widespread discontent among traditional non-voters who get energized when an outsider galvanizes public opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:40 PM

OK, I am with you that we had no business attacking Iraq, but I differ with you on the issue of those that harbor and support a terror network. I must admit to being surprised at your position of using Special Forces operatives to take out Bin Laden. But what about the martyr effect? When another steps up to take Osama's place, do we wait for the next attack? Or is it better to fight them on other shores? I think that building a worldwide coalition against terrorism, where ever it exists, is the key. Sometimes we must create polar positions. I would hold Israel to the same standard that I hold the Palestinians. I think one can create a set of standards that are embraced by the world community, and use it to hold nation states accountable.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:27 PM

I am not a pacifist. I am deeply opposed to militarism, especially US militarism. In the wake of 9/11, I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan as a "solution" to the US being attacked by terrorists. The invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban WILL NOT stop terrorist attacks against the US at home or abroad. The invasion of Afghanistan was all about vengeance, just like the war on Iraq is about vengeance. And that is why the majority of Americans, who are very militaristic, and broadly defend the US' imperialist policies, are behind those wars on innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians.

The current wave of vengeful militarism being pursued by the US may well result in the downfall of our nation. The proper response to 9/11 was to send out the Special Forces to actually take out Bin Laden, once we were convinced that it was Al Qaida that attacked us, with or without the cooperation of the nations which are harboring him and the Al Qaida network: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Invading and occupying two sovereign nations that were not connected to the attacks on the US WAS NOT the right response to 9/11. "Harboring terrorists" was a lame, pathetic excuse to pursue the Bush Doctrine of unilateral, pre-emptive, unprovoked invasions and occupations of sovereign nations in violation of international law and the UN charter. The only meaningful result is the US waging imperial wars in other peoples' nations, to maintain the US grip on the world oil supply.

Vengeance for 9/11 was the justification for bombing the hell out of people who had nothing to do with the attacks. That isn't a sound military policy rooted in the concepts of self-defense, nor was it a sound military solution to the threat of attack by Islamic terrorists. They'll be back, and with a vengeance to match our own.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. And both Bush and Kerry are using that tactic as if it were legitimate and sound military self-defense. It isn't. Not only is Iraq much more dangerous now than it was with Saddam contained and neutralized, but the entire world is now teetering on the brink of destruction of the leading democracies, all in the pursuit of militaristic vengeance, and an American thirst for Muslim blood which is every bit as horrific as the Islamic terrorists' thirst for American blood.

There are millions of ways to protect the US and and the world's interests in the Middle East, but neither Bush nor Kerry are talking about them. They both are talking about maintaining the corporate militarism strategy status quo, to keep control of the world's oil supply as it begins to run out. They could care less about the death and damage that wreaks on the peoples and environment of the Middle East. Or Nigeria. Or Venezuela. Or Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:53 AM

Ron, he did say it in the debate last night, but the media kind of glossed over it.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Fishpicker
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:49 AM

The fact is, the first liar doesn't have a chance. I would have to base my choice, when entering the voting booth, on which one of these guys has done more to destroy my constitutional and civil rights-----------------that is going to be an easy choice!
This country is in desperate need of a viable third party!

                            FP

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:48 AM

Mick, that's great information (regarding the $ 87 million). Hope Kerry starts saying it on the campaign trail--should defuse one of Bush's favorite lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:39 AM

OK, Guest, we all know what you are against but what are you for? I have specific questions for you. I am not looking for Nader's view here, I am looking for you.

Your disdain of the military and anyone who served in it is well documented. Given that you hate militarism, how would you deal with threats to this nation and its society? Name your poison, from Soviet Union to Al Qaeda, what would be your solution for those that seek to destroy our nation?

Speaking of Al Qaeda, how would you have responded to 9/11? Or to any attack on the US? How would you resolve it?

I agree that we should never have been in Iraq to begin with. But now that we are there, how would you suggest we withdraw? Should we just leave it and let the bloodbath begin? Do we leave without reconstruction? Or do we try to rebuild the infrastructure that this sad little man has destroyed?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:05 AM

Their positions on Iraq and the war on terror are identical. Kerry's so-called plan doesn't offer one single difference in tactics from the Bush plan. It is merely a question of which candidate do you believe will be able to "internationalize" America's imperial wars around the globe.

Make no mistake: Kerry is a hawk, and Kerry has said repeatedly he will stay the Bush course, and that he intends to pursue the same unilateral and pre-emptive military policies now known as the Bush Doctrine.

Anyone who believes that Kerry isn't a military hawk that supports the Iraq war, the war on terror, and a pre-emptive unilateral military policy is deluding themselves, in order to justify voting for Kerry.

The so-called liberal left in this country is engaged in a massive campaign of self-deception, in order to justify their hatred of the right wing Republicans who have successfully stolen power from the wishy washy Republicratic party. Kerry is their current emperor with no clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:01 AM

This GUEST, artbrooks, has a persecution complex. S/he thinks s/he should be allowed to take positions without being held accountable. Her/his theory that I stalk him/her can be disproved by simply noticing how many times I have not attacked his/her position. It's just when s/he jumps in to try and spin so that GWB can be re-elected that I jump in.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 10:47 AM

Guest, you remind me a little of another ANON.GUEST we had visiting awhile back. His/her suggestion was that Mr. Bush should be allowed to win, because 4 more years of him was the only way to guarantee that a truly "progressive" movement could get in, legally or by violent overthrow. Sorry, but I believe that Mr. Kerry should be given his opportunity, and I really don't agree that he and Mr. Bush are essentially interchangable.