The MinuteMen on Politics

#23: Our Roles at their Polls

2004-12-10T13:32:00.000-05:00

THREAD BEGAN: December 10th, 2004
BOB: Well, it seems everyone at the Blog is hoping for a positive outcome in the Iraqi National Election (while some are more optimistic than others). The real question though is:

---How hands-on should the U.S. be in the Iraqi Election?---

The CANDIDATES on the BALLOT:
Should the U.S. bar certain elements from running? Who exactly?
What about religious fundamentalists, radical anti-American candidates, former Baathist Party members, and Muqtada al-Sadr?

The AIR WAVES:
Should the pre-election media be censored / manipulated? How?
Should the airwaves be open to radical candidates?
Should the U.S. shut down papers that preach anti-Americanism, destabilization or lies?

The GOLDEN BOY:
Should the U.S. back a candidate... Openly? Financially? How?

ALSO:
Will this U.S. intervention backfire? Now is the time to make any last minute predictions about the election outcome or update your last one. (See Thread #4 for a refresher, details and previous predictions).

The Format Poll results are in (10 to 3): So, we will stick with this format, and not allow anonymous posts.

Welcome, to all new participants.

#22: Our Parties & Our Guns

2004-12-02T10:32:00.001-05:00

THREAD BEGAN: December 2nd, 2004
Well 50+ posts in 4 days...not bad.
But now it is time to put together a coherent thread.

---The Topics---

FROM THE LEFT:
After this devastating election, it is time for us to stop pouting and start talking about what changes need to be made within The Democratic Party. What kind of leadership changes do we need to make, what adjustments need to be made to the platform or the message or the delivery?
(Feel free to talk about 3rd party alternatives as well.)

FROM THE RIGHT:
To continue to talk about the 2nd Amendment we need a strong pro-gun voice. Explain your case.
(Also feel free to address changes that you feel need to be made within The Republican Party.)

ALSO:
The Left should address Pete’s concerns about the Oil for Food Scandal and the relevance of the UN.
The Right should address Chuck’s concerns about Bush’s non-implementation of the 9-11 recommendations.

More self-reflection, less finger-pointing. Good luck. -Bob

#21: Fresh Start?

2004-11-29T12:18:00.000-05:00

THREAD BEGAN: November 29th, 2004
From now on, all contributions to this forum will be made by posting comments at the bottom of each thread.
(1) Click on '# comments' then on 'Post a Comment' to get to Comment Sign-In.
(2) At Comment Sign-In:
-----Those of you who have a Blog can click 'Sign In'.
-----Those who don't can click 'Get One Now' or 'Or Post Anonymously'.
-----If you are posting Anonymously begin every post with "YOURNAME:"

I will start a new thread when/if this one gets too long.
Enjoy, but remember...

Please keep each post to under 500 words
Try to limit the cut-and-paste (use links when possible)
Play nice

#20: The Last, Last Word.

2004-11-21T08:21:00.000-05:00

THREAD POSTED: November 21st, 2004
The last, last word is my compensation for maintaining this site.
Check thread #19 for the final posts of the other members.

BOB: Well, it’s been fun.
I’d like to thank each and every person who participated in the Blog. Everyone brought something to the table. (Some days, some people brought too much to the table.) Anyhow, thanks for playing.
Now…on to the awards: (Drum roll, please)

MOST PROFOUND:
KYLE: “The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with 9/11”
ABRAMOVICH: “Its pretty sad that Kerry is the best democrat you have to go against Bush.”
NUGENT: “[religion] is a crutch for weak minded people and is probably the number one hangup for human progress.”
PETE: “The problem is that people that don't understand conservatism think that it's all about greed.”
CHUCK: “if your raw belief in survival of the fittest was so true, then why is Bush president?”
ZELIN: “Many people are quick to attack the liberal agenda without even understanding what it stands for”
BEN: “i guess a majority of americans are morons”
SAMMY: “Hey, think about it, without abortion Coffee and Morgan would have children right now.”

STUPIDEST:
All of the REPs that were unable to admit that Saddam didn’t have WMDs.
All of the DEMs that tried to justify Kerry’s Iraq votes.

LOW POINTS:
(3) Sammy’s drunk submissions.
(2) The word ‘IMMINENT.’
(1) When Jay ‘outed’ me to his non-Blog friends. I love you man, but that one still pisses me off.
JAY: “i have forwarded [your] remark to everyone on my contact list and you should see the reactions. apparently you're the devil.”

HIGH POINT:
Ben’s Electoral College overview. Thanks again, Ben.
Thread #12 “Where have all the Cowboys Gone?”

SCARIEST NUGENT QUOTES:
(5) “I’m not sure what the big problem with the Iraq war is anyhow. Is it a human rights issue, or is it that we’re pissing off France?”
(4) “You’re upset about the 1000th American death?”
(3) “Greed in all forms, and the ensuing competition, have marked the upward surge of mankind for the past 7 million years”
(2) Note: Nugent uses the term ‘war machine’ as a positive: “This has created a very indecisive system. And what is stemming from this, is a roadmap to victory for our enemies. All they need to do is survive and the strength of our liberal movements will halt the war machine.”
(1) “Liberalism is this countries greatest enemy and will eventually be its undoing.”

FAVORITE CHUCK RANTINGS:
(7) Chuck’s first F-bomb: “Jay…I am really pissed at your fucking ridiculous email, trying to make me look bad.”
(6) “Also, I wish Jay would not be allowed to claim he might not vote for Bush. It insults everyone of us.”
(5) “I have just snapped....i kept my composure for a long time, but i cant take it anymore.....BUSH IS NOT MAKING US SAFER!”
(4) “lets forget about Jay, and move on.”
(3) “NOTHING COMPARES TO BUSH'S FAILURE!”
(2) “holy shit, jay didn’t demand more answers to stupid questions!”
(1) “IRAQ IS A FUCKING DISASTER!”

MOST ANNOYING JAY MOMENT:
When Jay refused to believe that I (and Patty and Maney) don’t remember talking about Afganistan:
JAY: “bob, are you going to sit there and insult me and yourself by totally lying? you don't remember sitting at a booth at arnies w/ patty and i adamantly protesting the war in afghanistan? you and patty were saying how the civilian casualties outweighed the benefits of the war. i'm sure maney will remember.”

FAVORITE BIG VOCAB:
PETE: “Domestic concerns should always be secondary to dealing with those wish to kill everyone in the domicile.”

BEST ANALOGY:
In regards to a statement that only 1/3 of Iraqis celebrate U.S. casualties and therefore U.S. presence is welcomed by the majority of Iraqis:
BOB: “Jay, you have 'dated' alot of women...yes?
Imagine for a moment, If 1/3 of these women said that they'd like to see you die.....would you say: "But 2/3 of the girls that I 'dated' DONT want to see me die! So that just proves that the overwhelming majority are glad that they 'dated' me!”

MOST DILUSIONAL:
(1) Anyone who Included Iraq in the Coalition.
(2) Defending Bush with survival of the fittest logic.

MOST IDEALISTIC:
CHUCK: “Rich democrats are not hipocrites, they are role models. They are not selfish.”
About the 380 tons of missing weapons:
SAMMY: “[Iraq] was using these explosives for civilian projects, mining, and to destroy old weapons factories. If anything, these explosives were a good thing, helping disarm old factories that one day could make WMD's.”

LOWEST BLOW:
JAY: “Bob wants death”

BEST COME BACKS:
JAY: “We managed to destroy or contain well over 99% of the highly explosive material."
KYLE: “The problem is that Iraq lacked well over 99% of any weapons of mass destruction and Bush has not admitted that he is wasting our time and resources in a country that had well under 1% to do with 9/11.”
-----
ABRAMOVICH: “In Kerry's senior yearbook at Yale he is listed as a "Young Republican."”
CHUCK: “In Bush's college career he was a cocaine abuser, alcholic, and when sober.......a fucking cheerleader!”

MOST IGNORANT:
PETE: “[European countries (especially Scandinavian ones)] are for the most part sorely lacking in diversity, creativity, productivity, and intellectual discourse that we enjoy in this country.”
ABRAMOVICH: “That dumb bitch Theresa Heinz has killed any hopes of her husband being elected.”
NUGENT: “Now unfortunately there are enough movie stars, college students and gays to make up a Democratic party.”

BEST CLARRIFICATION:
CHUCK: “Bob has a vision of what makes us safer. It seems to involve never tolerating preemptive attacks. And if there is death needed to eliminate the bush doctrine, then so be it. Another vision is that preemption is needed to make us safer. And if there is death needed to eliminate a possible threat, then so be it.
So Jay (and others) can quit acting like Bob is Dr. Death. You both have the same goal: A Safer World, and America. You just have different views of how its accomplished. I agree w/ Bob. And I assume Bob agrees, that hopefully the Bush Doctrine can be eliminated w/out more death. Just as I am sure Jay wishes we could have eliminated Sadaam w/out any death.”

BIGGEST HYPOCRACY:
NUGENT: “For every social program you enact,...you spoil people to the point that they can not stand to see the slightest suffering.” + "I believe that programs to help people in the position of my mom and brother are necessary."

FAVORITE BACK-AND-FORTH:
DAN: “These criminals are some of the people who reap the benefits of my tax dollars the through welfare they may collect and blow on drugs, as well as paying for the court systems they end up in. Poor choices, huh? How about letting these people make the same "poor" choice THREE times before imprisioning them. Sounds like something worth fighting for!!!”
CHUCK: “[DAN] YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT LEAST 2 TIMES.....BUT YOU WANT TO GIVE THE LIFE IN PRISON for 3 strikes people!”
DAN: “I have been arrested ONE time!”
[Then I mentioned: That thing Dan did when I had to bail him out on vacation]
DAN: “I stand corrected...I've been arrested twice.”

ARE YOU KIDDING?
PETE: “It is insignificant whether or not WMDs were found inside Iraq.”
JAY: "[Saddam] had the potential for bringing all of the Middle East petroleum reserves under his control."

BEST PLAYED SARCASM:
KYLE: “I give Republicans credit for getting all those working poor people to vote for them by putting the ten commandments in city hall and keeping evolution and birth control out of the classroom.”

FUNNIEST:
MANEY: “I am bi curious”
CHUCK: “Dan…you are good at cutting and pasting (do you use right click, or ctrl-C?)”
JAY: "by that time [Saddam] could have hidden WMDs up his mammas cutchie!"
SAMMY: “Chuck never has been at the white House or camp david, and never smoked weed their.”
ZELIN: “You think there is something wrong with putting it in the pooper?”
MANEY: “[BOB] I don't think u realize that [NUGENT] is no longer human. He is freaking huge! He could rip your arms off and then beat you with them.”
BOB: “[Bush] is about as much of a survivor as Paris Hilton!”
JAY: “The more boners the marrier”
About illegal downloading:
SAMMY: “Personally I support almost all of the bands I have downloaded, and about half of the porn.”
About the Kerry and Bush records:
CHUCK: “Here is the biggest contrast I have: WHILE KERRY WAS VOTING IN THE SENATE, BUSH WAS A DRUG ABUSING ALCOHOLIC!”

REGRETS:
(1) Calling Abramovich an idiot. It was post-election aggression.
(2) My dissection on the Republican Party…I let Nugent get under my skin.

LESSONS LEARNED:
Pick your fights.
Sometimes less is more.

CONCESSIONS:
It’s sad, but true:
JAY: “When you guys make your arguments stating how the war in iraq is going to shit, i think that's what you want. you and all the democrats want to see bush fail so it hurts his campaign around election time.”

WELL SAID:
SAMMY: “Bush will win the election, and I just don't know why”

REMEMBER:
Don’t forget to check back after Jan 30th to see whose Iraqi Election predictions were closest. (thread 4)

MY CLOSING THOUGHT:
Imagine you go to visit Jeff or Bailey in L.A. for a week.
There, you go out drinking in some posh Santa Monica club with a bunch of rich, valley girls who drive the new hummer and have never worked a day in their lives. You tell them you are from Ohio. They ask, if you have running water and electricity on your farm. (And they're not joking.)
Like it or not, this is the way much of the rest of the world views you and I.

I talk to Brazilian student all the time that have studied in the U.S. They all have stories about Americans asking them if they ride elephants to school and if they have running water, electricity and ‘buildings.’

Care to test your ‘worldliness?’
-----What is the Capital of Canada?
-----Where exactly is Puerto Rico? (We own it!)
-----Who is the President of Mexico?
-----Name one country in Central America.
(…And these guys are our closest neighbors!)

Please, don’t get defensive! We are all in this boat together, DEMs and REPs alike.
I don’t know about you guys, but I managed to surf through high school, and rock the SATs without being able to find Brazil on a globe. And college wasn’t much better. It isn’t just Geography either. I am talking about World History, U.S. History, Political Science, Foreign Language etc.

We all have this deep-rooted sensation that everything outside our borders is somehow primitive and/or inferior. When I say, “I am living with a Brazilian family,” what do you picture? Honestly! (Probably not the Sharper Images catalog. Maybe some kind of mud-hut?) But most of my students here live in houses just like ours (excluding Jay) and wear clothes just like ours (excluding Sammartano).

Anti-Americanism appears to most Americans to be nothing more than jealousy or evil (or both). They don’t associate it with our foreign policy mistakes, but our economic success and moral righteousness. The more people hate us, the prouder we get! And the more defensive we get. “No more French fries in my house!”

So why do they hate us so much?
Well, I can only tell you what I have experienced in my last year and a half living in South America. The majority of the people I have met through the language school (German, Cuban, French, Mexican, Paraguayan, Brazilian) are just plain disappointed in us.
This is how many Brazilians see it: 120 million Americans are voting to decide the fate of the world…and they can’t find Brazil on a map! They don’t realize how their policies affect South America and could care less.
Brazilians watch our television channels and see us standing on our soapbox, preaching about spreading Freedom and Democracy; disguising our interventions in Central and South America and the Middle East as humanitarian efforts rather than efforts to protect and further our own interests.
They watch our movies and listen to our music and they see all Latin Americans portrayed as impoverished Spanish-speaking Mexicans or Aboriginal vine-swingers.

I am almost out of words, so I will try to come to a point here;
We have a problem that is bigger than Osama, bigger than the War on Terrorism.
I see these (not entirely, but in large part) as symptoms of two much deeper problems:
(1) Our education system needs a complete overhaul.
(2) We need an attitude adjustment.
Until the average American has a better understanding about the outside world, about the way our businesses operate overseas, about the effects of our own foreign policy, we will never be safe from the likes of terrorists.
Peace Out,
Hewitt

PS And don't forget (especially, the future lawyers in the group):
“Those who never retract their opinions, love themselves more than they love truth.”

#19: The Last Word.

2004-11-10T09:28:00.000-05:00

THREAD BEGAN, November 9th, 2004
A little Blog closure...

BOB: Well, it's over.
It seems that post-election participation is dwindling and will soon become nothing more than Jay practicing being a lawyer on me. So, I am calling for ONE LAST POST.
Please tell me your favorite Blog moment: maybe the most profound thing that was said...maybe the stupidest. Any regrets? Any concessions? Any lessons learned?
I’d like everyone to say something! (You have 84,000 words to pick through!)
Anyhow, I’d like to that genuinely thank everyone for participating during this turbulent election year and I’ll look you up in mid-2007 for another round (If I don't see you in the Valley before then). I’ll post my final words shortly.

CHUCK: Bob, your points about others in our discussion not making concessions. That is why i have just quit responding.
And my feelings were confirmed this weekend when I met a Bush campaign volunteer. The 2 of us got along well, but we were told by mutual friends to not discuss politics, because we would kill eachother. Well at about 3am the inevitable argument started. We yelled about the validity of Iraq. We were pretty lighthearted about it, because we both agreed we were emotional and mentally drained from it all. So then I made my claim (which i made in our discussions) that the corporate media is one of the reasons Bush won. And something amazing happened.......HE AGREED. This same kid that i yelled at/with for an hour and disagree w/ all of his political values......and HE AGREED. It made me feel sane. And it reminded me that the discussion we had here, while stimulating at times, involved too much unbending compromise by the conservatives. (which was thoroughly illustrated by bob's email) Additionally, while i am sure he is busy, I really find it unacceptable that Pete randomly comes in w/ all sorts of claims and rhetoric, then when i spend a long time giving a detailed response.....he says nothing.
I regret ever getting personal. Just because it makes me look like a dick. I do personally think people sounded like idiots, plenty, but i should not act like some superior asshole. Plus, I was wrong and inaccurate plenty of times, so i regret acting like a know-it-all.
FUNNIEST MOMENT: I re-read the blog. Viscione says Bush won the first debate. That is the funniest thing ever. If you ever need an example of a man blinded by his unknowing love of the republicans, its a person think Bush won the first debate.
Overall, good times. I would hope the website can stay afloat, and we can just post stuff in the comments section at the bottom, because this stuff still matters. I am going to try to step back for a few months, and really just follow iraq with optimism. And when bush gets going early next year with his radical domestic agenda, the 50 Million Plus that voted for Kerry will have to scrap and battle to keep things under control.
One final thought. Most of our discussion has been essentially about national security. Well, New York City (a city w/ a GOP mayor and governor) was the location of the biggest terror attack ever killing 3000, and continue to be the most threatened city in our country. And 85% voted for Kerry.

BEN: PROFOUND- well i would say my electoral college prediction - because it was pretty much dead on (except New Mexico, which i changed at the last minute on my website) - and saying a month ago bush would win on moral issues because that is what most rural voters care about - not the war or the economy. i was laughed off here and elsehwere. well the "dumb red state hicks" came through after all for us. democrats always said they would win the turnout battle and i disagreed because of those red staters.
STUPIDEST- bob hewitt saying he wanted more american troops to die in Iraq then having to backtrack after creating a firestorm. sorry bob
CONCESSIONS- i couldnt push people around with my facts like i could in the winter and spring - because the other side starting learning their talking points. many of you were much more formidable in responding to me than i expected - not because i think i am smarter, but because i didnt think you knew what you were talking about. you did, and sometimes you got me. though not often
for myself, nothing is over. i cant take a day off - we already have fights to worry about in our party (who will chair the senate judicary cmte) to pending supreme court nominations and I am already looking at the 2006 senate races. somewhere, i know someone just like me on the other side is doing the same - and i dont want to be caught flat footed.
as i have done here, i wont be afriad to call out bush when i think he is doing wrong - for instance i am still against the federal ban on gay marriage - the states seem to be handling it just fine. i hope he doesnt go down that road. i am not pro gay, but i am pro not tampering with the constitution.
however, i am much more interested in the question of why people voted why they did, voting pattern shifts, and demographic and migration changes than i am the actual governance.
it was a good run, but I knew we would win. bottom line is Kerry was not a winning candidate, and since the 1994 Republican revolution the Democrats have been devoid of good candiates on a national level - basically because they have no southern governors that are decent. 2008 looks like they might have a chance - but they have to nominate the right person - if yall nomiate HRC she will go down in flames like Kerry did. You cant write off the entire south of the country and expect to win - and she wont come close to winning any of southern states.

KYLE: My favorite blog moment was said by Viscione in the first thread: "Kyle, Here is an example of a "luxury afforded to people who failed due to their own poor choices,".......The three strikes and your out policy."
Stupid - i'd like to be taken off the conservative poll and be placed in a new section labeled "Libertarian." - Jay. I say stupid because he was so pro-Bush.
Profound - ABRAMOVICH: ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVENT. WE WON. BUSH CHENEY '04
I have no regrets about the race. I supported John Kerry and don't apologize for it. I hope you all are right about GWB. I will be happy to continue to discuss the issues of the day in blog forums or at after hours parties at John Sammartano's apartment where the conservatives in the room can be indentified as the ones not wearing a shirt. Bob and Jay, thanks for running this thing. Zelin and Hewitt... safe travels and we'll see you when you get back.

JAY: i was "so pro bush" on one issue and one issue only (terrorism). does that mean i'm conservative? no. in war time i think the last person we want running our country is a "far lefter." on most of the other issues i sided w/ the democrats.
so, what does jay think is the most stupid statment on the blog: People have criticized me for my statement, "i'm not a conservative." i have pointed out time and time again why i'm not, and you still give me that label. what do i have to do, actually turn gay, get married to a dude, kill a few babies, and start my own stem cell research lab? how do you label someone a conservative or liberal? i'd like to say on their stances on a majority of the issues. if you ACTUALLY LOOK at my stances, what is my label?
maybe if the democrats ran w/ a moderate, or someone who could make a decision, or someone who didn't contradict themselves on the most important issue i'd be labeled a democrat.

MANEY: Well, my response will be simple as usual. For me I think it is pretty funny how everyone went at each other. I could only imagine what it would have been like if we all were at a bar. For me the most important thing I got out of this was the information. At work once in a while I could get online and see what was going on, but not a lot. Then after work I just wanted to relax, so reading everyone's e mail was really informative. Hell, I even voted this election when I did not plan on it. I just felt to guilty if I did not. I was more informed on this election than the past two 00 and 96 by far. On top of that I have watched over 6 documentaries about this election too. So me voting was my highlight. Take care everyone.

KYLE: Jay, I wasn't trying to rip on you or tell you what you think. I just can't recall an instance during the course of our discussion where you didn't defend the President. If you will recall on Saturday during our "mock debate" you were on the conservative side of the room. I don't know if I can hold that against you because were were all pretty schnockered and you and Maney were rock'in out.

JAY: true true. and we definitely were rockin out. all of our debates focused around iraq. i don't think we ever divulged into social issues. on the social side, as long as it doesn't hurt me or anyone else, do what you want.
For real (my reply to kyle aside), the two things that stood out to me:
1. Bob claiming he was never against the war in Afghanistan. I specifically remember him and Patty teaming up on me at Arnies about how innocent women and children will be killed and it's just wrong. I replied with something like you'll always have casualties and with the technology we have today those casualties in Afghanistan will be limited.
2. The missing weapons: Some people tried to argue that even if the weapons were taken prior to the U.S. going in, it's still Bush's fault. These are the same people who thought we should never go in. They're contradicting themselves. Sjould we have gone in and secure the weapons while we were giving them time to comply w/ the resolutions? I don't understand their logic. Did you want us to go in or not?

SAMMY: The best thing about this blog would have to be Maney. Maney was the key to this blog. When things would get hot and heavy, Maney would chime in with a question of pulling out or wearing a condom. You gotta admit Maney's timing was perfect.
Stupidest thing- I would have to say anything Nugent posted. No, I am kidding, Nugent had great moments, and his words had me so lost that I could only agree with him. Take it as a good thing Nugent.
The Real Stupidest thing- It would have to be one of the last postings about the pentagon crash. Their was obviously an airplane, lives were lost, their was no missile. I would like to thank Jay for providing websites and sources to prove this. I must admit the little conspiracy theory video was entertaining, but I would never acknowledge it.
Concession- I hope their are no hard feelings held, things did get personal, and I'd hate for anything said to apply to us in a social setting.
Regrets- The one thing I regret the most is that I did not access to my e-mail during the day. Most of the time I am out in the field at work. And when I did get to a computer Jay and Chuck already had posted 20 things and went through 5 different topics. It was hard to keep up. And things I wanted to discuss already had been said or new topics took over.
One last thing, I have to say that I loved this. At the Blogs highest point I could not get enough. All I had on my mind was the last thing posted. And when I got home from work, I was sure I was going to reply to at least one posting. I also think we should keep in contact and argue over the nations current events.

DAN: After having read several of your posts, I have to say, there is some weird deja vu, I'm leaving my best friends for college, vibe going on. Seriously, it's kinda scary. I feel like I'll never see any of you again....some for good reasons!!!
All joking aside, I am proud to be part of this blog and have the opportunity to enjoy a more mature dialog between us, and to be "adults" with you guys. I'm not saying that getting wasted the night before T-giving, and acting like idiots isn't great either, but this was nice change of pace. I am so impressed with the participation and the emotion (whether irate or in be in agreement), behind what each of us has written. I have learned a great deal from each of you, your characters, and your beliefs. Some of which, I may never have had the opportunity to discover and exchange views. I, like Sammartano, have come home from work and gone directly to my computer to check the newest postings, and honestly, looked forward to the responses, as well as writing my own. Thank you all for participating.
Profound - Maybe not the MOST profound thing said, but I really liked my e-mail in response to Hewitt's claim on how minimal the troops being sent by other members of the Coalition was a sad showing of military efforts. I retorted by putting into perspective the amount of soldiers being sent as compared to the total amount of soldiers in their military, as well as expressing that other efforts were being made through sending medicine, food, textiles, etc. - Blog #2: Coalition of the Willing?
Stupidest - Zelin's claim on how Barbra Streisand was singled out as a threat during that 9-11 internet video I told everyone to watch. He even used the word, "Fuck." Personally, I think it is because she is a Jew and Zelin feels he needs to stick up for his people...I commend that. - Blog #2: Coalition of the Willing?
Concession - I admit now to Bush's failure during the debates. At best he won one of them. Though, I couldn't crack under all the pressure. I had to stand strong. I was like Keer Murphy's parents at a Revere football game...when Keer did bad on extra point, his parents still rooted for him. Well, I did the same for Bush.
Regrets - My only regret is not responding to different issues, here and there, for what ever reason seemed plausible at the time, namely, laziness. Many issues went untouched. Some more important than others.
May I be the first to say, this is the end of an election, I hope it isn't the end of our Blog. There are many thing in which we can argue. Politics just happened to be convenient. I truly hope it isn't until mid 2007 until we Blog again. I vote to keep The Minutemen Blog going.....It's officially 1-0, for continuation. (Just think, 150,000 more of these "votes," and we may have had ourselves a new President......my one and only low-blow to you Dems).

ZELIN: Hello my Ohio brothers,
Well, I guess it is all over. Just when I had started to get comfortable taking direct shots at my friends. So sad. Really, was great having this dialogue and I learned quite a bit about the issues on the opposing side. Upon leaving San Francisco, I always said that I truly wanted to know what the other side felt about this election, and now I feel that I have somewhat of an understanding.
Favorite Blog Moment: I guess I would have to say Maney as well. At times, I would open up my inbox and see 25 emails from Jay. I would often delete them (sorry Jay) and go right to Maney’s to see what today’s breaking issue was about. Thanks Maney, for keeping us abreast on the real important issues.
Stupidest Blog Moment: All of us, for thinking for a second that we truly knew what was going on in the ground in Iraq. I believe it is good to discuss the decisions our nation made and what has come out of it, but to start making assumptions about how the Iraqi’s feel and their sentiments towards this whole war is senseless. I just find it hard to believe, how a bunch of mid to upper class Ohio boys can make assumptions about Iraqi citizens.
Regrets: none
Concessions: No matter how hard I try, I realize that I am not able to view politics from both political sides. I do make an attempt to understand where Republicans are coming from, but often find it very difficult.
Lessons learned: Interesting what you don’t know about your friends until you begin discussing politics.
Final Statement: Congrats to the Republicans. You got your guy back in office and I truly am impressed with their campaign. It still amazes me how so many people who honestly would have benefited more from a democratic platform, where convinced to vote for Bush. Honestly, I do feel very emotional about the outcome of this election and am scared of the direction our nation is going in. I can’t help but view this increasing conservatism and unilateralism as a step backward. I truly hope that I am proven wrong and that these next four years are prosperous and successful, not only for our nation, but the rest of the world. I always consider myself a patriot, even more now, that I am living out of the U.S., but I will do my best to represent the America I know and love, which I am slowly learning, is a hell of lot different from the one many other people love.
I leave you with an article summing up some of my views:
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4045

#18: The Pentagon Plane? > Hopeless?

2004-11-07T13:25:00.000-05:00

THREAD BEGAN, November 6th, 2004
The quiet after the storm...

BOB: HEY ALL, This is a link to a shocking, short video that "proves" that a plane never hit the Pentagon. WATCH IT...and respond:
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

JAY: Originally I treated these conspiracies as a joke, but when people in other countries and the U.S. eat them up creating a greater hatred for the U.S., I feel compelled to respond. It's sad that people tarnish the memories of those who parished by spreading these lies. However, don't only listen to me. I'd like you to go to these web sites and educate yourselves about the "conspiracy" before you go spreading more propoganda. The first thing that should jump out at you are the creators of the "conspiracy." I hope you aren't encouraging this. Ask your students to do an in depth investigation on the story and see what they find. Here are some web sites, but feel free to investigate yourselves:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13059-2004Oct6?language=printer
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gpentagon/frame.htm
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
http://www.montalk.net/pentagon.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/26/france.book/
Informed decisions just make more sense.

BOB: Abramovich, you are amazing!
In the 16th thread you submitted a 344 word post that, although I could be wrong, I assume you didn’t write. In it, there were several strange claims which I asked you to back up or explain. My questions were:
1) How exactly do you figure that 2/3 of al-Qaeda has been brought to justice?
2) If the 9-11 commission was such a good idea, why did Bush originally oppose it?
3) What evidence do you have that Saddam gave money and aid to al-Qaeda?
4) What were the dangerous powers, weapons and technologies that you were referring to in this sentence: "BUSH declared war on Iraq to prevent any future attacks on the US…by a man who had the power, weapons, and technology to do so."
Since my questions, you have sent two emails. The first was yet another cut-and-paste job. The second was about the weather. So Abramovich, were you just talking out your ass, or do you have some answers for us?

ABRAMOVICH: ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVENT. WE WON. BUSH CHENEY '04
In response to your claim that Saddam did not give money or aid to al-Qaeda.....
Yes this was copied and pasted:
Its roots date back to 1990, shortly after the Islamist coup that converted Sudan into a terrorist haven to which bin Laden would move his fledgling al-Qaeda. Saddam had invaded Kuwait, and found himself under siege by a U.S.-led coalition” which in turn provoked Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi, bin Laden, and others to begin calling for worldwide jihad. Turabi embraced Saddam and brokered an uneasy accommodation between Iraq and the militants” inducing the secular Baathist to incorporate elements of Islamic sharia into Iraqi law, while convincing wary militants that aligning with Saddam was a necessary evil.
It worked. Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) records recovered last year reveal that, by 1992, bin Laden was already regarded as an IIS asset, while Saddam was hosting Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad” who would later become bin Laden's second-in-command. By 1994, the two sides came to an understanding: Al-Qaeda would not work against Iraq, but would cooperate with it on some projects, including weapons development. IIS provided al-Qaeda with phony passports; Iraq also set up secret training camps for terrorists, where the IIS special-operations division provided schooling in assassination and hijacking.
If these early contacts now appear jarring, it owes to the verve with which the anti-Bush, anti“Iraq-war propagandists have whitewashed Saddam's promotion of terrorism” a history that was once a staple of Clinton-administration rhetoric, and led one defector (an IIS terrorist-trainer) to observe that "Saddam is the father and the grandfather of terrorists."
The myth that a "heathen" like Saddam could never have made common cause with radical Muslims. Saddam was more an opportunist than a committed secularist. In the 1990s, as necessity drove him further into the arms of militants, he energetically countered that secularist image, infusing his speeches with jihadist fire and assiduously courting radicals through "Popular Islamic Conferences" that brought together the most vicious militant organizations on earth.
Bin Laden himself is equal parts zealot and realist. The hazards of knitting together a fractious international terrorist network, one grounded more on hatred of the U.S. than ideological consistency, have often impelled him to strike strategic deals with the likes of Turabi (more modernist than bin Laden) and Hezbollah (Shiites, whom radical Sunnis like bin Laden have historically despised). Entanglements with Saddam were well within the parameters of practical entente. But each side had great incentives for keeping the dealings secret: Saddam sought to avoid a ruinous confrontation with the U.S., and bin Laden needed to keep his global confederation together.
In early February 1998, Zawahiri was in Iraq, negotiating training arrangements and collecting $300,000 from the IIS. Saddam, meanwhile, was making a mockery of weapons inspections, prompting a warning from President Clinton on February 17 against a "rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." Two... OVER WORD LIMIT

BOB: Well Abramovich, I asked you to simply explain FOUR claims that you made. You send yet another unsited, cut-and-past thesis to address ONE. The other THREE, I assume, will remain forever unanswered. (By the way when you cut and paste something from the internet…site it, please! We would all love to know where Abramovich’s opinion is coming from, cause it certainly isn’t Abramovich.) And what was your justification for not explaining the other THREE points:
“ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVENT. WE WON. BUSH CHENEY '04”
Maybe you’re right, Abramovich. Maybe the fact that you can’t summarize your own opinion is irrelevant; the fact that you can’t back up your own claims; the truth about Saddam’s relationship with Osama; all the exaggerations and lies of this administration. Who gives a shit now?!…Bush’s mind-fuck worked. So much so, that you don’t even see a problem with the fact that you can’t back-up the claims that you’ve been regurgitating for the past year like a parrot.

ZELIN: Jay, this is for you. Thought you might find this interesting, or maybe not. Ignorance might have played as big a role in the election's outcome as values...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html ex=1100968917&ei=1&en=811facd285bb2410

JAY: i guess it's interesting? just to point out, it is from the ny times. i really don't trust these surveys and polls that much, but they are funny to read. excuses, reasons, justifications, or revenge? who knows the motivations for these articles. i've read that 70% of kerry votes were simply b/c they didn't like bush. is that ignorance? again, i think these surveys all contain some bias.

BOB: Zelin, Great article! If it is true that the majority of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda, and that one in three believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion...then it's official...we are fucked.
During this Blog experience I was highly critical of Kerry, calling some of his actions ‘unforgivable’ and ‘pathetic’ and at times admitting, 'I am deeply disappointed in the Democratic Party.' At one point, I compared Kerry to, 'a piece of petrified wood, with the exception of his shaky hands.'
I even wrote 'ten reasons that I love the Republican platform’ and confessed that ‘the traditional, Republican Economic Platform is better for America.’ Not to mention apologizing for at least one self-proclaimed ‘childish reply.’
But the Right…they can’t be self-critical. They can’t meet you halfway. They can’t say they were wrong. They view Liberals as the enemy and turn a blind eye to any fact that they prefer not to hear. They are impossible (with the exception of the BENs of the party).
Brazil is one of the most Roman Catholic nations on the planet. They hate Abortion; they don’t like the idea of stem cell research, or guys kissing each other. Despite these highly conservative views on social issues, nearly everyone here is baffled at how we could have reelected Bush. Baffled and sickened!
It is clear these people aren’t blinded by their strong moral stance. And it is clear Republicans can't see past theirs.
It really breaks my heart and makes this type of debate seem utterly hopeless.

ZELIN: Jay, agreed. I definitely tend to swing towards the NY Times, but I still value it as a credible newspaper. By many standards, the best paper in the nation. Similarly to Bobby, I guess I am just shocked, stunned, by what is going on in our nation. Call it excuses, crying, whining, but these are just feelings that I have about our current administration, the direction of our politics and the increasing conservatism/religiosity in our nation. Also, guess I have been surprised by your stance on many of the issues we have been discussing. I mean, for a regular raw dogger, thought you might voter for the party which supports abortion and research through technology and not guns and god.

JAY: i disagree as well w/ certain issues (conservative stances on gays, stem cell, and abortion), but it's a democracy and the people have spoken. are you against democracy? people vote and we go w/ the majority.

ZELIN: So, people vote and we just go along with everything they say. Questioning the president does not make you against democracy. Waiting for the next question where you attempt to put words in other people's mouths.

JAY: what words did i put in your mouth? you said, "I guess I am just shocked, stunned, by what is going on in our nation." what is going on in our nation that you are so shocked w/? questioning the president is a necessary priviledge that we, unlike others, enjoy. but i think you were questioning the people. and yes, when people vote we go along with whatever the majority says until the issue is up again (and of course you can question there stance). how else would we do it? you know how religious i am and my stances on most issues. i don't agree w/ a majority of our country, but what am i going to do (push my values on others or complain; i think not)? you have to face the fact that a majority of the population think differently than you and i for that matter. you can call them stupid or whatever you want, but that doesn't help your cause (it merely hinders it; some say that's why the democratic party failed--they veered too far to the left and ignored peoples values). what words did i put in your mouth? (that bothers me)

ZELIN: but it's a democracy and the people have spoken. Are you against democracy? That is the putting words in my mouth I was referring to. First off, don't think I am pushing my values on others, but hell yes, I will complain. Because I am a voter. Just as I have the right to question my president, I have the right to complain. I am not blowing up abortion clinics or producing F 9/11, but I am stressing to friends/colleagues my dissatisfaction with Bush and his administration. Don't think there is anything wrong with that. You do? You think there is something wrong with stressing your complaints/issues? You think there is something wrong with disagreeing? You think there is something wrong with putting it in the pooper? Just taking a bit of the 'Jay' method.

JAY: are you arguing w/ me or agreeing w/ me?

ZELIN: Not sure, I think, both. Did you see Dodgeball? Hilarious.

JAY: no, i'm trying to write me 35 page thesis on why religious people suck and why we should invest all our possible reources towards stem cell research. ironic, huh?

ZELIN: Yes, quite ironic I must say. How the hell are you managing to do that after voting for W? Aren't you part of the religious right constituency? You know, the born again virgins.

#17: Hitler & Saddam? > Another 4 years!

2004-11-06T12:41:00.000-05:00

THREAD BEGAN, October 29th, 2004

BOB: Jay, looking forward to your comparison of the threat that Hitler posed the world in the late 1930’s and the threat Saddam posed the world in 2004. Should be entertaining. Jay, you have been making more sensible observations lately…but this is not one of them. PS. 500 words should be plenty

JAY: Why should we be so worried about Saddam Hussein? “He certainly doesn't have as much power as he did before the Gulf War.” Let’s compare.
Germany was defeated in World War I. In the early 1930’s Hitler did not have sufficient power to cause the death of 30 million people. Less than a decade later he did. He was allowed to become powerful because liberal activists tried to prevent and succeeded in delaying U.S. entry into that conflict. The cost of their action in human lives was horrendous. They have not brought peace to the world and do not deserve the word “peace” or “anti-war” in their titles.
On PBS Lucy Barber researched the effects of such groups, admitted that they have never prevented a war from starting. One of the propaganda channels for Hitler was the Communist Party, USA. It recruited unwitting liberal activists to delay U.S. assistance to the European nations that Hitler was attacking. I give you guys’ credit for the endless whining effort, but look at the results of your protests. There is much historical evidence that they have delayed action against tyrants who finally had to be stopped in a much more costly conflict.
We should compare Saddam Hussein now with Hitler in the early 1930’s. However, Saddam Hussein has the advantages that Hitler did not have. Because of them he could’ve become much more powerful than Hitler unless we acted. Saddam Hussein sat on enormous oil wealth that he could use to acquire modern weapons, the likes of which Hitler could only dream. He had the potential for bringing all of the Middle East petroleum reserves under his control. He started this process a decade ago when he invaded Kuwait. Had our government responded the way liberal activists wanted, Saddam Hussein would now have that control. Can you imagine the economic, social and political impact on the United States and the rest of the World had he gained control over the Middle East oil reserves? Consider the economic conditions of people in the Middle East. Extreme birth rates and corrupt leaders have produced dire poverty for millions in that region, despite its oil wealth. Economic conditions for many are worse than that of the German people in the 1930’s. Poverty in Germany was the basis for Hitler’s climb to power. Saddam Hussein’s brutality rises at least to the level of Hitler’s and Stalin’s. He caused immense loss of young lives in his war with Iran. He gassed the Kurds. He raped and pillaged Kuwait, pumping oil from its well and setting the oil on fire as he retreated. He murders anyone, including family members, whom he suspects might betray him. He offered substantial sums of money to suicide bombers (some may say that is harboring terrorists).
After World War I there were treaties and observers to assure that Germany would not rearm and again cause a world war. As time passed the observers became frustrated with their impossible task and left. Diplomats went into denial. Hitler rearmed... OVER WORD LIMIT

BOB: O.K. Enough about the 380 tons of missing weapons (Or the "at-least-140-tons of missing weapons" as Ben likes to say) Even Kerry has dropped the charges from his stump speech. NEW SUBJECT: So OSAMA has a new video, and an interesting one at that! What are your thoughts? Do you think this will help / hurt anybody in the polls? PS Jay, I will respond to your Hitler-Saddam comparrison shortly. I just want to do a bit of research first.

JAY: Chuck, i'm not trying to lie. didn' you read my e-mail on this. i'll admit that kerry didn't use the term "imminent threat", but what he said in the debates, in my interpretation, equates to imminence. you can disagree, that's fine. the court systems have trouble sometimes w/ imminence so i don't expect us to have a 100% grasp on it. just to reiterate what kerry said in the debates, "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace. It was a threat. That's not the issue." do you believe he meant imminent threat, threat to deal w/ later, or somewhere in between

MANEY: Everyone should enjoy this link. Please b fair when casting your vote...http://www.miniclip.com/hiphopdebate.htm copy and paste!!!After these debates I think we need to take a couple of weeks and we all need to reflect on our own personal feelings. Return to being nice and happy. Then go back to the politics..

ABRAMOVICH: This is worth reading.The Osama Litmus Test By DAVID BROOKS The New York Times10/30/04....Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political.On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer."...But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue. Back in December 2001, when bin Laden was apparently hiding in Tora Bora, Kerry supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down. He told Larry King that our strategy "is having its impact, and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will. I think we have been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way."But then the political wind shifted, and Kerry recalculated. Now Kerry calls the strategy he supported "outsourcing." When we rely on allies everywhere else around the world, that's multilateral cooperation, but when Bush does it in Afghanistan, it's "outsourcing." In Iraq, Kerry supports using local troops to chase insurgents, but in Afghanistan he is in post hoc opposition.This is why Kerry is not cleaning Bush's clock in this election. Many people are not sure that he gets the fundamental moral confrontation. Many people are not sure he feels it, or feels anything. Since he joined the Senate, what cause has he taken a political risk for? Has he devoted himself selflessly and passionately to any movement larger than himself?We are revealed by what we hate. When it comes to Osama bin Laden, Kerry hasn't revealed whatever it is that lies inside.
What we do know...The forcast for rain all day in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania is great news for us Republicans..."Republicans should have no problem making it to the polls in our SUV's" - Ben Keeler, editor, The Keeler Report

JAY: i'm surprised nobody responded to my "Liberals: WWII and today" e-mail. i thought someone would respond.

ZELIN: One last comment from Z:
Went to a wedding last Sunday night. Jewish dude marrying a Japanese lady. Okay, beside the point. Randomly sitting next to me was an American from Dayton, Ohio, of all places. More interesting, he was working in Baghdad as a civilian for a subsidiary of Halliburton. It seemed as though God, or the Minuteman Blog sent this guy from heaven, so I could ask him all the pressing questions we needed to see the truth.
First of all, he is a Republican and is voting for Bush. But he said this, because Bush pays his bill. Then I flat I asked him, “Why are we in Iraq.” His answer, “Because his father couldn’t finish the job.” Flat out answer, no flinching, he replied in a manner of seconds. No mention of weapons, Saddam, or liberation. He went on to say that most civilians are voting for Bush (to keep their jobs). But the soldiers, the ones who are putting forth the real sacrifice are either not voting, or voting for Kerry. He went on to say, in an almost degrading tone, that most soldiers barely graduated high school and don’t even know which party each candidate is from. Interesting. Then, he mentioned how he is happy to be in Iraq since he is making big fucking money, but Halliburton is a joke and only go the job because of Cheney.
Just some interesting facts that are from the ground. And honestly, this guy is voting for Bush, but for some reason, is stating some of our liberal arguments we have been making.
May the best man win, or Bush.

CHUCK: Hey All, Good times tomorrow. I really do think a Kerry win (279-259), but I am not going to be surprised if Bush wins.
I wish everyone the best, while I still am deciding if the blog has strengthened or weakened my convictions. Either way, its been fun. (and sorry for randomly losing it and making a personal jab, here and there).
Well, whoever wins, there is a lot to do. If Kerry wins he is going to have a tough time getting much done. If Bush wins.....well, I have always said "the only way I will get a Bush supporter to agree w/ me is 4 more years of Bush".

JAY: zelin, who's this guy that seems to know everything. it's a fact that the miltary favors bush 3 to 1. i asked one of my friends why she is voting for kerry. her answer, "bush is a liar and he says umm too much." i asaked her where she gets her info. her response, "tv commercials." mypoint, the guy from haliburton and my friend are just uninformed individuals. stop wasting your time w/ your moore type banter. how about a response to my liberal e-mail?

MANEY: Just to clear the air, I had today off and started to feel guilty just sitting around all day. So at 6:00 PM I went to Copley and voted!!!!!!

ZELIN: You just go ahead and discredit everything the other side says. Jay, he works in Iraq. In Baghdad. A hell of a lot closer than we are. That is all man, you can listen a bit instead of relating a republican living in Iraq to Michael Moore.

JAY: zelin, you said that this guy said that the troops in harms way are voting for kerry. you made it appear as if most troops are voting for kerry. i and others disagree. my point was that that's one man's position. i listen to the sides.

ZELIN: Lawyer Jay, one more time. This guy said, in his opinion, most troops he knew or talked with, were voting for Kerry.

PETE: Y'all will thank us later.

JAY: that's fine, but that's not how you originally put it you misrepresenter. just joshin z-dizzy.
Bob, I was wondering why you haven't posted any e-mails. I cant believe nobody responded to this so I'm reposting it. My liberal comments. Please read and attack me.

BOB: i cant believe it. the democrates were running against a president with an approval rating below 50%, who turned a huge surplus into a record defecit, who lost jobs and who took us to war in a country that didn't have WMDs after all.
And still we lost the pop vote by 4 million votes!?
i dont know what to say...maybe i was living in a fantasy world...i thought americans had snapped out of their sept 11th haze...my spirit is fucking broken.
george w bush is president again? i have zero hope for America.....fucking zero.

CHUCK: i cant comment on policy stuff right now.
congratulations to the bush supporters. i really do hope i am wrong, because there are huge consequences.

SAMMY: First I must congraulate Bush in a victorious campaign. A job well done exploiting americans fears of terrorism to win an election. I feel I have been robbed, but what can I say. Kerry's campaign was obviously not good enough. I can't wait for the day that religion and government can be seperated. This will not happen until Bush is out of office. I will have to wait 4 more years, but fags, abortion, and stem cell will be a thing of the past. Just 4 more years and morality will be a thing people laugh at. It will be a time of change. Bush will be a president that people will look back on with more disrespect than Nixon. Don't despair democrats, all will see the errors of our ways. Democrats will be in office in 4 years. There is no question.

CHUCK: Bush Supporters, I am going to give your guy the benefit of the doubt from here on out. But let me add something to an old discussion, in which Jay and Ben were very confident.....well, unless these troops are liars, those weapons were looted UNDER OUR WATCH. and that is BUSH's RESPONSIBILITY. And those weapons are being used to kill our troops.
Here in this article, you can read of Bush's shitty leadership, and click on an ad to celebrate victory. Enjoy. http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041104-125213-3388r.htm
part of me wants to give up, but i am not going to. when you guys blow up on me and tell me how these weapons were not looted under our watch, its someones responsibility to set you guys straight.

ZELIN: Must also commend the effort of the Republicans. They are meticulously organized and have done a wonderful job of rallying there troops. Dems on the other hand, choose to whine about the right, but then take no action to rally there constituencies. I think this should be a lesson for democrats to start getting more organized and use their negative feelings towards the administration in a positive way. I am amazed in the direction that our nation is heading. I feel that as I have gotten older, and maybe a bit wiser, I have become more accepting of people from all different colors, religions, sexual preferences, etc. But, our country seems to be heading increasingly towards the right.
And, not that any Americans care, but the predominant view from abroad is disbelief, and even laughter. People can't understand how Americans can vote him back into office and I am really trying to figure that out myself.

CHUCK: totally agree w/ your concern for the direction. and the GOP did an amazing job.
But i completely disagree that Dems sat around and complained.
we had amazing turnout.
we had our greatest ground operations ever. (ACT and moveon were unprecedented for our movement)
we have made inroads in AM radio (remember, everyone said air america would be off the radio by now...but its thriving)
and we almost won the damn thing. (we only lost by 100,000 votes)
The dems were beat, and the credit goes to the victors, but to act like we laid down is false.
in my opinion, we had more passion and ground work, but lost to Fear and other deeper issues (the corporate media, especially)

JAY: chuck, before you go blaming the "corporate media" look at the statistics. after you actually discover who the corporate media was supporting maybe you'll stop whining. health care is better off, social security will hopefully be somewhat privatized, and the world will be safer. a passive hardcore liberal as president, c'mon now. maybe this will fill the gas tanks of the liberal side. will someone please respond to my liberal "thesis" or at least this e-mail. or have you figured out there is no logical response to what i wrote? did you guys "run out of gas" or give up?

CHUCK: jay i am not responding to you, because i dont feel like playing your games. you know jay, i have made all sorts of concessions and congratulations (and a few personal emails thank you and agreeing w/ you), and you are still being a dick. and when i blame the corporate media, i am indicting everyone, because the bottom line is profits. its a problem, and to say its not is fucking ignorant.

JAY: from your statement, "in my opinion, we had more passion and ground work, but lost to Fear and other deeper issues (the corporate media, especially)," it appeared you were blaming the media for supporting bush (your statement infers that you lost b/c the media). if that's not the case i'm sorry for being a "dick." it's clear that a majority of the media was favoring kerry. i understand if you guys want to throw in the towel, but i'd like to discuss the issues; why the u.s. is better off.

CHUCK: whatever jay

JAY: that's a response i would expect (nothing toward my "liberal; wwII and today," wow)

SAMMY: Actually Jay I was very surprised how you connected WWII and Iraq. I must congratulate you. Their are some simularities. And you did a good job of pointing them out. But I would like to say you could probably find simularities in any war. Deaths, bad guys, corruption,etc. Shit, have you heard of the game "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" . Jay, I'm sorry but your thesis is basically the same thing.
Do you know how many differences I could say their are between Hitler and Hussien. I don't think your comuter has enough memory to handle the differnces.
I will say you did find simularities, and they do seem important, but you are taking things way out of context. These are two different men, in two different time periods. Their is know denying that.
You have tried to compare the lesser of two evils. And we know who that is SADDAM! It is too obvious.

BOB: Jay, sorry that I have been slow to respond. This election was really hard for me to swallow and I really wasn’t in the mood to split hairs last week. I read your emails about the comparsion between Hitler and Saddam and there are some shocking similarities:
---They were both bastards
---They were both aggressors
---They both gassed civilians
The list goes on and on.
But there is a limit. As I said before, in regards to the threat that these men posed, their ability to dominate the globe…there is no comparison.
When comparing, you say that the weapons that Saddam has today are far more deadly than those that Hitler employed. True. But irrelevant. We need to compare Hilter’s level of military capabilities in THAT era to Saddam’s level of military capabilities in THIS era.
In the 1930s Hitler was rebuilding what was 15 years earlier, the strongest military in the world. He had (and was developing) weaponry that was comparable (and sometimes superior) to the other superpowers. There was no technology gap between the French/British/American armies and immerging German threat. If you can find anything to the contrary please let me know.
Now there is Saddam in Iraq. I saw on a WORLDFACT BOOK web site that the US military spends 270 billion dollars each year on military expeditures. They listed Iraq on the same list in position #45 at, I think, 1.5 billion (between PERU and MORROCO).
Now I am NOT trying to say that Saddam didn’t have lots of dangerous weapons. He did. What I am trying to point out is the huge gap between the capabilities of a country like Iraq and the U.S.
And we have two instances that clearly prove this. In the first Gulf war we spanked Saddam. I remember the one day when we destroyed 200 some tanks, shooting over the horizon. They couldn’t get close enough to fire a single shot! We had a handful of casualties (I think more from friendly fire than Saddam’s men) and we crushed them. Then in March and April of 2003 it was confirmed once again that Saddam was not in our league militarily. Not even close.
If you want to argue that Saddam was a threat because he was trying to get his hands on WMDs which he would have smuggled to terrorist who in turn would have attacked us…OK. We can argue that.
But this idea that Saddam was poised to conquer the Middle East and take control of the world’s oil supply is complete farse. He couldn’t conquer little-old Kuwait and he couldn’t even conquer Iran WITH our help.
So if you want to compare the mentalities of Saddam and Hitler…fine.
The evil aspirations…I agree.
The atrocities…absolutlely.
But the threat of global domination that they posed?
I don't buy it.

JAY: good points, but i was focusing more on liberals; comparing their actions and arguments then and now.

#16: 380 Tons of Questions

2004-10-28T11:54:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 28th, 2004
A fresh topic?...Maybe not just yet...

BOB: I think we have exhausted the numbers 90 and 380.
NEW QUESTION: And I would like all the REPs to answer this: Kerry has been criticized for being too liberal. Listen to Cheney’s recent comments:
"John Kerry is, by National Journal ratings, the most liberal member of the United States Senate. Ted Kennedy is the more conservative of the two senators from Massachusetts. It's true. All you got to do is go look at the ratings systems. And that captures a lot, I think, in terms of somebody's philosophy. And it's not based on one vote, or one year, it's based on 20 years of service in the United States Senate."
The same administration is criticizing Kerry for being a life-long flip-flopper. So which is he?...Too consistently liberal or too inconsistent? I'd like each REP to please choose one.

ABRAMOVICH: In Kerry's senior yearbook at Yale he is listed as a "Young Republican."At least we know his stance remains consistant - its always changing.Quite ironic.....

CHUCK: In Bush's college career he was a cocaine abuser, alcholic, and when sober.......a fucking cheerleader!
Jay, save your effort. I apologize for responding. I really have been regretting responding to your email. I am done replying. All you do is ask questions and criticize, and then when I give detailed responses/answers you never respond to my comments, you just criticize and ask more similar questions. its a joke. as far as this story, its not that important to our decisions, so i'm done w/ it. after reading through those articles, many of my sources arent on point, but they are reporting the story. and i admittedly heard on NPR that "12 major outlets confirm the NYT report"....so i cannot find there direct stuff, but i swear in all honesty that's what I heard in a NPR report......but whatever, maybe its wrong. but i dont care what you think. your analysis always boils down to "left-wing sources" and hearing what you want. i am sick of acting defensive, and feeling some obligation to respond to your questions, and then just have you never do anything but ask more questions, while never acknowledging any points i make.
i guess i can take solace in the fact that when i am right about something, you never respond to my comments......i guess i should just take a deep breath, and remind myself that you usually dont respond to my actual analysis.
good times for all. 6 more days of failure. 6 more days of desperation. 6 more days.

ABRAMOVICH: Chuck, Using the great technology of this century by increasing font size, color and bolding your words arent going to get your point across any better. Kerry will win Ohio - but he will lose the election. He will probably win the popular vote too.
why the hell do you liberals (other Bob) keep showing statistics of what european, muslims etc think of bush? This is irrelevent. I could spend a few minutes on the internet and find some similar stupid numbers that favor Bush. Actually all I have to do is go to the swift boat site and find people who served with John Kerry who speak of his lies and betrayals.
Sounds like they are playing both sides of the fence again.If we wouldnt have gone into Iraq they would still have all the weapons. Take your pick - all 500,000 tons or 380 tons missing I would go for the 380.....
[Bush] sounds like the average american - except for the cheerleading part. Chuck - if i remember correctly i remember you driving home from the bar one night so drunk that when you arrived at the house and opened your door you feel face first into the driveway.... I guess its what you would call going "face down."

SAMMY: Although, Chuck was not snorting coke, but Chuck could be considered the average american. Also The Bush family is not your average american family. Also Chuck never has been at the white House or camp david, and never smoked weed their. So that is just a display of disrespect for the presidents home and vacation spot.

CHUCK: Here is a perfect analysis, which leaves both sides arguments. (CNN). I'll take the side of the Iraqi government, and I would expect all you conservatives to side w/ the Iraqi interim government (which you all love so much, and would never want to question them). Also, interestingly enough, if you want to believe the pentagon-version.....they even admit that there was a 6 week window to steal the munitions.
It was reported Monday that the interim Iraqi government earlier this month told the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization, that 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were missing from a storage facility south of Baghdad.
In a letter dated October 10, the interim government blamed "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security" during the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
The Pentagon has said that the explosives were probably removed from the depot before the war started on March 19, 2003, but also acknowledges there was a window of about six weeks when it was possible for the stockpile to have been stolen. What a joke.
Ben, This is the exact opposite of your claim that the military said it was moved 18 moths ago. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said this morning:
Question from a reporter: Do you say that the regime, that the Saddam Hussein regime was still capable of moving tons of explosives around the country after the U.S. invaded?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not saying that. I'm saying -- military leaders have said that. Our military leaders have said that. I think that's a fact. This was a regime that operated in that fashion. They had munitions -- munition caches all across the country. They moved munitions around.
That shows the military thinks the weapons were there after we invaded. This story could bring Bush down because they are choosing not to answer the questions directly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041027-3.html

ABRAMOVICH: The question is not if we are safer with no idea where the 380 tons are, but if we are safer knowing that some 450,000 have been destroyed or are secured. Thats the question. I think the answer is pretty obvious....

JAY: chuck, read the blog. i gave a detailed response to Kyle's attack on bush concerning the missing weapons. you jumped in stating you have 12 sources, now it's "i heard 12 on npr." you attacked me first. your detailed response was "bush was negligent" and something about me. a gave a timeline of facts that you haven't even contested. so take is as you will. i guess your "bush was negligent" e-mail was more factua and detailedl than my list of facts. whatever, it's irrelevant anyway

DAN: [Bush’s college career] Sounds like good times to me!!!
Face Down is what Chuck does the entire next day after completing the following....getting drunk, leaving It's Brothers, getting Hound Dog's white pizza (or White Castle, or both), and then waking up in the morning, "double-stacking" it (Wendy's Doublestack for those who don't know) along with a Biggie Diet....then FACE DOWN!!!
GET 'ER GOIN'!!!!!!

CHUCK: holy shit, jay didnt demand more answers to stupid questions!
jay, sorry for the dickhead comment, but i am just sick of this all. i thought about it, and just know i'm being an ass.....sorry, if you cared.
there are 12 major media outlets running a story that backs up the Iraqi Government, and 1 (NBC) that doesnt.....regardless of me having all links.....NPR is credible, and I think my ears are, too.
Additionally, you did it again! Congratulations........I cite a terrific anaylsis from CNN which explains that the IRAQI GOVERNMENT believes its the US fault.......and then you ignore the comment......you refuse to endorse the IRAQI GOVERNMENT's version of the stockpiles (yeah, the same iraqi's you constantly praise and ALWAYS HAVE SAID these Iraqi's fighting for their country are so great.....unless you dont like what the said, i guess.....then you think they are idiots. (or maybe its one of those situations where I am on to a valid point.....so you just don't respond....and make some quick jab about my source being NPR)

JAY: Chuck, i forgot to add that we have lost my point in this so-called debate. My point was that I thought it was shady that CBS was going to hold the story until Oct. 31. It appears they wanted to influence the election. If that was Fox against the democrats you know you would be throwing a shit storm (you guys were bitching on whether Fox broke Florida first; i think this is more unethical). Second, I think it is extremely irresponsible for Kerry to start pointing the finger at Bush before he has learned all the facts. The fact is no one is sure when they were taken. I don't think anyone should be using it for political gain until the story is substantiated. It's similar to Rather. How do you people feel on this? Is anyone going to see Fahrenhype 911 or are you too closed minded (I saw Mooore's flick; nobody respoded to that, why?). For god sakes, read what the NYT article states within its text.
NYT: The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.
MSNBC: "U.S. commander says it’s unlikely it occurred after 2003 U.S. invasion" "Disappearance remains a mystery"
CNN: "The Pentagon has said that the explosives were probably removed from the depot before the war started on March 19, 2003, but also acknowledges there was a window of about six weeks when it was possible for the stockpile to have been stolen."

KYLE: One thing that makes this really interesting is that both sides of this weapons debate have been able to get information via the internet in real time ahead of the major news broadcasts. I think this story is a perfect example of the speed with which information travels these days and the fact that average stiffs like us have access to the same information reporters have. While neither side has all the facts, we have a lot of facts and for the most part both sides are getting a lot right. Nice work to all.
Bush made a terrible decision not to comment on this story right away... just like Kerry on Swift Boats.

BOB: Well I stand corrected...we haven’t had enough talk about the 380 figure...Everyone is arguing about timelines and digging for contradictory quotes. It’s funny cause the same quotes are being used by both Jay and Chuck to support their argument:
CNN: "The Pentagon has said that the explosives were probably removed from the depot before the war started on March 19, 2003, but also acknowledges there was a window of about six weeks when it was possible for the stockpile to have been stolen."
[Jay highlights: "The Pentagon has said that the explosives were probably removed from the depot before the war started on March 19, 2003..." Chuck highlights: "...there was a window of about six weeks when it was possible for the stockpile to have been stolen."]
The truth is that it doesn’t matter when they disappeared. The same way that it didn’t matter if those Swift Boat adds were telling the truth. The damage is done.
I watched Larry King Live last night and a show after that called INSIGHT (on CNN International). Two straight hours of REPs and DEMs debating this subject. In those two hours I heard two basic rebuttals from the Right:
-----Don’t jump to conclusions.
-----The timing of this story is awfully suspicious.
Maybe this works for Abramovich, but it won’t work with the undecided voters. These people are not spending hours on the internet like us, researching this. They see a few very negative headlines (true or not) followed by a late response from the administration which doesn’t resolve any doubts. Bottom line: This will hurt Bush, badly.
PS Jay, I would love to watch that anti-Moore movie and checkout the claims. It is really hard for me to get that here, but I will ask my students to try to download it and burn it for me. But just for the record, I really do want to see it and discuss it.

JAY: kyle, you have illustrated my point. you said, "neither side has all the facts." that's what is pissing me off about kerry. he's running w/ this story as if he has all the facts. a majority of the people aren't like us who have the internet and research this stuff (yes, we're all anal about this shit). they believe it is all bush's fault b/c kerry has been stating it repeatedly on his campaign trail. i think it'w wrong for a candidate to use an allegation w/out the necessary facts to influence voters. once we find out the truth, then use it at will. anybody differ?

CHUCK: Kerry is TALKING w/out all the facts. Bush went to WAR w/out all the facts. BUT YOU ARE NOT PISSED OFF AT BUSH. What a joke.

JAY: bob, you state, "It’s funny cause the same quotes are being used by both Jay and Chuck to support their argument." That was my point. all the articles were inconclusive on who's fault it was (they were unsure what happened). There isn't enough to draw the conclusion that it is all bush's fault. We don't know what happened. My main point was chuck and Kerry were too quick to jump to conclusions w/out all the facts and used these misrepresentations for political gain.
chuck, there is a huge difference. bush thought he had all the information he needed. the fact is is that our intelligence was wrong. if i'm not mistaken kerry looked at the same intelligence and voted for the war as well. in this case, kerry's own campaign heads admit they didn't have all the info but didn't stop kerry from rolling w/ it. i hope it doesn't bite him in the ass. what do you think about the head of cbs wanting to hold it until 31st? if that was fox would you complain?

CHUCK: Jay, YOU ARE RIGHT! There is a HUGE difference. Kerry is making a political talking point, in a campaign. BUSH STARTED A WAR!

JAY: chuck, are you missing my point on purpose? kerry would have started a war as well after looking at the same intelligence. he voted for it. maybe he would have waited longer, but he still would have gone to war. am i right? in this case the head of kerry's campaign didn't have all the info. from cnn, "Holbrooke said I don't know what happened. I do know one thing -- in most administrations the buck stops in the Oval Office." judge for yourselves. i think it's wrong

CHUCK: apologize for filling everyones email w/ this same stuff.
1. kerry would have been more patient w/ iraq and the UN inspectors
2. then time would have unfolded what we now know....iraq was not an imminent threat.
3. therefore, kerry would not have gone to war
SO QUIT SAYING KERRY WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING

JAY: let me get this straight. you are now saying that iraq was not an imminent threat? is that what kerry has been saying? this is crazy. will a democrat please tell chuck that kerry thought saddam posed an imminent threat.

CHUCK: Jay is officially lying or an idiot.
Kerry has said Iraq/sadaam was a threat. But the fact that there was no WMD's has made it clear to everyone sane that Iraq/sadaam was not an imminent threat.
There is a huge diference. Stop lying or being an idiot, seriously.
Will someone yell at jay, so i dont look too crazy. This is insane.....in the mold of Bush's distortion jay now says "Threat" and "Imminent Threat" are same thing.
Me getting into a car accident is a "Threat" because i drive in a dangerous world. Me getting into a car accident is NOT an "Imminent Threat" because I am cautious driver. See the difference? (and that is a kinda dumb example, too)

BOB: Break it up! Break it up!
Jay, I think you have a valid point:
---Kerry supported the war (which kills me) and agreed with Bush that Saddam was a threat.
---We don’t have all the facts about the missing weapons
---Kerry is running with a story without all the facts
So let’s look at the facts we do know:
---Before the invasion there were 380 tons of explosives there.
---The administration knew this.
---We failed to stop mass looting of government facilities during the invasion.
---Now they are gone.
---The administration doesn’t know what happened.
So you are correct in saying that we don’t know all the facts. But I think we know the important ones:
---This facility wasn’t secured or monitored sufficiently.
---Now 380 tons of explosives are in the hands of the enemy.
I think this is a completely valid criticism.

BEN: again, no it is not a fact that 380 tons are missing. bob stop claiming this is a certainty. it isnt. check out ABC News website today - they are saying it could be as low as around 140. that just shows the facts are far from certian in this case on both sides the only thing that is certain is that kerry pikced up and ran with a story not knowing if it was true. it may be. it may not be.
you can believe kerry-cbs-NYT or Bush-Pentagon-Troops

KYLE: The only other thing that is certain is that we can expect a resistance to investigation from the administration like they did with the 9/11 commission. These guys aren't too big on accountability.
Condi Rice was told about it October 10th. It only makes sense that it would take a couple weeks to leak and of course the administation wants to sit on another illustration of their incompetence. CBS was likely keeping the story because they need to revive the respect of theirs news department after their recent disgrace. The campaign is still off message for another day and that is bad for you Bushies.

JAY: you guys decide who's the liar or the idiot. in the presidential debate kerry stated, "I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat. There was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace. It was a threat. That's not the issue."
This was said at the debate in sept. of 04. Not in 2002. So what he was saying is that he was still a threat. Right? the web site is http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/09/president-bush-debates-senator-kerry.html
Chuck, you can play w/ imminence all you want, but this is what kerry said. I concede that he wanted to do it a different way, but to say he would have realized there was no threat is just STUPID. Read kerry’s own words. Yes, i understand the difference between an imminent threat and threat. If you want o start attacking intelligence, beware.

ABRAMOVICH: After the attacks of September 11th, President Bush articulated the primary lesson, that simply reacting to danger after lives are lost is a weak and unacceptable national defense. He believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to ensure that the enemy will not bring death to our doorstep here at home.Under the Presidents strong leadership in the war on terror and through the heroic efforts of our military forces, we are a safer country today. Although Osama Bin Laden has not been caught two-thirds of al Qaeda leadership is dead, incarcerated, or on the run, its financing disrupted. The Taliban has been removed from power and training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq have been eliminated. On the domestic front, our dedicated law enforcement agencies are finally able to fight terror the same way they go after drug cartels; terrorists and terrorist cells have been thwarted in upstate New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Florida.
The 9/11 Commission has provided this nation with a solid blueprint for going forward in the war on terror. It described the threat that killed our loved ones as a gathering storm which went unrecognized and unchecked for too many years and characterized the inability to predict the attack itself as a failure of imagination. Looking forward, the Commission offered this pointed warning, Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier--but it then may be too late.
Through the prism of 9/11 and presaging the Commissions conclusion, President Bush looked at Iraq and Saddam Husseins history, his willingness to use chemical weapons in the mass murder of his own citizens, his notorious attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, his record of giving financial aid and sanctuary to global terrorists--including members of al Qaeda--and his repeated refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. He determined that this repressive regime was an intolerable danger to our country. Rather than waiting until it was too late to prevent a fully materialized threat, the President acted. History will support the Presidents decision.

DAN: A quick answer to a stupid question...He is the known as "The most liberal person in the Senate." This is said by all parties alike. No disputing this fact. BUT, he is playing both sides (during this election), making him inconsistant with his issues. He is for what ever is popular at the moment, in hopes that this will result in votes. After all is said and done, he will go back to being his same old liberal self, Far Left. I think Bob A. said it perfectly, the only thing Kerry is consistant with, is that he is consistantly inconsistant.

ABRAMOVICH: BUSH declared war on Iraq to prevent any future attacks on the US as well as other countries by a man who had the power, weapons, and technology to do so. Chuck, how long do we have to wait before we can go into a country like this? Should we have to wait for 5 years of non-compliance with the UN or should we wait until we are attacked by them? To me (and Viscione) that is called being a pussy and being reactive. We must be proactive to win the war on terror. Kerry voted to go to war. So he must have felt the same way - he just didnt want any of the soldiers to have body armor or ammuntion, but thats a whole nother story
you are all crazy. Anyone who thinks we should not have gone into Iraq is crazy. How long, how long do we have to wait for this madman to turnover his weapons? We gave him a reasonable date and he didnt comply - so we acted with force. What more do you need?
380 tons of explosives are missing. Who's fault is it? Certainly not George Bush's fault. He was not the one guarding the building. He was not on the ground in Iraq. I would blame someone in the military. However you can say it did happen on his watch, but it is not his fault. Someone in the military who doesnt mind losing their job should stand up and take the blame (if they went missing during the war - which we dont even know)

CHUCK: BOB! Jay is claiming Kerry believes Iraq was an imminent threat. BOB!?I need help, because that is either a lie or stupidity, and jay should be called. but jay is completely trying to distort the truth.....just like W. or is jay so poorly versed in the english language (just like W), that he does not understand the difference b/w "threat" and "imminent threat"
in regards to the kerry comments on the facilities: Jay makes a fine point. and who cares? kerry is make some conclusions based on not all the facts.....good for him. There is no way we will know for sure, probably ever, and definitely not in the next 5 days.....but there is still evidence that this happened under our watch, and kerry should bring it up. he is learning how toi fight dirty, against the dirtiest, filthiest campaign animals....the republicans (see: karl rove, tom delay, bush v. mccain, swift boaters, willie horton, 2000 florida, 2004 ohio where they sued because homeless tried to vote) plus, its not like kerry is lying, he is just rushing to judgment. sound familiar Bush lovers?
JAY, Comment on the heroic Iraqi Provisional Authority blaming us. How could this be?
BEN, nice distortion of reality by turning this into a "believe the troops issue." well, i cant believe the troops, because only republicans (especially ones that have never served their country) can support the troops.

JAY: first sammy, i think they have equally played dirty. you must have missed my e-mail that's on the blog stating how it sucks that people buy these misrepresentations. second, you (and chuck) state that it still would have been bush's fault even if the weapons were gone prior to the war. i don't understand that type of thinking. so, while we were waiting for the weapons inspectors, while all of your were whining about how we should wait as long as it takes, we should have gone in there and gaurded al qaqaa (whatever that facility is called). i thought you guys didn't want us in there at all? what made it our responsibility and not the u.n.'s to secure these weapons prior to the war and how would we have done it?
then you state jokingly that bush is responsible for all the worlds problems. well, i seriously think that the world is screwed up b/c people are too passive and will only act when it's too late. maybe if the liberals didn't protest in the late 1930's we would have joined the war earlier and stopped hitler from murdering millions of jews. maybe if we didn't wait for all the failed resolutions in iraq we could have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. this would also include the people who were murdered by suicide bombers whom were paid w/ hefty sums of money from saddam (do you consider that sponsoring terrorism; one of the reasons bush initially gave to go to war).
it's always wait, wait, wait until things get a little worse then we'll act. we need to rid the world of dictators who torture it's citizens, deprive it's ctizens of fundamental rights, and flat out execute those that oppose their ideas. yeah, it would be ideal if we could simply go over to saddams house and ask him nicely to stop being so bad over a red bull and vodka, but that's not how the world works guys. some peole just don't listen. look at how many resolutions we already implemented. liberals should be the first to understand liberation. they constantly enjoy their fundamental right to bitch,complain, and protest about how the government handles our business. as much as i disagree w/ your bitching, you should always retain that right. that's part of freedom. yes, bitching is a fundamental right

BOB: CHUCK, Stop calling Jay an idiot or a liar. You're ranting! I get your point about the distinction between 'imminent threat' and 'threat.' Fine point...but you're beating a dead horse my friend. Furthermore, I don't think it is appropriate to call someone an idiot in this forum (unless you're talking about Abramovich, of course)
BEN,Thanks for the clarrification! I shouldn't have said that 380 tons of explosives were missing. Instead, I should have said that AT LEAST 140 tons of explosives are missing. How about this Ben: A huge, fucking amount of explosives are missing. Can we agree on that?
DAN, About Kerry being the most liberal Senator. Don't be so sure. Checkout this site and get back to me...www.mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com
JAY: I think you have a respectable point of view about the need for the U.S. to be proactive in the War on Terror. Fine. The problem is that Bush lied (or delivered bad intelligence in good faith) about Iraq's role in that War on Terror. Now our forces are distracted and bogged down in a country that had no involvement in Sept 11th. One other thing...please stop comparing Saddam to Hitler...it's ridiculous.
ABRAMOVICH: Think. Just calm down and think before you regurgitate Bush's talking points. You say:
#1: 2/3 of al-Qaeda have been brought to justice...Where did that number come from? Is this only counting the cells that we knew about at the time of Sept. 11th? Is this including all the new recruits and cells that have sprung up? How do you measure an enemy that is in hiding?
#2: The 9/11 commission has provided a great blueprint...Bush fought against this wonderful commission. Remember?
#3: Saddam attempted to acquire nuclear weapons...Where are you getting that? Wasn't the nuclear weapons portion of Powells UN speech proven to be wrong?
#4: Saddam gave financial aid and sanctuary to members of al Qaeda...This is my favorite. You sound like Cheney. Where did you get this? (Don't say Cheney) The 9-11 commission found no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda!
Then you say:[Bush] declared war on Iraq to prevent any future attacks...by a man who had the power, weapons, and technology to do so. What power? What weapons? What technology?
Finally, I love how nothing is Bush's fault. The prison scandal, the missing explosives, the faulty CIA intelligence. Nothing. You are truly delusional.

KYLE: Bob A,Partisanship aside, I think you are really onto something with your excellent point about the missing weapons being the troops fault. I think in these closing days before the election that you, as a staunch Republican and adamant supporter of our President, need to get this great idea out there. Share your insight. Remember you are not alone in your idea here. Rudy Giuliani agrees. That is some pretty good company!
I know you (and I) would hate for people to cast those votes on November 2nd without knowing that Republicans believe we need better troops in the field if we are going to prevent all these mistakes in Iraq.

JAY: bob, when i get back from class expect a long response to the ridiculous comparison of hitler and saddam. it may exceed the 500 word limt which means you won't have to post it, but i hope you do.

CHUCK: I am ranting, because you were letting Jay blur reality by claiming kerry believed iraq was an imminent threat. I did say jay is either an idiot OR lying. It was a rhetorical question. Jay is not an idiot, so he was obviously lying. I was not calling jay an idiot. I think jay is well informed, and we would live in a better world, if everyone knew as much as him.
Lying? Well, first things first, Jay said: "this is crazy. will a democrat please tell chuck that kerry thought saddam posed an imminent threat"I went on to very appropriately (and aggressively) explain what jay was doing.....intentionally blurring reality, which is what i called lying. And Jay was trying blend threat and imminent threat (just like bush blurs 9/11 and iraq).
Jays comments were false. I called him on it. I assumed someone would take my side, but no one did.
So then i got mad. I am not going to apologize for that. Me using words like "idiot or liar" is shitty use of the discussion we have here, no doubt. And Jay trying to trick everyone on how Kerry perceived iraq's threat is an equally shitty use of the discussion we have here, in my opinion. I find it disgusting that 50% of Americans think Sadaam was part of 9/11. I find it disgusting that 50% of BUSH SUPPORTERS think we FOUND WMD in Iraq. And how has this happened? The same bullshit tactics that Jay used on making "imminent threat" and "threat" the same. There is a reason Kerry is not up by 10%. Its this type of nonsense. Nationally, Bush has preyed on the vulnerable by distorting words and facts to convince the Bob Abramovich's of the world. On our Blog, Jay is trying to do the same thing....and it pisses me off.
There are valid arguments on both sides. There are important differences. Those differences should be explained and defended.....not blurred in a manner that stiffles our discussion.

BOB: Jay, Looking forward to your comparison of the threat that Hitler posed the world in the late 1930’s and the threat Saddam posed the world in 2004. Should be entertaining. Jay, you have been making more sensible observations lately…but this is not one of them.
PS. 500 words should be plenty

#15: Electorial College Preview

2004-10-27T13:09:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 27th, 2004

BEN: After a good day of bitter back and forth, i felt i should offer up some unsolicited non-partisan things of where things stand state by state. i am trying to avoid writing a paper for school and fill the void of no keeler report until sunday. i have been looking at this shit really about 45 min of every 1 hr i am up now, so here goes
Lets Assume that we start at 274-264 Bush, keeping every 2000 state the same, except giving Kerry New Hampshire which he will likely win. - There are really only 4 genuine toss ups now - Ohio, New Mexico, Wisconisn and Iowa
"The Big 3"
Ohio (20), Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21). Kerry seems to have solidfied things in PA despite Bush and Karl Rove's obsession with it. He needs this state - there is really no way he will win if he loses it. Kerry will win PA. Same goes for Bush in Florida - he has to have it. He will win Florida I believe - Kerry can not pull out of the state for obvious reasons, but Bush seems to have regained control there. Ohio is obviously the wild card here. Right now, it really is a coin flip and seems to change daily. If Bush wins the state, he will be re-elected. If Kerry wins it, that is where things get dicey. If you put a gun to my head and i had to pick the winner in OH, I would say Bush, but I would say there is a 49.99999999999999% chance I would then end up dead on Nov 3.
"The Trifecta"
Minnesota (10), Iowa (7), Wisconsin (10). These are all states won by Gore in 00 - Iowa and Wisconsin barely, and MN by about 2.4% I beleive. Bush is trending very will in Iowa and Wisconsin, and he seems to be surging in Iowa. Wisconsin has closed, but there is slight edge to Bush still. Minnesota - who knows. Every Republican there swears they are going to win the state, but I am not sold on it. If Bush does indeed lose Ohio, he can offset it by winning two of these three. I think he will win one of them - but winning two might be a tall order. Also, MN and WI have up to day of vote voter registration - that will benefit the dems
The Other One
New Mexico (5) - This is also a state that would seem to be headed to Bush, but I also believe it is a coin toss at this time, 50.00001% chance for Kerry. NM is a tough state to poll with all of the poor Hispanics - alot of the polls showing Bush up there have not been polling in Spanish, which hurts Kerry's numbers. (this is also a reason to trust Mason-Dixon in FL - they do poll in Spanish for those who need it - while most others dont in Florida)
There are rumblings still about Republicans winning Oregon, Michigan or New Hampshire as Democrats still think they can win in West Virginia, Arkansas or Nevada. All of these seem unlikely, but if one of them happened I wouldnt be stunned. The DemocrRATs (a little 2000 campaign humor for you) are better positoned for a surpirse from these states
I doubt anyone read this far, but if so, thanks, almost done........SO
IF BUSH WINS OHIO AND FLORIDA - ITS OVER
IF KERRY WINS OHIO AND FLORIDA - ITS OVER
(really of Bush loses FL regardless of OH he is done)
IF BUSH WINS FLORIDA BUT LOSES OHIO - and this scenario is looking more likely every day
he needs 15 votes from: Minnesota (10) New Mexico (5) Iowa (7) Wisconsin (10)
IF KERRY LOSES OHIO AND FLORIDA, WELL HE IS ALMOST DONE....
unless he can somehow take 6 votes from: (assuming he wins NH) Nevada (5) Arkansas (6) West Virginia (5)
some gay state will probably fuck up my whole calculations.....but what i have put here seems to be the concensus.....it is very very close, but Bush has a slightly easier road to 269 for him, 270 for Kerry if things stay as they are now in the national polls, but this could change tomorrow
-the poll master

#14: The 90% Figure? > The 380 Figure?

2004-10-26T12:02:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 25th, 2004

BOB: Mr. abrAmovich, Your last email was thoroughly entertaining... I pointed out that 90% of Coalition casualties have been ours. Then you said: “The 90% figure does not take into account Iraqi fighters. Do they not count? John Kerry doesnt seem to think so.” John Kerry is right. They DO NOT count! Here is the list of Coalition Nations as listed by the WhiteHouse @ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030320-11.html
Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan
Notice anything? Iraq isn’t on the list. Now why would the White House leave Iraq off the list? Maybe they forgot! Or maybe even they knew that including Iraq (the country that was being invaded) as a member of the Coalition (doing the invading) was too ridiculous even for this administration to sell.
The bottom line is this:
---The Coalition of the Willing is a 49 nation joke.
---The U.S. HAS taken 90% of the casualities and born 90% of the costs.
---Bush and Cheney can’t dispute this, so they are desperately trying to make Kerry look ‘ungreatful.’
---And you bought it!
Congradulations, you're a sucker.
PS Also, I never said that, "if John Kerry became president all of this countries are just going to jump into this war" Of course that won't happen. Bush has burned too many bridges. But maybe Kerry can stop the Coalition from collapsing completely and muster a few other countries to reconsider.
When you listed your 7 reasons why you will vote for Bush, you said in your first reason that you prefer Bush, seeing how Kerry won’t be able to get more international support (because of his “wrong war / wrong time" type comments.) Now you are flatly admitting that: “Neither will get anymore support.” Make up your mind man.

ABRAMOVICH: George Bush is not afraid to stand up and let people know where he stands. On the other hand the other canidates prefer to play both sides and make promises they wont be able to keep. I am confident that I know where my canidate stands.We may take the burden of 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs (anyone can modify statistics) but it is the outcome of this war that outweights the losses incurred during it. We are liberating people who once would have thier hands cut off because they did not perform well in the Olympics. Put yourself in one of those Olympic athletes shoes and just imagine how greatful you would feel if you knew that you could participate in the Olympics without the fear of this type of torture. And that is just one incident. We have found mass graves etc all under the rule of Sadaam Hussein. These people were tourtured by their own leader for no reason. How can any sick person in this world claim that this is the wrong war. Just be happy you werent born and raised in Iraq, cause you might be dead or missing some limbs by now.
Can one of you Kerry lovers tell me what the hell Kerrys plan to win the war on terrorism is?I still dont know and I have only asked three times. I am not sure any of you know. In fact, I am not sure Kerry even knows.... If it is bringing all of these countries together for a Summit you can forget it.You know the sad part is that Bush isnt doing a fantastic job and he is still in the race for reelection. Its pretty said that Kerry is the best democrat you have to go against Bush. If the dems had a slightly decent canidate he would be blowing Bush away. Regardless of who wins the election, the winner of the 2008 election will be John Kasich (Republican - Ohio). I'd rather live in Canada and have to use that stupid money than live here under John Kerry.
The entire country of Iraq was a weapons stockpile. So far, 243,000 tons of weapons and explosives have been secured and destroyed. In addition, 163,000 tons of weapons and explosives have been secured and are awaiting destruction. All the Monday morning-quarterbacking and armchair-generaling in the world by John Kerry won't make up for the fact that he does not have a vision, a strategy or a plan to fight and win the War on Terror. Saddam Hussein's government stored weapons in mosques, schools, hospitals and countless other locations throughout Iraq. Yet, John Kerry showed today that he still cannot decide whether Saddam Hussein was a threat or not. He claims the weapons our troops have secured and destroyed were not a threat, but any other weapons were.
Wrong War - Wrong Time

JAY: Bob, in your response to your "you're a sucker" statement to the other Bob. These kind of statements are exactly what hurts Kerry's position in Iraq. If you want to argue this technicality (whether Iraq is considered part of the coalition) then you are going to waste everyone's time. So for arguments sake, lets say Iraq isn't considered part of the coalition. This would mean that the U.S. would account for about 50% of the total casualties fighting to liberate Iraq (under yours and others' theory, the u.s. accounts for 90% of the "coalition"; i guess i'll agree, but disregarding the Iraqi people is a mistake). So, the actual "bottom line" is that the U.S. accounts for 50% of the casualties that are fighting to liberate Iraq, but 90% of your so called "coalition." Disregarding ("not counting") the Iraqi people won't win the hearts of those same Iraqi people if Kerry is our new president.
Do you know that the most recent polls taken of the U.S. military reveal that Bush is a three to one favorite? Why do you think that most of the people actually fighting the war are for Bush?
Kerry's ideal plan with foreign policy is meeting the Global test. However, when the global test was met in the 1991 Gulf war (soomeone please challenge that if you can; good luck) Kerry voted against it. He was pushing sanctions back then as well. This illustrates his numerous contradictions on the war in Iraq. He says he wants this "global test", but when it's actually met he'll still sit idle (what he says he'll do and what he has actually done are completely opposite). Can someone explain why Kerry voted against the gulf war?
Also, I still don't fully understand Kerry's argument for voting against the 87 billion in equipment when he preaches that he wants to provide the troops w/ everything necessary.I might seem stubborn to most of you, but I see too many unanswered contradictions. I like Kerry's stance on many other issues, but the war in iraq trumps all (but that's my book).

BOB: REPs, if you want to argue:
…that Kerry’s voting record sucks...
…that Bush's War on Terror is making us safer…
…that the DEMs are a bunch of whiners…
…that Bush is better for America…Fine.
These are debatable…matters of opinion. But please, for the love of God, stop arguing that the U.S. hasn’t taken 90% of the Coalition casualties in Iraq. No one is “modifying statistics” or talking about “technicalities” and it isn’t MY “so-called coalition”. This is as undeniable a fact as the world being round: 49 countries joined on to liberate Iraq. Of those 49 Countries there have been 1,248 coalition deaths, 1,109 Americans (that’s 89%)
Why is this SO important?...Because it demonstrates Bush’s failure to assemble tangible international support for the mission and exposes the fact that he exaggerated the commitment and scope of the Coalition. Period.
PS Jay/Abramovich, I will address your valid concerns about Kerry when I have more time. They are good questions that need to be answered.

JAY: one more question (i still expect responses to my others, not just from bob). what status do you give the iraqi army and police? i'm assuming you don't consider them part of the opposition considering they are being trained by us and fighting alng side of us. where do their casualty statistics fall then? do we give them their own category for politics sake? i understand leaving them out gives Kerry more ammo. is it a good thing to keep merely disregarding the deaths of those iraqis who are fighting along side with the coalition. if they are fighting w/ the coalition to liberate iraq how do you distinguish them from coalition help? don't let this little question ache your head too much

CHUCK: I'm fed up. Anyone that thinks Bush keeps them safer, is an idiot. Bush's execution of the war in Iraq has put us all in greater danger.
This failure of a human being has allowed 380 TONS of EXPLOSIVES. 380 TONS. This is outrageous. That really scares me, and I am being very genuine in my fear. This really is a joke. But guess what has been protected? THE OIL
There really is no justification to think Kerry could do any worse. Some silly votes (maybe even a flip-flop or 2) and some suggested cuts in defense (same as cheney).......DO NOT EQUAL allowing people that hate us to get 380 TONS of EXPLOSIVES.....or sending our country to war w/out enough troops.....or sending our troops into battle w/out a plan to win the peace QUIT FUCKING ACTING LIKE THERE IS A VALID COMPARISON. You may not like Kerry, and surely dont have to vote for him, but QUIT WASTING YOUR LIFE acting like this guy is making us safer.......this is a FUCKING JOKE. kerry may have a bad record (i disagree) but there is no way to say Bush has made us safer of the last 4 years. Bush may of had some good ideas (if you agree w/ iraq....i disagree) BUT he has completely FUCKED EVERYTHING UP.
(by the way, i dont think bush is evil because of the oil protection....i think it's another sign of his failure, because he has let people close to him manipulate him, which allows others, close to Bush, to engage in war-profiteering)

BEN: I wasnt going to respond anymore before the election, but…This story is just false. The 380 tons were gone before US Troops arrived. This story is also being recycled for the last week of the campaign. It is not new. This is just a last gasp effort to bring down the President and I am not going to let this one pass through and not respond. 380 tons is a lot - but it is not alot in compariosn to what has been desroyed....also why would saddam have these explosives. should we have gone in sooner and gotten them - and not dicked around for 14 months in the UN?? believe it if you must, but it isnt true

CHUCK: ITS NOT FALSE. There is some dispute over the exact time.
Here is some analysis: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1026/dailyUpdate.html
Here are all the stories: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1026/dailyUpdate.html
BUSH IS A FAILURE. ANYONE THAT DOESNT SEE IT IS AN IDIOT. i still like everyone personally, and respect different views (more than others) but I have just snapped....i kept my composure for a long time, but i cant take it anymore.....BUSH IS NOT MAKING US SAFER.....and there is no reason to think Kerry would do worse....you cannot do worse then THE WORST

JAY: chuck, i know you got my last e-mails. why havent you or anyone else on the liberal side responded to my legitimate questions. there is no way to BS around those. you state that we aren't much safer b/c 380 tons of explosives are missing. besides what keeler said (they were gone prior and this is a recyled story) lets logically think about this. before we went in they had over 400,000 tons. war is not perfect . you can't expect 0 casualties and a perfectly executed plan. we managed to destroy or contain well over 99% of the highly explosive material. in bob's words you are a sucker for not fully understanding the scenario and buying the misrepresentation. yes, it's bad that 380 tons are gone, but we're a hell of a lot safer that over 350,000 tons have been detained. do you concurr. wouldn't it have been more of a failure if we sat idle longer and waited for more sanctions so the entire stockpile would have been missing? that's exactly what would have happened if kerry was president.

BOB: OK Jay, I honestly hope this addresses all your concerns:
#1: The Military Poll---So the military favor Bush. I am not surprised. Has the military vote ever supported a Democrat / Liberal especially in a time of war? I can't imagine it has. It is interesting, cause I saw a poll last night on CNN international, about which candidates Muslim Americans support: Amazingly…
-----68% support Kerry
-----11% support Nader-----
And pulling up the rear…that’s right…Bush with 4%!
This is really strange, cause in the 2000 Election, the Muslim American community overwhelmingly supported Bush! Now if Bush is spreading liberty and freedom to the Middle East, then why in the world would the Muslim American community, with family and roots in the region, protest? Any ideas?
#2: Kerry’s Gulf votes---Next, your point about Kerry’s vote against the 1991 Gulf War seems valid to me. I can't argue here. All I can say, as Bush has said many times, is that the world changed on Sept 11th and everyone looks at these issues differently now. And about the 87 billion vote…I have already attacked Kerry on the Blog about his Iraq-related voting record. I think I called it “unforgivable,” I still think it sucks.
#3: The Iraqi Contribution---Now for the last time, about the 90% figure and where I include the Iraqi army and police: No one is “disregarding” or “marginalizing” or “not counting” the Iraqi contribution. Not John Kerry. Not me.
But in the Blog (and the debates) we were faced with a question: Has Bush succeeded in rallying other countries to get involved and send over troops to help us liberate Iraq? (Obviously, we were talking about support that is neither American nor Iraqi.) The answer is still, no.
And you are worried that this 90% comment “won’t help us win the hearts of Iraqis”? Under the Bush administration the Iraqi people have seen:
----A disgusting, wide-spread prison scandal. (For which no one of major rank has been held accountable.)
----Practices that Amnesty International denounce. “International human rights standards continued to be flouted in the name of the “war on terror”, resulting in thousands of women and men suffering unlawful detention, unfair trial and torture – often solely because of their ethnic or religious background.” http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/index-eng
----The Geneva Convention broken repeatedly (with individuals being held in secret detention, without access to the Red Cross).
----18 months of instability and violence (Including entire cities that are in such chaos, that they have been abandoned and labeled “no-go” zones).
----13,908 civilian casualties!
And you are worried that Kerry’s 90% comment will cost us the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?!......Wow.

JAY: good points, but where do you place iraqi casualties if not with the coalition? i think his unforgivable record sucks as well. in times like these where there is a crisis in the middle east we can't have an undecisive, contradictory, passive president. you or no one else for that matter can argue his gulf war and 87 billion voting record. his campaign is riding on his "global test" theory which he failed to act on in the past. i've said it before, but this guy consistantly acts in a manner that contradicts what he says. cheney is the shiznit

KYLE: "We managed to destroy or contain well over 99% of the highly explosive material." - Jay
Well over 99%. Right. I would love to see ANY article that would back up anything remotely close to that statement. The country is in chaos and we don't know what kind of explosives the insurgents have. We find out when they explode in road side bombs. There are parts of Iraq that we don't get ANY news reports about because reporters are too afraid to go there. If you think Iraq is so stable maybe you can talk Bob A into switching from Canada and moving to Iraq if Kerry wins. I'm sure they need some lawyers and resturants over there.
The problem is that Iraq lacked well over 99% of any weapons of mass destruction and Bush has not admitted that he is wasting our time and resources in a country that had well under 1% to do with 9/11.

CHUCK: Jay, I am going to answer these Q's, but I don't really know why. Especially because when i give reasoned answers, you will not respond and needle about one line i make (probably a Bush bashing comment).
MILITARY POLL---Combination of reasons: (these are generalizations, not to offend the many honorable, intelligent military men/women fighting for my freedom
1. Bush is the President. You need to believe in your leader in order to wake up each morning, ready to die.
2. Military people are less likely to value non-forceful techniques that would be used by a more diplomatic President Kerry.
3. Those in the armed forces are less educated, so there decisions are manipulated and exploited by a headline-driven media, and tough rhetoric from republicans. (by the way, that may be harsh, so i'll preface that those men are far more honorable and gutsy then me).
4. The military gets to listen to Rush Limbaugh in Iraq, but no left-wing talk radio.
GULF WAR 1---This is one of Kerry's biggest weaknesses. I'll admit it. I don't really know a great deal about this decision, but it seems like Kerry was wrong. However, who knows, maybe Kerry's ideas would have given Kuwait back to Iraq, which was the goal of that war. Plus there is no indication that Kerry would have sit back and let Sadaam take his invasions any further, outside Kuwait. BUT this was A MISTAKE 14 YEARS AGO. His possible mistake 14 years ago as a senator IS NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH'S FAILURE TODAY. NOTHING. You obviously think the 91 Iraq was a great operation....but they werent dumb enough to ocupy Iraq......Bush was......NOTHING COMPARES TO BUSH'S FAILURE.
$87 BILLION---I am not going into this again. It was a protest vote against the funding of the war. Howard Dean was a factor. BUT there is no way he would have voted no if it were a tie-breaking vote...that's what I truly believe.....Kerry has acually fought for his country, so he values the troops. Again, the vote may have been a mistake. BUT it is NOTHING COMPARED TO BUSH'S FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY PLAN FOR THIS WAR. NOTHING COMPARES.
IRAQI STATUS---I dont know. This is primarily a political argument. I think they should be a separate category because they are unique. Additionally, there are no many of them, and they don't compile much of the actual forces. Finally, I find it sadly ironic that you all of the sudden care about these good peoples deaths....the same pro-war person that will never mention the 15,000 dead civilians......especially when we should be having a very valid discussion on the 15,000 dead civilians in iraq versus the 3000 dead civilians on 9/11.....I personally dont value one innocent person more then another because of where they were lucky enough to be born.
SUMMARY---So there is no magic answer that makes Kerry the greatest leader ever. Every leader has weaknesses and makes mistakes. However, I have a theme, you may have noticed. Kerry is not perfect. No one is. BUT his mistakes are nothing compared to Bush's miserable failures, on every level. And kerry's misjudgments do not compare to Bush's horrific failures, which have made us all less safe.

BEN: what the hell do you guys care if they found these weapons (1 pound of which could bring down a plane)...........i thought theyre were no weapons like this in iraq - so this story must not be true…cant be both of these - both of which you all have tried to argue:
A -saddam had no weapons he wasnt a threat i thought
B- now, he did have some weapons - but we didnt get there soon enough you say
cant be both, your not john kerry

CHUCK: EXPLOSIVES. LIKE ANY MILITARY IS ALLOWED TO HAVE. EXPLOSIVES. NICE TRY.

BOB: Ben, I am surprised to hear a comment like that out of you. You seemed to have missed the point:
A -Saddam had no WMD (you know...nuclear, biological, chemical)
B- Of course, he did have lots of weapons (conventional explosives, short-range missles etc.)
The former would have been a threat to U.S. national security because it could be transfered to terrorists and snuck inside our borders, doing catastrophic damage. However, hand grenades and shoulder propelled rockets sitting in a Baghdad warehouse were not a threat to the homeland. Unfortunately, they are now a threat to our troops who are patrolling around like sitting ducks, having successfully neutralized a non-threat.

BEN: bob and chuck, actualy it was a nice try, because i am right…for the record, under the cease fire terms with the vaunted united nations of 1991 after the Gulf War, saddam was not allowed to have the said material that is under question right now. so actually his military wasnt allowed to have them. of course he did have them, because the new york times has now told us they are missing, in a recycled story meant to hurt bush. bob, we are not talking about "hand grenades" or shoulder fired misslies - thats not whats in question in this argument. we are talking about explosives that bring down airplanes and buildings - not stuff from your common bomb making material compound. not stuff for road side bombsi would say exploseves that weigh 1 pound and can bring down an airplane is a WMD - maybe you disagree. i guess you do. i think that it is pretty powerful stuff. you have to disagree, because if you dont all of your alls emails that said in caps THERE WERE NO WMD BUSH IS A LIAR in over 2300 emails would be wrong.

JAY: kyle, it is undisputed that we have destroyed about 200,000 tons of the same material that the article is referring to and we have a little under 200,000 tons more waiting to be destroyed. it's an old story, but i can dig up the article w/ the statistics if you want.
Kyle, this is from MSNBC: "McClellan also said coalition forces had “destroyed more than 243,000 tons of munitions” and had “secured another nearly 163,000 tons that will be destroyed,” a theme Vice President Dick Cheney picked up on Tuesday in a campaign appearance in Tampa, Fla." My point wasnt that they had WMD's. It was to rebut Chuck. He is buying these tv ads recycling this story to hopefully sway some voters. Apparently he doesn't understand that most of these ads, by both sides, are extremely misrepresenting. I hope most of us understand that these ads are like prescription medicine commercials without giving the side effects. The people who put these ads out put in all the good things about their positions and all the bad things about their opposition's positions. they are extremely misrepresenting b/c they don't explain things that need further explanation. they make things appear so black and white when there is much grey. it seems like they attempt to make it appear as if one candidate's plan for health care or economy or defense is so stupid by only raising these subtle side effects (that are brought on by justifiable reasons but the ads fail to raise them). it sucks b/c SOME people are swayed by such misrepresentations.

SAMMY: Actually Ben, Iraq agrued that the weapons should be kept for eventual use in mining and civilian construction. The U.N. allowed this only with the U.N. overseeing the explosives.
In '96 the U.N. used some of the HMX ( high melting point explosive) for destruction of a germ warfare weapons factory.
In '02 the U.N. found that 35 tons were used in civilian programs leavind 341.7 metric tons. Equivielent to about 380 american tons. 195 of HMX and 141.2 of RDX (rapid detonation explosive) and the rest in PETN (some long sceintific name).
The U.S. knew about the explosives and did nothing to guard them when we invaded Iraq. And to your question that their are no WMD's . Their weren't. These were explosives that we knew about and the U.N. was keeping a watch on them. Not a threat to the U.S. at all. They were using these explosives for civilian projects, mining, and to destroy old weapons factories. If anything, these explosives were a good thing, helping disarm old factories that one day could make WMD's. So again Bush is a liar, and hurt our country again. Why not just hand the explosives over to the terrorists. Because, that is what he basically did. He shoed the insepectors away when we invaded, then did not keep a watch over them when we were their. And the where abouts of the explosives were public knowledge, so any terrorist could just go and get them any time they want. Because even they know that Bush is so stupid that he would overlook 380 american tons of explosives.

JAY: i just watched fahrenhype 911. i thought it was extremely infomative (it actually contained many arguments that i have made on the blog, but more substantiated). i knew moore misrepresented a lot, but not to that extent. i'm asking you all to watch it (especially chuck and john who seem to share moore's views and think they are not misrepresentations). i watched your movie, now it's your turn. i'd like like to discuss both films once everyone/most/some have seen it."It's amazing what you can learn once you hear both sides and make a fully informed decision." Cheney is the bizzy

BEN: john, i dont know where you cut and paste that from......but for you to actually claim that the explosives were to be used for mining and to destroy old weapons factories tells me all i need to know. the point is that the weapons were not there when the troops arrived - so they really couldnt have guarded them if they werent there. i stand by what i wrote in my earlier email. So they have destroyed over 250,000 or more tons.....but you want to focus on 380 tons. this whole discussion is really meaningless, because the weapons werent there when the US arrived. weapons like that are not a threat to the US? we will have to differ on this one.

KYLE: Munitions and powerful explosives are not the same thing. Apples and oranges. My point is that it is a false comparison. The NYT notes why this particular explosive is wanted by terrorists in their 10/25 article: "A special property of HMX and RDX lends them to smuggling and terrorism, experts said. While violently energetic when detonated, they are insensitive to shock and physical abuse during handling and transport because of their chemical stability. A hammer blow does nothing. It takes a detonator, like a blasting cap, to release the stored energy."
The White House believes the weapons at Al Qaqaa were there after the war started on March 20, 2003. Scott McClellan said so in his Press Gaggle 10/25/04. The White House has back pedled on this issue and said in todays NYT that it is a "mystery" when the explosives disappeared and the President is not commenting on the issue. Is this the October surprise?

JAY: Kyle, I can’t believe you are running with this story. I would understand others’ motives, but not you. First, I’d like you to explain the difference between the munitions destroyed and detained and the explosives missing (“apples and oranges”). Do you think that explosives aren’t considered munitions? There are plenty of sources out there stating that the coalition has destroyed and detained huge stockpiles of the same material that is missing and what is missing is a small percentage. Would we be safer if we didn’t go into Iraq and all the material would still be in Sadam’s hands? (Chuck too)Second, this story broke before it was verified. The head of CBS was quoted saying he planned on running the story October 31, but he was afraid the story wouldn’t hold. So they gave it to their sister Co. NYT (which ran the story prior to getting all the facts straight). What do you think they were trying to do? Maybe influence the election? If this would have been done by FOX guess who would be bitching their ass off (c’mon chuck, you know you would).Third, your candidate decided to run w/ the story before it was verified and before he had all the facts. Kerry is jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts. Bush addressed this today. Do you think it’s OK that Kerry is running with this story without knowing all the facts or stating the facts? It is a fct that Kerry doesn’t have all the facts and he is running with it? If it went Kerry’s way, Saddam would have all these weapons at his disposal (we would have been a hell of a lot safer then, right?). Seems like desperation to me.Facts: In Jan. 2003 IAEA tagged and sealed the facility. In March the inspectors went back and couldn’t tell if all the weapons that were tagged by IAEA were there (then war starts). Next, the 3rd Infrantry engaged Iraqi forces at the facility. Iraqi forces were fighting our troops from inside the facility. Then the 101st arrived at the facility on its mission to Baghdad. They did a cursory search for WMD’s and moved on because their mission was Baghdad. It is unknown whether the explosives were present at the time the 101st were there. It is fucking war guys, not taking inventory at Wal-Mart.For insurgents to get 38 truck loads by our convoys in 28 days while the roads were highly guarded is unlikely (our convoys were shooting at anything suspicious that were moving in that area). The only one to take blame, if any, is the head of the 101st division even though they had another mission to do (maybe you can get away w/ blaming it on military incompetence, but I don’t think so). Is bush a military expert? Should he be deciding our on-the-ground military tactics, or should we leave that to our generals?

CHUCK: I am not in the mood right now to go thru this whole story. Especially when everything I say will be refuted by inaccuracies, in a DESPERATE attempt to hang on to the dying Bush-era.
There is no doubt Bush was negligent w/ these explosives, regardless of when they were stolen: If it was before the war, then Bush was negligent, because this facility was under surveilanceIf it was after the war, then Bush was negligent, because this facility was looted while oil was not.
By the way, 12 major sources say it was after US control. NBC kinda says maybe before. AND JAY FILE HAS THE INSANITY TO QUESTION "RUNNING W/ THIS STORY". JAY: I know your side does not like discourse, but sorry....this is a indicative story about Bush, and the facts are what they are.
WMD: THESE ARE NOT FUCKING WMD. CHIEF, DON'T DIGNIFY THEIR DESPERATE ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY THE BUSH FAILURE. THEY ARE DESPERATE. THEY FEEL THE POWER SLIPPING AWAY.
SAD AND DESPERATE.
BEN, I must address this. There are 12 major sources (wsj, nyt, etc) that say the weapons WERE THERE UNDER US CONTROL.
NBC has some report that contradicts the 12 major sources.
And you think this 1 STORY supersedes all other of the 12, for no stated reason.
Its fine you want to believe Bush, but it seems unlikely. I would not take those odds (even when i had a gambling problem).
That said, if you want to believe it, then you still must admit negligence for not having any adequate surveilance over the place that was known for having the largest caches of explosives.....unless you believe Bush is such a bastard that he would have the surveilance and just watched the insurgents take the explosives in massive orderly fashion (i doubt that's your view)
So the Choices are: a) Negligence: Allowed looting of explosives after invasionb) Negligence: Failed to have adequate surveillance over the place known to hold tons of explosives, which allowed a massive convoy to have explosives which are killing people. c) Bastard: Had adequate surveillance, but allowed a bunch of lunatics to take 300 tons because he didnt mind these guys having explosives that kill our men and women.
FINALLY: THESE ARE NOT THE WMD's THAT JUSTIFY WAR. BUSH ISNT EVEN TRYING THAT ONE.
Desperate times call for desperate measures, so say what you gotta, in the face of reality, i guess.

KYLE: Jay, I said "apples and oranges" because it is my understanding that this material is different because it is a more refined material than the munitions we have destroyed. I think you conservatives can argue sucessfully that it is the strongest evidence yet that Saddam Hussein had the materials to detonate a nuclear weapon. From what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this material used is the most dangerous available and can be used for the detonation of a nuclear warhead. I think the reason Fox didn't break the story because they don't exactly agressively investigate this administration.
Are we safer now that we have no idea where this material is?
With little time left, the Bush campaign's response to this issue is weak at the moment and their campaign is off message. They are loosing valuable time going into the weekend. Also, I can answer no consistelty to any question as to whether Bush is an expert on a subject.

BEN: chuck, i will trust the US military who said from 18 months ago that there
were no weapons there when they got there. if you choose to believe
people like the NYT over the military then ok. who are the 12 sources -
where did they get their info from - the NYT? even CNN backed off this
story yesyerday.
so really i dont think any of your 3 options, none of which of course
are in any way favorable to bush, are realistic, because they weapons
werent there when we arrived.
maybe kerry is the desparate one. they are running with an old story
that isnt proven true. everyday Kerry picks up the NYT and runs with
the story of the day - except this one wasnt true. His own adviser, the
man who will be Sec of State of Kerry wins, said yesterday "we dont
know the truth of what happened." Yet, they will run an ad assuming they
do know the truth. if they were in a postion to win, they wouldnt need
to do that.

BOB: Ben, First I’d like to thanks you for your Electorial Overview. I read the whole thing twice and posted it as its own thread at the Blog. Good work.
But about your other emails…you said, “I would say explosives that weigh 1 pound and can bring down an airplane is a WMD - maybe you disagree.”
I do disagree, and I’m not the only one: The President, the CIA and the Defense Department do to. You see, the most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" in official U.S. documents is "nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons." I attached a link to a site that demonstrates multiple times that this precise definition has been used by:
---Bush, in communications with Congress.
---The CIA, in reporting on proliferation to Congress.
---The U.S. Department of Defense, in reports to Congress.
---Some U.S. laws (The Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act)
Ben, I regret to inform you that I will have to vote for some other MVC this week.
http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html

BEN: those explosives are used to in nuclear detonators
anyways...what does MVC mean?
ben

JAY: chuck, give me your 12 sources please b/c i think you're bullshitting. if you can prvide me w/ these sources, l'ii read them and discuss the matter w/ you intelligently. i gave you a detailed description of what i read and you came back w/ a generalization along w/ attempts to criticize me. give me the sources you moore wanna be

BOB: Ben, tell me if I'm getting this wrong...You're saying that:
The missing explosives could have been used to detonate the nuclear bombs that Saddam didn't have...Because of this, THEY constitute a WMD.
Have you been drinking, again?
PS MVC is Most Valuable Conservative. Check the Blog polls.

CHUCK: jay, what a joke. i already gave a link w/ dozens of reports. and then you say that you will discuss it w/ me.....well, if i could only be so honored to finally, after 3 months, you would discuss an issue w/ me.....i wont hold my breath.
There are New York Times reports, Wall Street Journal, and BBC reports.....which I am not registered for. There are several more sources out there, but this is what I h
Here are some links:
Wash Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62731-2004Oct25.html?sub=new
Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/26/ explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion/
Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=576048
Australia Broadcast:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1227830.htm
Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1098677410357
Chicago Sun Times:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-nuke26.html
Salon:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/26/explosives/index_np.html
i'm done w/ this issue. its not that important to the choice b/w Bush and Kerry, anways. too me, its just another example of Bush failure in iraq.

JAY: "It pointed to a report that aired Monday on NBC saying that three weeks into the war, the network had staff traveling with the Army's 101st Airborne when the troops temporarily took over Al-Qaqaa. NBC said the troops found stockpiles of conventional weapons but no explosives."
this quote is from one of your articles. most of your articles are citing the NYT (that would be like me citing fox news) and the others i have to register for. they don't state specific facts just weapons are missing and that kerry is blaming it on bush. that's credible stuff. i gave you a timeline that i jotted down while listening to MSNBC this morning with specific facts. i'm on break from class, but when i get home i'll register for the others (although most of them are from left wing sources).

#13: Three Reasons. > Three Strikes?

2004-10-22T17:39:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 22nd, 2004
Following a resurgence of Conservative contributions...

BOB: Now we have just 10 days remaining before the big day, so I have one last challenge for y’all:
Give me three specific reasons that you’re voting for your candidate.
In this explanation, don’t mention the other candidate AT ALL or the wonders of the party platform or the ideals of Liberalism / Conservativism (and especially not Evolution and the joys of Capitalism). Just the man and his record. Good luck. I’ll post mine this weekend.

DAN: Kyle, Here is an example of a "luxury afforded to people who failed due to their own poor choices,".......The three strikes and your out policy.
In my opinion, fuck those liberals who fight so diligenly to keep these abusers on the streets. Your argument, "Well the prisons are getting too full." You know what fixes that? The death penalty. I'm NOT saying getting caught with drugs makes you a candidate for capital punishment. These criminals are some of the people who reap the benefits of my tax dollars the through welfare they may collect and blow on drugs, as well as paying for the court systems they end up in. Poor choices, huh? How about letting these people make the same "poor" choice THREE times before imprisioning them. Sounds like something worth fighting for!!!

CHUCK: Economics: So if its so simple, that people wont work w/ higher taxes.....then what was going on in the 90's.....people worked under Clinton's 40% top bracket.....WHY? WHY? That's where Kerry wants to put us....back to clinton top bracket rates....and if i'm not mistaken....people worked....and created 20 million new jobs (21 million more then bush)
Secondly, people that make great innovations (technology, science) are not solely, and probably not primarily, driven by money. If you are in a scientfic field, it much less likely you got there for money....probably more like a unique passion or brain capacity. And these are the people I want working. You and these greedy business men that will only market their new consumer good for a huge profit, etc....that is the type of asshole that I could careless if he works. Someone else will gladly do his job.
Listen there are obviously very complex issues here, and I agree......the whole pie does grow....the problem is, is that it is COMPLETELY CLEAR: The Rich are getting MORE of the newly grown pie, and the Poor are getting LESS. There is no doubt. So the question is not "what should the tax rate be?", the question is, "are you okay w/ rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer?"
Overall, I think you act like the alternative proposed by the democrats is completely communist. Well, sorry to disappoint, but we like getting money and growing the economy like all capitalists.....we just have a little more sense and compassion. You make obviously strong and informed points, but they are similar to the beliefs of all money-driven people.....not just conservatives
IRAQ: Get the hell out of here w/ this 'mainstream media shit'. What the hell is wrong w/ you? This is nuts. I understand you support for the war, while i disagree. But for you to live in a fantasy land that this is going well, is absurd. It is just dillusional. Sure its a long fight, but its a lot worse because of Bush's mismanagement. You compare to rebuilding in Germany....that presumes we have control of the country....we don't. We have gone in circles about this thing for months, so i'll avoid the specifics. but get you head out of the same rose-colored glasses worn by president bush, and see that this thing has not gone well. You talking about the great things going on in iraq, is as unfair as Michael Moore showing kids flying kites before the invasion......they both distort reality. I DID IT, I admitted michael moore was distorting iraq......So do you part and be honest, too.

SAMMY: Peter, I think you should be questioned if you think domestic policy is something to scoff at. I am not sure what you are trying to say in the least. Please give examples. Atleast you acknowledge that the current administration is doing a horrible job here at home. And I don't know if you realize we are not do so well in Iraq either. I would have to say as a business owner, like your father, I would need to know just a little about the free market to suceed at all. So please don't even try to insult me at all.
Now for your freind Aram. I don't know him and I will not insult him, but Aram is quick to point out the New York Times, but forgets to point out Bush's endorsements.Yes, Bush was endorsed by the Chicago Tribune. Try picking it up once in a while Pete you do live their now. The Chicago Tribune has over 1 million papers in circulation. Yes that is smaller than the Times' 1.7 million in circulation. But still a pretty good achievement. Also, Aram has not told us that The New York times supported Al Gore in 2000 and the Tribune endorsed Bush in 2000. Now for the Times excepting money from the Kerry campaign. i could find no evidence of this, on the other hand I have found proof that The New York Times have donated to the Kerry campaign. Maybe this is what Aram meant to say, or maybe he is right. Their is undeniable proof though that the Times does endorse kerry and has given money to the campaign. While giving no money to the Bush campaign. Actually, the Times have given the campaign 27 thousand to the campaign. One more fun fact, the donations are not from the actual paper, they are from individuals empolyed by the Times. The max donation is 2000 by an individual, so really this is a meager number compared to the individual cotributions over the whole election. From "opensecrets.org" I found that their have been 106,595 individuals that have contributed the max donation so far to both parties. Shit I even donated 10 dollars to the Kerry campaign. And I am sure that rerpublican endoresed media outlets have done the same for Bush. So while Aram brings up a good point, I think you should still not bat an eyelash at this.

CHUCK: Not that anyone has been missing my long emails, but here goes:
Sammartano: Love the energy.....agreed 'angry nugent' borders on anarchist
Jay: you comment on the 'resume' argument. Well, the problem is is that you guys act like this world is based entirely on merit....but then you have Bush running the whole operation, who has earned nothing. Also, you say about the other dads.....agreed, they were all influences.....but in the case of John Edwards, his Dads influence was VALUES, not MONEY....so when edwards saw his dad work in a mill....he learned hard work.....which is what sets him apart from the other 3.
Jay: seriously, anyone that supports bush has no credibilty to question Kerry's plan for spending
Bob: Read my economic comments to Bob....and by the way, when you get tax breaks for stock investment, the rich invest in stock.....and then you are just filling the pockets of skyrocketing CEO salaries....just the facts. Again, you claim we pay more taxes....you are just wrong. I know you dont make over $200,000 and those are the only people that gained....and again, we worked and earned and thrieved under Clinton....and that is where Kerry will return us to. Also, Theresa is great....laura bush is the bitch that tells the disabled and sick that there is no hope in stem cell research.
Chief: I could have saved some breathe on peter, if i read your email first.
Bob: I could have saved some breathe on peter, if i read you simple 'pete, stop it' email first.
Nug: All of the sudden, 'not-angry nugent' created a lot of gray areas in what is good and bad.....that is good. Because now we can squabble over the specifics of what programs are productive versus counterproductive
VISCIONE: Going to jail for life after 3 criminal convictions is a LUXURY? You said it, not me. By the way, I think you are 1 conviction away and only 25 years old.....so are you prepared to go to jail for life? I am not wasting any energy on that absurd argument. Okay, one more thought....YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT LEAST 2 TIMES.....BUT YOU WANT TO GIVE THE LIFE IN PRISON for 3 strikes people......ha.

3 Reasons to vote for John Kerry
1. John Kerry strongly believes in and supports science and technology (specifically stem cell and alternative fuels).
2. John Kerry has a tremendously informed world-view along w/ respect for all of worlds people. This knowledge and respect can unite a divided world (from the war in iraq, to the human rights disasters in china/africa/mexico/etc, to the ignored struggle in israel).
3. John Kerry has consistently fought against poverty and sought to help insure the uninsured, and that gives me confidence that (along w/ his formal plan) he will find a way to reduce poverty and provide more health insurance. This is important to me, despite the fact that I do not know anyone in poverty, or know anyone that is uninsured, because I think (and John Kerry agrees) that the richest nation ever should not have people in poverty or unable to receive medical treatment.

DAN: I truly did not understand you response at all. Firstoff, when did I say that going to jail for life is aluxury? I didn't look back at my e-mail, but I'mpretty sure the word luxury wasn't written. If youare insinuating that life imprisonment is a luxury ascompared to the death penalty, then yes, I would haveto your question. Secondly, I have been arrested ONE time, and that wasfor a DUI, which was a misdemeanor offense...notapplicable here. By the way, regardless of how manytimes, or what it was for, that is a fucking shittything to add to an e-mail, being that your weren'ttrying to provide examples, you were just being anasshole. Belittling someone to prove a point is adick thing to do. Especially to a good friend.

BOB: I agree with Dan. I don’t think that we should be soft on crime. And I too, hate when liberals coddle criminals and blame society for the faults of individuals. I would consider a strike system. But we must be very, very, very careful what crimes we include on that list. If we include:
---Drunk driving
---Drug possesion
---Criminal Trespass (I got this one)
---Disorderly Conduct
---Indecent Exposure (Me too)
---Assault & Battery
---(That thing Dan did when I had to bail him out on MY vacation)
Then half of us on this Blog would be one drunk bar-fight away from a life sentence.
About Capital Punishment: Everyone deserves a fair trial with all the rights provided to them in the Bill of Rights and the appeals process. But if after the trial process, a person is found guilty of a 3rd malicious, violent crime: (Rape, Child Molestation, Manslaughter, Murder, Assault with a deadly weapon, Kidnapping, etc.) Then I have no problem dropping them in a big garbage disposal and grinding them to liquid pulp. We have better things to spend our tax dollars on then rehabilitating Jeffery Dahmer.
But no theft or drug crimes should be considered in these strikes . And I think age needs to be taken into consideration. If someone isn’t old enough to drink a beer, they aren’t old enough to earn a life sentence. So start at 21, keep it to violent crimes and I’d consider it.

DAN: I stand corrected...I've been arrested twice.

BOB: 3 Reasons that I Voted for Kerry:
#1: Kerry is qualified to be Commander-and-Chief---I think it is important in a time of war, for the Commander-and-Chief to know what war actually looks like. Kerry does. When Kerry sees a casualty report or decides to deploy more troops he will have a clear understanding of everything that entails.
#2: Kerry puts science before religion---(Nugent, even you can appreciate this).
He supports stem-cell research. I think that as president he will not wear his religion on his sleeve or allow his personal beliefs to interfere with his secular office.
#3: Kerry is intelligent---What more can I say? As we saw in the 3 debates he won, he knows his stuff, is well spoken and has a presidential demeanor.

ABROMOVICH: My three (or seven) reasons:
1) George Bush has taken a proactive approach to fighting the war on terror. Before September 11th if we would have gone into Afghanistan to disrupt the Taliban regime all of you liberals would have shit your pants like you are now about Iraq. We can no longer wait for terrorists to strike our land, we must hunt them down before they can do any more harm to our country. Although we may never know, what George Bush did by invading Iraq could have spared this country from another major catastrophie. I am not about to support anyone who doesnt protect our country first or leaves the security of our nation in the hands of a coalition of nations. Can someone answer this for me - How can we have a Commander in Chief leading a war who says it is "the wrong war at the wrong time?" What kind of support does a Commander in Cheif get from other countries, for a war he does not feel is just? I guess it will just have to pass the "Global Test." What exactly is the "Global Test?" Do all nations have to approve any actions the US takes now? The Global test can be whatever you want it to be. For the other canidates it is what is called being a pussy (I sound like Viscione).
2) I currently work for what would be classified as a small business. George Bush's tax cuts are what allows small businesses to grow and prosper even when our economy is in an economic downswing. Under other leadership taxes would eliminate the opportunity for many small businesses to flourish. Small business is the heart and soul of our economy.
3) Abortion
4) Have you seen who the first lady would be?
5) The other canidates are liars and are not qualified.
6) I will never vote for anyone (Dem or Rep) who votes against providing body armor, ammunition, and armored vehicles to our troops when they are in a war?
7) George Bush owns a timber company.

DAN: 1. Bush's stance on the war. I am for the liberation of Iraq. One year, or 10 years from now, it doesn't matter, there WILL be a "totaly free" Iraq in which other Middle Eastern countries will aspire to become. This can not happen without the help of the Coalition. I like his policy on terrorism. I don't think going about terrorism light-heartedly is going about it the right way. Bush will "stay the course" and do what it takes to protect us. I think others will leave us short when it comes down to it, as well our troops.
2. I don't want my taxes raised. Other candidate's proposals WILL, in the end, raise taxes. There is no other way to implement them without doing so.
3. I like that Bush stands firm on what he believes in, and lets you know exactly where he stands. He does not try to play both sides to avoid loosing popularity. Whether or not I agree with his stances, and there are things I disagree with on his platform, I know where Bush stands because he does not play the middle. He is much more genuine than any other candidate.

BOB: First, I would like to thank Dan for being the only REP so far to follow directions and giving me three reasons why he supports Bush. I would just like to point out that I too, “don't think going about terrorism light-heartedly is going about it the right way.” The Democrats are proposing a different approach to the war on terror, not a light-hearted one.
Abromovich on the other hand, you gave me a mixture of genuine reasons (proactive approach), party platform issues (abortion), bad jokes (timber company) and direct attacks on John Kerry (global test).
I thought the directions were simple…oh well.
By the way, you’ve really swallowed Bush’s talking points hook-line-and-sinker. John Kerry already answered your “Global Test” question in the debates several times. Can he be any clearer?
“I will never cede the authority of our country or our security to any other nation. I'll never give a veto over American security to any other entity -- not a nation, not a country, not an institution. But I know, as I think you do, that our country is strongest when we lead the world, when we lead strong alliances. We are not doing that today. We need to. I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the terrorists. And I will not stop in our efforts to hunt down and kill the terrorists.”
And your second concern that Kerry wouldn’t get the same kind of global support as Bush. It is ridiculous. The Coalition is shrinking—eight nations have left. 90% of the costs and the casualties are ours. As Kerry pointed out in the third debate: “If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States.”
So the question is: Who do you think will muster more international support in Iraq?
[the following text was originally in green]
A fresh face that is in agreement with the international community (admitting the war was wrong and poorly executed) while demonstrating why it is now in all of our interests to clean it up.
[the following text was originally in red]
Or the man who disregarded the 'irrelevant' U.N., and blocked nations that didn't support the war from bidding on reconstruction contracts? This man is the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security!!!
You tell me, Abromovich.

DAN: I know you are looking for an answer from Bob A. inregards to your international support in Iraqquestion, therefore, will not go into that. I willthough point out your subtle, yet transparent,subliminal Red/Green color scheme when writing yourviews on the candidates. You almost made me realize how evil Bush really is.

BOB: Well Dan, Unfortunately, those reading the Blog will read every post in black and white, but to those who received my full color version (in which text referring to Kerry was green and text referring to Bush was red) I'd like to say: My color scheme wasn't 'subtle' or 'subliminal'.
Green means good. Red means bad.
It was however, irrelevant. (I think it's hilarious that instead of answering the question, you addressed my choice of color!) Just to make you happy though, I will attach the email in the reverse color scheme. Guess what? It reads the same. Next time, try disputing the facts.

ABRAMOVICH: Bob, see my comments below... and its Abramovich:
OK - now he has told me he is not going to leave our security up to other nations etc. and Yes he could be much clearer. This still does not answer the question? What is the Global Test? and what is John Kerrys "plan?" How does one go about completing the "Global Test?"
Do you honestly think that if John Kerry became president all of this countries are just going to jump into this war - of course they are not. The 90% figure does not take into account Iraqi fighters. Do they not count? John Kerry doesnt seem to think so. They are the ones fighting for their own freedom.
Neither will get anymore support. Why should we allow countries who dont support a war we are in to win bids for reconstruction? Disarming Saddam was a victory for the entire world, not just the US. These other countries should be greatful for what Mr. Bush did. I am not concerned about what any europeans think or how they view Bush's presidency. Do they care about how I view their leaders? Didnt think so. As Dan Viscione said - some day there will be peace in Iraq and Afghanistan and the people of those countries will have 2 people to thank, Mr George Bush and Mr Tony Blair.
By the way - why the hell did Kerry make that reference to the Timber Company. That should tell you enough about him. He is just making things up.

DAN: Bob,You chose that color scheme representing eachcandidate, whether subconciously or not, for a reason. There is no arguing that. Also, I wasn't avoiding your question, youspecifically asked Bob A. to answer your question. Iwas merely waiting for him to respond first. I amwalking out the door in a minute, but to brieflyanswer your question, I think after the elections areheld in Iraq and insurgent Iraqis begin to see thecause in which we are fighting for, things will settledown over there. They will then have a realization tothe potential we are helping them to achieve. Inwhich case, prosperity will begin and theinternational community (as well you and many others)will then realize our efforts were not in vain.

CHUCK: VISCIONE, EVERYONE that makes less then $200,000 pays a HIGHER PROPORTION of the taxes under Bush. So you shoulder a HIGHER BURDEN under Bush. Sure you might pay $400 less over a year, but you pay a higher percentage of the overall pot, then you used to.
Also, still know where Bush stands? Because Bush doesnt even know where he stands. Bush said
ABRAMOVICH, Why dont you ask Keeler what the timber company comment means? Because he can tell you, because anyone that looks into it, understands it. But since you refuse to inquire, just joke and mock Kerry, I'll explain:
Bush Claimed: 900,000 small business owners get a tax break under his tax cuts. Kerry Said: That figure (900,000) is ridiculous. Kerry Explained: When President Bush owned $80 in timber company (in 2001), Bush (w/ an $80 investment) would be considered one of those 900,000 "small business owners" Kerry was (somewhat unclearly) explaining that Bush is completely distorting the number of small businesses that got a tax break under Bush
GET IT? NOT HARD, if you allow yourself to use your head and common sense.

BEN: 1. I like who he has appointed to the federal judiciary (including those blocked by Senator Kerry and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate)
2. I agree with the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes against terrorism and "we will make no distinction between those who harbor the terrorists and the terrorists themselves)
3. He isnt a poll driven president who needs to go shooting guns in Ohio to score points. he went into Iraq believeing it was the right thing to do, knowing his presidency would be on the line
I think this will be my last response until the election......with my site and newsletter i cant keep up with all of this right now.
There is going to be a shift in the polls by Friday that will tell us who is going to win. That I can predict. What i can not tell you is for what side it will be.

KYLE: 1. A return to fiscal discipline instead of record deficits.
2. The protection of basic freedoms including a woman's right to choose.
3. Critical thinking and debate instead of devine decisiveness.

SAMMY: 1) Intellegience- John Kerry has the definite skills that are needed in a public official.
2) Religion & State- John Kerry is obviously not influenced by religious fanatics. He wants stem cell research funding, is pro-choice. He is not swayed by the influential religious fanatics.
3) A new face- John Kerry is just what is needed for United States to save face in the international community. A new face is needed to repair the mistakes that have been made in the past 4 years.

MANEY: ...Tonight I actually read all of my e mails, and it is fucking funny. I thought we were not supposed to get personal. holly shit you guys are ripping nug a new ass. I have to ask you bob, are you drunk when you respond to nugent? I don't think u realize that he is no longer human. He is freaking huge! He could rip your arms off and then beat you with them. Which is how I would be feeling after some of your guy's responses If I was nugent. I have basically dropped out do to the fact of boredom. I have my opinions and they are not going to change, just like yours are not changing or J's or anyone. So besides not having time, I just don't see the point. Back and fourth, back and fourth. Plus I see how nasty everyone is getting as the debate gets closer. So sorry, I will keep reading but I prob. will not be chiming in much unless you want to talk about the ladies. Oh and out sourcing. I tried weeks back to bring that up but no one really gave a fuck. So I just let it go since no one seemed interested.

Not voting!
1. What does it matter when the popular vote means nothing?
2. Do not like either candidate.
3. I like how it pisses people off when I tell them that I am not voting!

CHUCK: Maney, You not voting, does make me mad. It makes me not care about your problems. Still love you, though. Just could careless if your job gets shipped overseas, or you lose overtime pay, or whatever.

#12: Where have all the cowboys gone?

2004-10-19T16:34:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 20th, 2004

BOB: Are the Conservative MinuteMen out of gas?!
---Dan has input 42 words in the last four threads.
---Pete was in like a lion, out like a lamb.
---Maney has dropped out.
---Sanford never showed up.
---Abromovich made one brief appearance.
---Nugent, even big strong Nugent is nowhere to be found. (He told me he was going to respond to my ridiculous email noting: “Since you'll be gallivanting through the country side for ten days, Ill take my time to write it.” Well your ten days are up, dog.) It’s gotten so bad at the Blog, that Jay is leading in the MVC Poll!!! For the love of God, there are only 13 days until election! After that you can hang up your glory gloves for another 4 years. But for 13 more days, George W. needs your sorry asses.

JAY: look at all the recent posts by the liberals. it's all a bunch of whining and blaming, "why is bush moving up?, wah wah wah." i have better time than responding to a bunch of whining. do you honestly consider what you libs have been whining about is worth a response? if you want a response to your whining question, then here it goes. maybe public speaking doesn't define good leadership. maybe people see through kerry's bullshit. maybe people see kerry's horrible record and realize they don't want a leader that ducks out of his responsibility. i don't know why. but keep whining guys. it's kind of amusing.

DAN: I think John Podhoretz, NY Post, answers your questionperfectly. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/32163.htmThis article agrees with my thinking of most of youDems and your your take on the issues...in short, muchnegativity. Like I have said before, most Dems areall bitch and no resolve. Dems are quick to point thefinger, they have no problem letting you know yourfaults and how it is affecting them. If you look atthe blog you will notice a pattern from the Dems, inwhich case, most of the comments are bitch-fests. Whydon't you Dems spend time arguing FOR issues ratherthan bitching about Bush and what you think hisadministration did wrong (which clearly iseverything)? Another thing, I am tired of the, "It'snot fair, the Reps get this and we get that,"bullshit. Quit your fucking bitching!! There is nosuch thing as a fair fight, and that definitely goesfor politics.To answer the question, "Has the world gone mad?" No,I believe people are just sick of the bitching. Stopbitching and start resolving.

ZELIN: Vicscione, Can’t let republicans off the hook so easy. Seriously, you can say that the Reps have not been attacking/bitching just as much. Go back, and re-read those same email trails you talk about, and see what dems have read. Shit, even your own leader, Bush has gone on a massive assault, spending most of the time attacking and bitching about this opponent without mentioning his own accomplishments.
Interesting thing happening here in Hong Kong. Many people I know have not received their absentee ballets in the mail. Last night I went to a democratic voter drive in the city to pick up a federal write in ballet, so I can vote. Spoke with a few people who stated that their republican friends abroad had received their absentee ballet already.
Interesting? Florida all over again. Republicans will figure out a way to win, even if it involves cheating. Now call that bitching, but I call it pretty sad.

CHUCK: Am I the only one that laughs at Jay really funny when he calls us "libs" as its an insult. Jay claims to be left wing on almost all social issues.
So if you agree w/ all of our social issues, then you are a "lib" too, no?
(no need to respond, jay, if answer just rambles on about our differences in iraq.....if you are pro-stem cell, pro-abortion, pro-gay......you are a "lib" in the mold of Arnold, or even Bill Clinton (a fiscal conservative, and social "lib")

NUGENT: I can’t actually believe that you people buy into these campaigns. You are not watching Kerry and Bush go at each other, you are watching a highly calculated dog fight between two business organizations vying for power and money. I have a friend high up in the Bush campaign, and he tells me how precisely they can tweak percentages by leaning on any given issue in any place at any time. When I worked at Pepsi, the marketing team could predict, with scary accuracy, how the slightest moves would effect percentage shares in any given market, and it is the exact same deal with politics. The debates haven’t mattered because, with the extreme marketing blitz, the polls are already systematically saturated. People as a whole are extremely predictable.There is only one thing your vote means, and that is your individual say on whether you believe in moving the country forward with a conservative or a liberal attitude. I think we would all agree that individual idealism, with this current system, is a non option- for better or worse.
That said, I don’t respond to this blog because I cannot for the life of me understand how you pansy-ass moon maidens can actually believe in the benefit of a society that is designed to suppress the talented, productive people in order to justify and reward those who, for whatever reason, do not rise to the top. For every social program you enact, (medicare, social security etc.) you take away one more reason to work hard and achieve. Furthermore, you spoil people to the point that they can not stand to see the slightest suffering. This decline in our threshold for pain of any kind is a growing weakness. Remember this country is successful because it offers “life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.” Give us the basic protection services and anything else needed to just sustain a productive society, and then let us be.The entire rise of this species has been based on survival of the fittest. Greed in all forms, and the ensuing competition, have marked the upward surge of mankind for the past 7 million years. To study human history is to study conflict sprinkled with individual achievement. You want the world to evolve into this global, peaceful, socialist society...... noble, and all together foolish. If you all had the sense to view mankind for what it is, you would realize that your liberal mind set is nothing more than a deterrent based on fictional idealism.
---Mike Maney... dont give in so easily
---Viscione... good point STOP BITCHING you fucking liberals
---Jay... way to keep these hoes on their toes
---Pete... of course your a conservative- your intelligent
---Keeler... i'd like to order one "that look" mouse pad
sam kut hew zel san hon koz... stop dragging us down!

JAY: Chuck, i'm not making fun. it's merely shorter to type. and thank you for acknowledging that

CHUCK: Nug, if your argument is productivity of the best (the rich, according to you), then how do you justify tax breaks on investments and tax cuts on inheritances. These benefits to the rich do not cause them to work. it causes them to sit on their wealth. its a fact.
What a joke.
Additionally, if your raw belief in survival of the fittest was so true, then why is Bush president. No one would claim him the smartest or most productive man....or really anywhere close. half of or parents were more successful businessmen, and were more productive. So why does Bush have a huge advantage....because of his dad.....not because of some super-human drive and determination.
Additionally, some of us really do have emotions. and w/ them, we dont want to live in a country where the elderly are left to die homeless, poor and w/out dignity (which is what happens when you remove the horrible program called social security). And that's not bleeding heart liberal.....that is having any heart. (by the way, most americans like social security)

BOB: After reading Nugent’s last email, I realize one of the biggest problems facing sworn Conservatives. That is the inability to separate the party from the administration.
I think the Republican Party has a great platform:
---Smaller Federal Government
---More power at the State level
---Less overall government intervention
---Less redistribution of wealth through social programs
---Less government restriction on trade / interference in business
Despite Nugent’s description of us, we are not communists. Personally, I agree with every plank listed above. I think that both of the parties have a positive side and a negative side and will be the first to say that, in general, the Republican Platform’s Economic Policy is better for America. But that is the Traditional Party Platform. This administration is another thing altogether. Bush is not lowering government spending and returning us to fiscal responsibility. He turned a $200 billion dollar federal surplus into a $500 billion deficit, shattering the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history!!! Whether the REPs want to admit it or not, Bush does not represent the party’s sound Economic Policy.
Bush does, however, represent the party’s negative aspects: The intolerance (constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage) and the religious backwardness (stem-cell research).
And survival of the fittest? The man you are voting for:
---Graduated from college with a low C average.
---Was a cheerleader.
---Joined the National Guard to stay out of Vietnam.
---Ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
---Failed in the oil industry (despite help from his Daddy).
---Ran a baseball team that was handed to him for awhile.
---Got elected Governor thanks to a lot of help from his Daddy.
He is about as much of a survivor as Paris Hilton.
If you hate Kerry, fine. Vote for Bush. But please don’t tell me you are voting for Bush because of your Darwinist beliefs or your respect for sound economics. It’s ridiculous.

SAMMY: Nugent, Why don't you take your message and stick it up your god damn anarchist ass. If you where to take your thoughts just one more step further you would be preaching anarchy. I for the other hand like government. I don't know what is going on in California. Maybe you were playing arena football with your helmet off, I don't know. But Chris, Its time to stop living off daddy's tree farm money, and open your eyes. People aren't given the luxuries that you and bush have been handed. All of the rest of us are working for ourselves and paying the bills. You on the other hand are probably on your first book of starter checks. So when you start paying taxes, you can chime in. Until then you can leave your anarchist views to yourself.

JAY: in edwards own words, "a resume does not reflect good judgment." so if kerry and edwards think a resume is irrelevant, why do you place so much emphasis on george w's? i disagree w/ that. just wanted to point out the illogical thinking of the people you are voting for. if you want to compare resume's look at your candidates voting record. it's inexcusable. that record really reflects strong leadership? forget about the records(that argument is getting just as old as "bush is stupid"). prior to kerry, george w. hadn't lost a debate. pretty stupid eh? (kerry even backs that up). i'm not endorsing his backround, but don't leave out kerry's and edwards' daddies. i'm sure there parents had nothing to do with where they ended up. why don't you emphasize cheney's daddy? that's what i thought. he already made edwards look like a jack ass. i'm not going to argue this point b/c that's a fact of life. kerry's stance on gay marraige is the same, he just wants to play both sides. he says let them reap the same benefits and rights as a married couple, BUT let's not give them the title. pick a side pussy. this reflects kerry's tendency to base his decisions on political appeal (similar to iraq). what has kerry said on economics that has won all your hearts. he always says he is going to fix the deficit, but his explanations make no sense. i'm going to reiteratewhat i said before. he has proposed additional spending that some analysts have estimated could cost as much as $226.1 billion annually ($2.261 trillion over ten years). this was stated by George Borjas of Harvard and George borts of boston U and 44 other top economists. now, i could listen to what you guys say on economics or what these top economists say. hmmm?

DAN: Here are some random thoughts from someone I ran across...
http://forums.justsaywow.com/messageview.cfm?catid=63&threadid=107781
...I'm sure this will stir up some arguments.

PETE: Chuck: it's simple, if you dont take people's money away from them, they work to make more of it, and the more people work, the more stuff gets done, and the more stuff that gets done, the more good stuff gets done. Economics is not a zero sum game...the economy is improved when people are motivated to work, and people are motivated to workwhen they get to keep their money. Tax breaks on investment and inheritences encourage more work, more work leads to more innovation, more innovation leads to a better life for everyone. It's not about slicing up pieces of a finite pie; the whole pie grows. John...I would say that you've been handed quite a bit by your parents as well, I would say that relatively speaking, we all have. It's nice to be able to decide who you hand your money to, as opposed to beingforced to hand it to a government bureaucrat. (My father, who as an immigrant, started his business from scratch, would have never gottenoff the ground if Reagan were not elected in 80 and overhauled the tax code.) The problem is that people that don't understand conservatism think that it's all about greed, when any intelligent conservative knows that the herd only moves as fast as it's slowest member. It'sfoolish to enrich onesself at the expense of the community, and if all you're concerned about is your own bank account regardless of what's going on around you, you're going to be left with a lot of paper without a better life to exchange it for and that's not worth a damn.The successful people are the ones that understand that, and they take care of their families, friends, and communities, and give to the charities that THEY THINK make their world a better place, and market forces ensure that the ones who REALLY DO make the world a betterplace are rewarded for it. Some of you would argue that most people do not do this, that they are greedy but you shouldn't be concerned with these people because the wealth of the truly greedy collapses in on itself and gets distributed to the masses, one way or another,either through bankruptcy or their douchebag children wasting it sometime down the line. By trying to control this greed, which actually takes care of itself, you take away the self determination of intelligent people who have proven they know how to make good use of money and who furthermore earned the right to do so. To take thatdecision away from the one who earned it, and give it to some bureaucrat is not only insulting, it discourages the earners from earning.There's no more powerful force than man acting in his own self interest, and there is no more beneficial force than a man who knows that it's in his self interest to look out for his fellow man, and that force should be protected and nurtured more than anything else.

ZELIN: Can't help but agree with Sammy's sentiments. Nugent, if I can remember correctly, you were able to pursue your professional wrestling career because of unemployment. You, the fittest of the bunch, was able to pursue happiness due to the system paying your rent. If you are going to preach, please don't preach hypocrisy.

PETE: Bob, There is no more dangerous force than a man who has never known what self-interest is because the fruits of their labor go to build palaces for their dictator and any hot girl that they score is guaranteed to get raped by their dictator and his family and pals. (It would be a hell of a lot easier to convince me to fly a plane intoa building to get to 40 virgins in heaven if I couldn't get ONE on earth) The Middle East is full of these men who don't know what self-interest is, and taking action to rid the world of governments where self-determination is prohibited is the soundest economic policy I can think of....like I said about deficits in my initial email, theycan be awfully temporary....remember where we were when Carter was President. Take a longer view...and take a global view...worrying about deficits at home without considering the long-term benefit to the global economy that the administration's current foreign policy will have is disingenuous.Chuck, It takes awhile to do what we're doing in Iraq...Japan and Germany weren't rebuilt in a year, or even 2, but are now 2 of the strongest countries in the world, because they had a chance to rebuild from a base of individual liberty. Maybe you don't think anything good is going on in Iraq because THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO. Here's a link to a whole mess of good news from Iraq, I don't have time to summarize it for you, but check it out, since you say nothing good is going on over there. There's quite a lot for you to read. (I worry that you don't really want to know that good things are going on over there, but I hold out hope for you pal.)http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/09/good-news-from-iraq-part-10.htmlLike I said, I'm sorry I can't join this thread more often than I do, but it takes some time to read all of the emails and write a decent response and the first year of law school is a tremendous amount of discourse in and of itself that I try to get a break from as often as possible. I hope my efforts are well placed however, so that I can put myself in a position where I can do more to change these things that cause us to get at each other's throats like this because while having these discussions is necessary and beneficial, it doesn't mean anything in and of itself if you don't take action to back up your beliefs."If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap)."

ABROMOVICH: Chainsaw:? your arguement about tax breaks and benefits causing the wealthy to "sit on their wealth" is incorrect. We all know the more money we have at our disposal the more likely we are to spend that money. Ultimately, on a larger scale stimulating our economy. That dumb bitch Theresa Heinz has killed any hopes of her husband being elected. Could you imagine some of the things she would say if she were the first lady. I am back now - those emails were getting too long for a while. Thanks for shortening them.
Sammartano, you talk of paying taxes, as if we dont pay enough taxes already. Under Mr. Kerry we will be paying even more taxes. To quote Sammartano, "People aren't given the luxuries that you and bush have been handed," - this country gives more luxuries and opportunities to individuals than any other country in the world. And you are right, people are not GIVEN any luxuries, it is up to each individual to work hard and earn his or her luxuries. Not to speak for Chris, but I am sure at age 26 he is paying his own bills. No one can expect to be handed a six figure salary (except the GM of the Red Sox) you have to earn it, which starts with getting an education.

ZELIN: Abromovich, You said the following: "this country gives more luxuries and opportunities to individuals than any other country in the world" Actually, European countries (especially Scandinavian ones) offer more luxuries/benefits than the US. Socialized healthcare, education, etc. Not promoting socialism. They pay a hell of a lot more taxes than Americans do. Just check around a bit before you make claims.

KYLE: Peter, Well written piece and I agree with a lot of what you said. You said that "The problem is that people that don't understand conservatism think that it's all about greed, when any intelligent conservative knows that the herd only moves as fast as it's slowest member." I agree. Your analogy works the other way too: The problem is that people that don't understand liberalism think that it's all about slowing down the pack, when any intelligent liberal knows that the heard only moves as fast as it's fastest member.
I always like to explain why I'm a Democrat using a slightly different analogy: I'm a Democrat because I believe our society needs to have a floor, not a ceiling. There needs to be a minimum standard of living and a system that encourages people to suceed as much as they can. People in our country need access to a minimum equal education, a liveable wage, and seniors and children deserve healthcare. Liberals don't support handouts. If you want handouts you can look at the subsidy, contracting, and corporate welfare policies of the Bush administration. You may note that Welfare Reform was signed by William Jefferson Clinton.
The positive result of our democracy is that you conservatives fight for the front of the pack and we democrats fight for the middle and back of the pack, which is where most people end up. I always find it funny how some guy who drives a delivery truck for Wonder Bread will argue angrily about how the rich pay too much in taxes. I know it is because everyone believes that they can someday be rich too. Same reason people play the lottery. I give Republicans credit for getting all those working poor people to vote for them by putting the ten commandments in city hall and keeping evolution and birth control out of the classroom.

PETE: Zelin, before you go scolding Abromovich to check around about the claims he makes, think about the subjective meaning of the words you use to refute him...while those countries you list may provide social benefits, you can't say for a second that that equals luxury, or opportunity. Those countries are for the most part sorely lacking in diversity, creativity, productivity, and intellectual discourse that we enjoy in this country, and as for opportunity, it's not even close. Try starting a business in any one of those countries...you won'thave an easy time.

ZELIN: Pete, agreed. I guess my point was under a different context. All of us are quite good at making simple generalizations about nations and often let it rule our arguments, myself included. But, I do think it is worthy to point out the social benefits in countries, ones that have successfully implemented programs such as healthcare and education. Two things which many Americans cannot afford.

BOB: PETE- Stop lecturing us about the wonders of free-market capitalism. Nugent already did it and every sane Democrat agrees. You are preaching to the choir, friend. Try defending the Bush administration, as apposed to the party platform, it’s more difficult. (PS there is a 500 max on consecutive words at the Blog. Next time I will cut you off.)
JAY-DAN- This is my favorite conservative defense mechanism: I say, “Bush turned a $200 billion dollar federal surplus into a $500 billion deficit.” You say, “Stop whining.” What a perfect defense for the undefendable. What else could you say?
I'm excited though, after Kerry wins and spends 100 trillion dollars on government programs, abandons Iraq, makes gay marriage legal and does a lot of other “pansy-ass” things, I won't hear a peep out of you (Jay, Dan or Nugent.) If I do, I'll just disregard your concerns with a simple...“Stop whining.”
NUGENT- You seem to love the idea of Survival of the Fittest. You must know what happens to handicap and sick animals in the wild. They are left to fend for themselves, even though they can’t. They die alone. Is this really the kind of society that you want? I can't fathom it...How can someone with both a handicap and a sick person in their immediate family be so utterly heartless?
PS Is it true? Chris, have you collected unemployment?!

JAY: my "stop whining" response was directed towards your comments on "why is bush moving up? i don't get it, bush is stupid." you state, "what else can you say?" i further responded with a quote from dozens of reputable economists stating how kerry's plan won't get the results he preaches, but you failed to respond to that. keep on taking my shit out of context. i am confident that everyone else on the blog realizes that is what you have done w/ my whining comment. just to clear up, you said we were out of gas for not replying to your statements. all the statement that were posted were whining questions on why bush has moved up after the debates.you then state, "This is my favorite conservative defense mechanism." just to reiterate, i did quote the economists. avoidance seems to be a great defense mechanism of the liberal party. kerry's record illustrates that (there in no argument against that).and by the way, kerry's not legalizing gay marraige (look into the issue before you preach). he is merely giving them the same rights and benefits as married couples. he refuses to give them the title b/c he is a pussy trying to play both sides. at least bush takes a strong stance. i disagree w/ bush's stance, but at least he can make a decision. you must of missed that in my last e-mail

PETE: Sorry about breaking the max...I wasn't aware. Forgive me if it wasn't clear from Chuck and Sammartano's emails thatthey had the slightest clue about the benefits of free-marketcapitalism...and I question your understanding of it if you can't seehow the negative effects of the current administration's domesticpolicy are entirely insignificant in light of the benefits that willbe realized due to the administration's foreign policy. Check out this email from my pal Aram....some of you have methim...but either way, I'll say that he doesn't speak out much aboutthese matters, so when he does, I pay a little extra attention...andhe points out something that I probably wouldn't have batted aneyelash at...read on... "Shockingly, the ny times endorsed John Kerry on monday. I would feelmore comfortable with the selection of the second-most read paper inthe country if their website hadn't been taking ads from john kerry(on its main page, right below the main picture, and often timesaccompanying articles) for at least the past four months. i've been reading newspapers every day for almost my entire life. I'venever seen an ad for a canditate, ever. not even in the post. well,actually, there were once ads for abe hirschfeld's senate campaign,but that's a different story entirely. what's one reason why there areno campaign ads in newspapers but there are on television stations?because television news shows don't endorse candidates, whilenewspapers long have. and sure, many papers are owned by massive mediacompanies that take campaign money (but from both parties), but again,not on the pages of the paper. sure it's the times' online edition, and not the actual gray ladytaking the ads from john kerry, but it's the TIMES. why would theytake any action that reeks of partiality? i was stunned when i firstsaw the ads. and now they've endorsed him, and sure, they most likelyreached that decision through thoughtful analysis, but then there isthe spectre of the fact that the times took money from the john kerrycampaign, and now the paper of record is telling its millions ofreaders to vote that way. -aram"

NUGENT: A different, more moderate approach- I believe that the end result of any individual person is to enhance mankind’s perpetuation. All of our inherent desires are directed at this goal. And as the years pass, perpetuation will only succeed as long as we continue to evolve so that we may meet and overcome any and all obstacle that will inevitably face us. I am for survival of the fittest because it is the most effective way to route human tendencies toward productive living. However, survival of the fittest alone is, of course, not a solution. Man has always grouped himself into societies because it helps to cultivate a lifestyle that moves toward the aforementioned goal. We are all given a certain amount of compassion that does not allow us to function properly under circumstances of duress. Old people rotting in the street, people with illness or disability dying on the corner- this is not the vision of a productive environment. As Kyle said- “you need a floor,” to fulfill our own need not to see the suffering. Unfortunately, Kyle also said he believes in a floor without a ceiling which is nice....but impossible. You don’t tax the needy to save the needy. You tax the top which is the creation of a ceiling. Now the problem becomes where does the floor / ceiling ratio go from being at the level of necessity for productivity, to the level of detraction from open competition. I believe that programs to help people in the position of my mom and brother are necessary. I believe that programs which help children reach their full potential are necessary. I believe any luxury afforded to people who have failed due to their own poor choices is not necessary. I could go on all day, so Ill just state the formula I use to define what this line should be. It is simply to take objective, decisive aim at the ideology described in the first line of this paragraph. Programs which help- stay, those that don’t- go. Any divergence from there becomes counterproductive to the system. I imagine that, at least subconsciously, most people run through a thought process similar to this. The gap in our vision of how the country should be run probably comes from a gap in the meaning of our existence. Is it good enough to just make it through life, or is it necessary to create positive input? Sammartano.... Im not sure if your response was alcohol induced, but it certainly shows your true colors- firing off a bunch of errant insults without making a point in any direction... If you don’t like my comments, try to refute them with something of substance - other than “I like government” wrapped in personal attacks. As for my collecting unemployment.......It was simply an abuse of the system for an added advantage in pursuing football. That is it, it wasn’t based on need, it wasn’t based on laziness. Remember, I don’t respect unemployment, and therefore have no qualms with taking advantage of the program. I decided to pursue the NFL, and realize the difficulty involved- so, any and all opportunity I have, must be taken advantage of. Any problems you may have with this are really not a concern of mine.

CHUCK: There are several things I want to respond to, but I have to wait until the weekend. I have so many problems w/ so many things Pete has said, I dont know where to start, so I'll start here:
In reference to Zelin contemplating other European nations and their superior benefits Pete Says:Those countries are for the most part sorely lacking in diversity, creativity, productivity, and intellectual discourse that we enjoy in this country
Well, if that were close to true, it would be a good point.
PRODUCTIVITY: The beloved FRENCH are more productive. Norway, Belgium, Ireland, and the Netherlands all have higher productivity then the US. As a whole, the EU is just slightly behind. And what is more scary, is the rate they have caught up. The US is going down, and EU is up. So simply put, false point.
CREATIVITY: Come on. Europe blows us away in artistic output. Architecture: Yeah the cookie cutter homes that dominate american landscapes now....that's creative. Scientific: We are falling. Europeans are leaping ahead, especially when fucking idiots dont want to do stem cell research. Where do you think the next innovations in this world will come from that change the world....stem cell and alternative fuels, is my bet. And guess who's winning: The Euros.
INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE: Our civic involvement is a joke, with 40% voter turnout, once every 4 years. Our education level falls behind most all western cultures. We have a president which will not give press conferences, or answer questions that are not pre-approved by oath-taking drones. We have a press core that didnt even investigate the case for WMD in iraq. We have a media which blacklists artists who speak out about the president (dixie chicks). If you run against a republican for senate, you are compared to Osama Bin Laden, even if you are a triple amputee from serving your country (max cleland). MAN, that is discourse.....intellectual....not so much.
DIVERSITY: We are the most diverse nation, despite our ongoing segregation. However, our people ab out the least respect for diversity and foreign cultures. So what good is diversity, when it goes unvalued. (exception: french dont seem to value much aside from themselves.....but republicans dont seem to value much besides white men...and alan keyes)
So in summary....Pete: you're wrong.....we dont blow others out of the water....and if we head down this same path.....we will lose.

KYLE: Chris, Could you site just one example of a government program that is a "luxury afforded to people who have failed due to their own poor choices?" Again, just one.
You say that a floor without a ceiling is impossible. Well, that is our current system. Paying your fair share of taxes doesn't mean a ceiling. It means that people at the top need to invest a larger share in the foundation and upkeep of the house so that they can live on the top floors.
I agree with you conservatives and your critique of European systems because Europe can do what it does in a socialist sense because it has the United States as the defender of the world. If Europe had to invest their budget in the defense of the world the way we do they couldn't afford to have the social programs that pay for healthcare, education, infrastructure and a happy ending everyday.
It is nice that Bush has cut taxes and claimed that he wants smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The fact is he has made government bigger (homeland security department, no child left behind if he actually funded it, and perscription drugs), taken us to war$$$, and cut taxes. We elect Presidents to set spending priorities and Bush has absolutely failed to do so. He spent money on everything and cut nothing.
Today he cut taxes again for corporations. I can't help but shake my head.
Bush quietly signs corporate tax cuts
May mend trade row with EU; Bi-partisian critics say it's filled with special interest give-aways.October 22, 2004: 2:11 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Without fanfare, President George W. Bush signed into law Friday a nearly $140 billion corporate tax cut bill derided by both Democratic presidential rival John Kerry and Republican Sen. John McCain as a giveaway to special interests.

BOB: I must have hit a nerve...somebody has softened their tone. Despite considerable backpeddling, Nugent is still talking about ‘evolution’ though: "I believe that the end result of any individual person is to enhance mankind’s perpetuation. All of our inherent desires are directed at this goal. And as the years pass, perpetuation will only succeed as long as we continue to evolve so that we may meet and overcome any and all obstacle that will inevitably face us."
Chris, for the love of God, what are you talking about? Growing gills so that we can live underwater!? Perfecting our night vision?! Personally, I think that evolving means working towards a more tolerant society with better education, less crime and poverty and more social equality and individual freedom. What does your evolution look like? A world full of more effecient, heartless people who walk all over each other in a dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself feeding frenzy. You seemed to say that in order to evolve, we need to act more like cavemen! To what end?
In regards to social programs, Chris now says: "I believe that programs to help people in the position of my mom and brother are necessary." (As well as any government handout which allows him to pursue his childhood fantasy, apparently.) Chris's formula is simple: "For every social program you enact,...you spoil people to the point that they can not stand to see the slightest suffering. "[Unless, of course, you're talking about my family]
My favorite thing about Chris, is that he looks down on people who didn’t have the same opportunities that we had and who take government handouts for things they need. At the same time, he is taking handouts for something he simply wants: to chase a childhood fantasy. But if Chris succeeds in his aspirations…Oh, won’t society benefit! Imagine how he will enhance mankind’s perpetuation once he is a…tight-end. Why in the world would society want to invest precious tax dollars in Chris’s dreams of grandeur? Hey Chris, that societal dead-weight that you’re always talking about…take a good long look in the mirror, my friend.
To wrap up, we have this gem: "Remember, I don’t respect unemployment, and therefore have no qualms with taking advantage of the program." So let me get this straight:
---Chris complains that government handouts are ruining society.
---Chris unneedingly takes government handouts.
---Chris justifies this by ‘not respecting’ government handouts.
Chris, please come to your senses. (I mean that sincerely)

#11: Final Round! > Polling Madness!

2004-10-12T21:50:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 13th, 2004
On the eve of the 3rd Presidential Debate...

BOB: So the last debate is upon us.
Before it airs, tune in and let us know what you think it will look like. Test you ESP.
My bet: I think Bush will continue his strategy of raised volume and knee-slappin lumber jokes.
No seriously, I think that Bush is going to say the word 'nuisance' 13 times and mention Sept. 11th, 7 times. I think Kerry will dwell on the bad economic numbers as much as possible, mentioning Hoover 4 more times.
I hope Bush makes the mistake of picking on this 'nuisance' thing like he did the 'global test' thing as opposed to Kerry's senate record, which I think would be more damaging.

KYLE: Dear Friend, The final Presidential debate is upon us and the race for President is very close. With only 19 days left until the election, a lot is on the line tonight in Tempe, AZ. I think we all look forward to a spirited contest.
You can post your pre-debate thoughts now. A post debate survey and discussion board will follow tonights debate. I look forward to all of your comments.
Join our discussion and forward this to friends for the last few rounds of debate before the election. The Chief Source www.chiefsource.blogspot.com

JAY: honar, i feel compelled to rebut your statement, "afganistan was a disaster." here's the latest word from the u.n. "United Nations Congratulates Afghans on Impressive Election .... That this election was held without a major security incident is a tribute to the determination of the Afghan population." (http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/Archive/2004/Oct/12-753318.html). i don't think i need to elaborate on that. by the way, all of you who said an election coudn't occur w/out incident have been proven wrong. this illustrates the possibility that a smooth election can occur in iraq. there are many similarities. i know many of you want to see disaster, but i hope you'll all be proven wrong once again.
bob, in a recent e-mail, i asked you if you thought i was a conservative given my stances on certain issues. you did'nt respond and i don't care. however, i see your little survey on the blog and i'd like to be taken off the conservative poll and be placed in a new section labeled "Libertarian."
thank you

SAMMY: Well, I'd have to say I don't know who won the debate. So that means Bush will win with the public. Bush will win the election. Kerry just couldn't drive his messager home to the repulicans. He is obviously the right man for the job, but people just don't care about the economy I guess. Stem cell, abortion, education, deficits, jobs, gay marraige, and forriegn policy just does not out weigh the war. Even when Bush is doing a horrible job in the middle east (Iraq and Afganistan). So I guess the american people just want the country go to hell.
Here I challenge you republicans. Give me one reason why I should vote for Bush. Please one reason and you can have my vote. Exclude the war, because I am totally against it. Give me one simple reason why Bush is better than Kerry and I give you my vote. I see no reason as of yet, and I really don't see why you guys are voting for him.
Stem cell, abortion, and gay marraige are matters of opinion. So economy, worst economy in years. Education, bad, nobody can get a job as a teacher that i know, which brings us to jobs. Nobody can find one.
So tell me why anyone should vote fo Bush, to go deeper in debt, so the rich and poverty gap becomes bigger, so science can not be explored, so gays can't have tax breaks, so a woman is forced to have a kid she doesn't want. Huh, I just don't see why.
PLEASE TELL ME WHY!!!!
Well Bush again lies to american public, Yes He did say He doesn't know where Osama is and he really doesn't care. Shit it's on film, and every network is showing it. Could this finally show this the american public that Bush Lies To Us All. Probably not, becuase obviously have the public wants a liar to be in office, even if he is lying to americans. Fuck it. If you republicans can't see it, even educated ones like yourselves, I may as well poke my eyes out and join you blind fucking retards.

JAY: John, here are some reasons. First, look at what Kerry has done as a senator. I could explain his record again, but it seems a little redundant at this point. You may argue that “a resume does not reflect good judgment” as Edwards put it, but I think both you and I know that does not reflect the qualities necessary of strong leadership. Bush stands firm on his decisions, whereas I believe Kerry’s decisions are based on political appeal.
I'll paint you my picture of Kerry's economic proposal and explain why I think it's not the answer. Kerry says he is committed to balancing the budget, but he has proposed additional spending that some analysts have estimated could cost as much as $226.1 billion annually ($2.261 trillion over ten years). This was stated by George Borjas of Harvard and George Borts of Boston U and 44 other top economists. He promises to end corporate welfare as we know it by implementing the "McCain-Kerry commission on corporate welfare," but he also proposes to provide additional tax credits and subsidies to manufacturers that meet his criteria. I don’t quite understand. What Kerry says seems ideal, but the numbers don’t add up.
On health, Kerry claims that bush is responsible for millions w/out health insurance and the rising health care costs and claims Bush’s plan will result in money going into the pockets of big drug companies. However, the latest studies done by Waterhouse show that the drug companies will likely result in losses for the drug companies. In one debate, Kerry claimed he was for tort reform. My ass. Look at his plan. I don’t think the solution is for the government to take full control in health care. Quality will diminish. The correct response is tort reform and Bush’s plan, unlike Kerry’s, is sufficient. Kerry claims to produce health care for all Americans, but his plan will only cover about half of those without insurance. He is misleading.
I guess I won’t talk about foreign policy b/c you are sick of it, but that is Bush’s strongest point. john, we can both go to a million websites and reiterate the lies/mistakes/misleading statements each said, but i'll watch it on cnn tonight

KYLE: Jay, I'm curious to know what about President Bush is in line with your libertarian ideals?

SAMMY: Jay, you point out only shortcomings of Kerry, but not one good reason for me to vote for Kerry.
Health- Kerry explained that 1% of malpractice suits was to blaim for the heath care roblem. Not a big deal for me. Also, Have you heard of COSE. COSE is a small business grouping to lower small businesses insurance, workers comp and health care. Basically Bush has stolen this idea and made it his Health care platform. Anyone could already do this, so I don't see that a benifit for anyone, but to put everyone at COSE out of a job. Just more job losses for Bushes resume.
Taxes- I know I would benifit from his tax plan. I am a small business owner with my family, and it seems not to affect me at all, but help me, by giving us credits for hiring. Also as a business owner I am taking a paycheck then take a bonus at the end of the year. I'll tell you what, you got to be doing pretty well to make over 200, 000 a year. And if I were making that much go ahead and tax me. I'm middle class, so it benifits me very well. I'll take Kerry's tax plan any day. Cause it is going to be a long time till any of us is going to be making over 200,000 a year.
Bush's strong point is foreign policy. I see it differently. It is Cheny's strong point. Also I disagree with Cheny's foriegn policy.So Kerry still ahs my vote until someone can come up with one good reason to vote fotr Bush. Come on guys. Just one reason, you can do it.

JAY: john, this is ridiculous and i think you know it. i'm not going to sit here and repeat bush's arguments for you. you know them and don't agree. i respect that. i lean towards bush's arguments more and you follow kerry's. i really have nothing else to say

CHUCK: Kerry won. Bush is a joke. They both did their usual performance. I dont have much more to add.
Well, I can add this. I saw Kerry speak tonight at a post-debate rally. I was 10 feet away from him. I shook Kerry's hand and Teresa.....and teresa winked at me....and Kerry pointed at me during his speech. It was great. Kerry was great.
I dont think Bush added or lost any votes tonight. Kerry may add a few votes. We'll see. At this point, the lines are drawn. I think Bush is up a bit, and the question is if he will hold on, or maybe enough "swing" voters decide they feel comfortable w/ Kerry.
I know I would feel more comfortable w/ Kerry. Kerry was the same guy all 3 debates. Bush was: #1) Disinterested and annoyed, #2) Angry, #3) Smiling all the time....kinda creepy.
Anyways, I am excited. I am excited to see where America stands. 4 more years of empty promises and failure, OR do people want a change. I cant believe people want more of the same, but we'll see.
Just to let everyone know (especially a concerned sammartano): Kerry Won last night. There is little doubt. Gallup has a poll showing a romp like the first debate: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.html
That said, not a huge deal, but the momentum is building. Fewer and fewer people are buying into Jay-style rhetoric that "kerry is so bad, and so inconsistent". Its just the truth. And everyone that wants Bush out of office needs to talk to, as John Kerry said (when i was 10 feet from him) we need to talk to the "thinking people" of America and make sure they support John Kerry on November 2.
Jay is not going to vote for Kerry. So lets focus our energy on other people, especially in Ohio. Ohio literally could come down to 400 votes. And the people on this blog have enough friends, family, and concern to actually determine that type of outcome. So lets forget about Jay, and move on.
KERRY! KERRY! KERRY! KERRY! KERRY! KERRY! KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!
(congratulations to afghanistan. it was a great success, and still far from perfect and long overdue. but it was a sign of progress. i'll give bush some credit, because he is the commander-in-chief presiding over this operation. that said, it took way too long, and more focus in afghanistan could have had these elections over a year ago, and many parts would not ceded to warlords)

BOB: BOR...ING
Kerry quoting the Bible!
Bush talking about the importance of education!
The whole 90 minutes felt stale and forced to me.
I was shocked to read that Kerry was being proclaimed the victor.
In my eyes it was a big, boring tie.
And who picked those damn questions?
I thought last night's debate was about the economy, and yet we had questions about gay marriage, affirmative action and even Iraq!
Whoever chose those questions should be deported.
PS Chuck, I like your idea about giving up on Jay and focusing those who can still be saved.

KYLE: Worst line of the night was Kerry bringin up Cheney's, who happens to be a lesbian, daughter. I covered my face in horror. It was clearly intentional and in bad taste. I'll be curious to see how that plays out over the next couple of days.

SAMMY: I thought the worst line of the night wa swhen Bush told everyone that his wife speaks better english and people understand her better. It wasn't said like that, but it sounded like he was saying I don't speak good english and people can't understand me when I was watching it. I know that is not what he was saying, but I had to rewind it just to check.

DAN: I agree. I think Kyle Rozuk could have talked aboutthe gay issue with more couth than Kerry did. What doyou Dems think, is this Kerry bringing out his truecharacter behind the campaigning facade?

ZELIN: Fellas, because of the time difference, I unfortunately did not get to see the debate, only clips. But, according to your emails I trust Kerry won. But interesting, BBC ran a segment where they interviewed undecided voters. The voters agreed that Kerry had won all 3 debates; however, they indicated that they will like vote for Bush since the just "believe" in him. That is what scares me and often convinces me that Bushy will pull it off. But Chuck, I will do my part and rally all the swing voters in Hong Kong. Is it okay if they don't speaka English?

SAMMY: Thats exactly it. People just are afraid of change I guess. Bush will win the election, and I just don't know why. Alot of people feel that Kerry is the better man but they are going to vote for Bush. Boogles the mind. Well we will see in a couple of weeks which way the american people will sway. Unless we have an electoral college debocle again.

CHUCK: NO MORE NONSENSE ABOUT BUSH WINNING
Kerry is going to win. For real.
And if you dont think so, do your part to change the outcome

MANEY: Bob you should prob. take me off that poll, I have decided I am going to sit this election out too. I will admit I was all about voting 4 the W, but now I am not so sure, but I damn sure not voting for Kerry either. So everyone good luck and let the best man win.

BOB: Kyle, I saw a poll on CNN asking people:
"Do you think Sen. John Kerry went too far when he mentioned VP Dick Cheney's gay daughter in Wednesday's debate?" So far 60% said No.
And besides, what were you worried about?
Undecided voters don't care about gays. Bush proposed a constitutioal amendment to ban gay marriage! Yet these people are still considering giving him their vote! Obviously gay-issues are really, really low on their list. I think Kerry could could have said, "Gays kinda gross me out' and these undecideds wouldn't have much cared. The only people that reacted to the comment are those conservatives who thought they could use it to make Kerry look bad and the lefties that might have thought it was tasteless but would never vote for Bush anyhow.
I don't think it will change anything.
Still, I would love to hear what Cheney's daughter has to say about it.
I wonder who she will vote for when she is all alone in that little booth.

SAMMY: Sorry, I am just a little disheartened that the polls are so close and in my mind their is no desicion. Kerry is the man, but when bush is up in the polls, all be it, not by much, it is hard not to think he is gonna lose. But I have a renewed faith. Maney, has realized the errors of his ways. He has chose that bush is not right for the job. I agree. Although, he is not voting for Kerry, at least he is not voting for Bush. One less vote for Bush is alright with me.
Back on the Kerry bandwagon, Sammartano

KYLE: Bob, I agree that it won't change many votes, but I did think it was in bad taste. You bring up and excellent point about Cheney's daughter and how she will really vote. There are some people who have to keep public support of a candidate or party, but vote differently once in the privacy of the voting booth. The Bush campaign loves to tout polls that show them with overwhelming support from active military voters. I think it will be interesting to see how troops who are serving multiple tours, reservists who have been forced to serve full time, and those kept in the military due to stop loss really vote. I'd imagine in the military that you can either publicly support the Commander in Chief or take a code red.I'll be curious to see if those votes really deliver for Bush.

CHUCK: First, Kerry should not have brought up Cheney's daughter by name.
That said, WHAT A FUCKING JOKE.
By making a big deal about Kerry's brief (and calculated) mention of Lynn Cheney's gayness, they are being huge hypocrites. THE REPUBLICANS ARE USING LYNN CHENEY POLITICALLY. They keep bitching about Kerry bringing her name up.....but why? Because they want to make Kerry look bad....so Cheney/Bush gain politically.
If these assholes cared about there daughter, they would have immediately came out and condemned Kerry's comments (which they did), and THEN said they dont want her to be talked about anymore....but they didnt. They realized that they could use Lynn Cheney's homosexuality as a political tool.
Not only are the Cheney's doing the same thing Kerry did (using Lynn Cheney as a political tool)....but its their fucking daughter.....so its much more sick.
So these people, if they care about their daughter, need to shut the fuck up.

BOB: So I was reading a story from the Associated Press today. It outlines the swing states (Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and New Mexico) and says that...
"Taken together, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania account for 68 of the 99 votes from the tossup states...Whoever wins two of those three wins the White House."
It is really unbelieveable how close this is going to be and how important each Ohio vote really is. I wish that I could be there to encourage or drag reluctant voters to the polls. If every DEM can change one vote, it`ll make a difference. Pick easy targets (not Jay). Good luck guys.
Only 15 days to go.

BEN: First off, Mary Cheney will be voting for her dad and George W Bush. She works for the campaign.....I think that is safe to assume
Second, Chuck what are you talking about they are using her (Its Mary - Lynne is DIcks wife) . Mrs Cheney said that night what she thought and the next day VP Cheney said something....i havent heard him or her say anything else. I havent heard GWB say anything about it (and i may have just missed it, i dont know)
i am glad you say Kerry was wrong to say what he did (both you and kyle). when edwards did it, okay i guess, because cheney was right there, but when kerry did it it just looked stupid
Bush is going to win.

CHUCK: Watch this video clip of Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire. It is really funny. He just makes fun of the media. He rips both the republican and democrat (equally).
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410160003

BOB: Can anyone explain how Kerry won all three debates and slipped in the polls? Has the world gone mad?! Are these polls bull? (Does anybody think it was that "Cheney's daughter is a lesbian" stab) PS Did anyone see this? USAToday ran a story today titled: "Most expensive TV campaign ad goes for emotions" The text says: "The most expensive TV ad buy of the presidential campaign shows President Bush consoling a teenage girl whose mother died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11....The ad features the photo and Ashley and her father talking about Bush. "All he wants to do is make sure I'm safe," Ashley says in the ad. Lynn says in the ad that he saw in Bush "what I want to see in the heart and soul" of a president." It really makes me want to puke. Are you REPs O.K. with Bush exploiting those who died on Sept. 11th to win teary-eyed swing votes?

CHUCK: Why Kerry did not move up: The RIGHT WING Media Bush Lied (or is just a pathetically forgetful person, to the point of moronic) about never saying "I'm not worried about Osama" Kerry made a true, and possibly inappropriate statement about a lesbian. The fucking news ran 2 times more stories about Kerry's TRUTH, then Bush's LIE. What a Joke: http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190001

KYLE: I'm not too concerned about national polls right now. I think it is likely that Bush could win the popular vote and loose the Electoral College. The only polling that is important, in my opinion, are state polls of swing states. Plus, where is our October surprise? We haven't had any major unforseen event yet to change the outcome of this race. Is it coming?

SAMMY: Yes, our October surprise is soon to come. Oh, you ask what is our surprise. Well I'll tell you the Bush campaign team has been hiding this one for a while. We have captured Osama and they are about to release that they have captured him about a week before the election. This will ensure that Bush will be elected for another 4 more years.

#10: Who wants death?

2004-10-12T16:56:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 11th, 2004
Thread #4: 'Hoping for Disaster' just won't seem to stay dead...

BOB: For the last time I would like to reply to Jay’s questions about a ‘moderate disaster.’ He was kind enough to give me a mad-lib style, fill-in-the-blank question. So here it goes… His email looked like this:
“A moderate disaster constitutes _____________________________. I think you say unsuccessful enough. What do you mean? Unsuccessful enough = _____________. how many deaths? disasters are measured by casualties.”
Well, Jay…A moderate disaster constitutes: Any number of scenarios that turns U.S. public opinion against the War. These could include: increased U.S. casulties OR skyrocketing costs OR Iraqi protest OR Colin Powell spilling his guts and telling the world that he damn well knew that those mobile-weapons labs never existed. Could be anything really, anything that insures that the American people don’t allow this type of imperialism-in-the-name-of-national-security to be repeated.
Unsuccessful enough: Let me start by saying that:
There are lots of people living under repressive regimes.
There are lots of nations breaking UN resolutions.
There are lots of countries further along in regards to developing nukes.
There are lots of nations with more Al-Queida ties.
We chose to intervene in Iraq because it looked profitable. Period. So, in order for this type of foreign policy not to be repeated, this ‘Iraq Experiment’ needs to fall below the break-even point for the companies that had hoped to turn a profit. Simple economics. If it does, it won’t be repeated.
Jay, it’s obvious that we don’t see eye-to-eye on this. But please stop saying that I am hoping for U.S. casualties to prove a point or to put a Democrat in office. I'm not.
Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but in my opinion this type of Bush foreign policy is putting our nation in great danger. As I said before, I believe that a moderate disaster in Iraq would lead to a strategical change in the War on Terror, before it is too late. Before the flames of terrorism / anti-Americanism / Islamic Fundamentalism have been fanned so high that the old enemy and his new young recruits become an even greater threat to national/global security.
My last explaination, Hewitt

JAY: you say, "These could include: increased U.S. casulties. " there is no justification for saying that. does anyone else think that is just wrong (to hope for increased u.s. casualties). this is coming from a liberal whos argument against afghanistan rested on the deaths of civilians. makes no sense. what about your feelings about the war in afghanistan? has your position changed since our discussion at arnies? clearly nobody objects to that now. the reason i ask is b/c if your position changed on that maybe it will change on iraq. "for the last time" you need to analyze your positions on things and realize the huge contradictions.

CHUCK: Jay, you say "there is no justification" for Bob's explanation of moderate disaster, which may include more deaths. Well, I think bob gave the justification: In his opinion, in the long run, it will make us safer. That's his belief.
Consider this: You think the death of over 1000 troops is justified to make us safer. No one is attacking you as being some crazy, evil person. So quit implying that bob is some american-hating, military-hating wisher of doom and death.
Bob has a vision of what makes us safer. It seems to involve never tolerating preemptive attacks. And if there is death needed to eliminate the bush doctrine, then so be it. Another vision is that preemption is needed to make us safer. And if there is death needed to eliminate a possible threat, then so be it.
So you are both okay w/ death of americans in order to keep us safer. So Jay (and others) can quit acting like Bob is Dr. Death. You both have the same goal: A Safer World, and America. You just have different views of how its accomplished.
I agree w/ Bob. And I assume Bob agrees, that hopefully the Bush Doctrine can be eliminated w/out more death. Just as I am sure Jay wishes we could have eliminated Sadaam w/out any death.
(by the way, interesting thought on Powell coming out of the closet. perhaps after kerry is president, but i doubt it. I would assume that book will come in 15-20 years)

JAY: chuck, you go through your argument and then state, "I agree w/ Bob. And I assume Bob agrees, that hopefully the Bush Doctrine can be eliminated w/out more death." maybe you didn't read what bob said, and if you did how did you pass the LSAT (where is the logic). he said he wants more u.s casualties to make us safer in the long run then you say, "that hopefully the Bush Doctrine can be eliminated w/out more death." you don't agree w/ bob, unless i'm completely fucked up. and i haven't had a drink since saturday
i'm done w/ this. we know bob's stance and i think it's completely wrong. waiting for bob's response on afghanistan. going on a week now

CHUCK: Jay, Jay, Jay, That is completely wrong. Bob gave 4 possible scenarios which could destroy the public support of the Iraq war. 1 included more death. 3 did not (powell speaks out, the financial burden is too much, and something else, which i forget).
So as you insult my logic, I will insult you reading skills and basic mental capacity: Can you Read?
And I will say once more, I hope the Bush Doctrine is destroyed w/out more death. So that means, I hope opinion turns based on one of the other factors.
So I make a great explanation of why you should quit acting like Bob is evil. And you respond by acting like I am illogical and dumb. Fortunately Bob has this website where everyone can re-read the thread and see how you are the one that either: 1) misrepsented what I said to make me sound dumb, or 2) that Jay File is not capable of reading.
Hustle up Bob, get the thread posted. People need to judge for themselves.
What a joke Jay.
I have been think even more about this, Jay.
Can you see the ridiculousness of your email. You have railed against bob for being a horrible american-hater for weeks because of his "moderate disaster" claim. Then I articulate how you both turn the other cheek at a little death to get to a positive ends (in each of you opinions).
And you just ignore any point I made. You avoid acknowledging, "maybe Bob isnt the worst person alive". You just attack me, and claim me illogical.
Answer this Jay: Was there 4 scenarios that Bob claimed he wanted, and only 1 of them involved more american deaths? And if so, why do you ignore the other 3 possibilities that would not involve american death when insulting me?
I am dying to know. You always accuse everyone of not answering Q's. So just answer these Q's, and prove you never act as horrible as us other question dodgers.

JAY: yes, i can read. bob stated a few scenarios, one being the deaths of U.S. soldiers. which means that he would like to see the deaths of u.s soldiers to prove a point. i disagree. i read your argument that we both condone the deaths of soldiers to make us safer, but i disagree. i don't want anyone to die to prove a point. i would hope nobody dies, including the opposition. then you say that you agree w/ bob b/c you don't want more death. bob wants death. those ae different stances. chuck, this is a waste of time anyway. i really want to hear bob's response to the war in afghanistan and yours for that matter.
you say,"Was there 4 scenarios that Bob claimed he wanted, and only 1 of them involved more american deaths? And if so, why do you ignore the other 3 possibilities that would not involve american death when insulting me?
ok, what if there were only 2 scenarios and one was death? or 1000 scenarios? how many scenarios do there have to be to fade out the one insane one, MORE DEATH. anyone who WANTS that is taking crazy pills. i'm not ignoring anything, i understand the logic of the other 3. i think it's inhumnane to wish for death to prove a point, especially from a liberal who is against all war. would the preemptive attack be ok if we had more allies like you say? if so, you are saying you are against war unless everyone else says it's ok.

CHUCK: I agree this is a waste of time, because no one wants more death. And if Bob genuinely wants more death, then he can fight his own argument, because i disagree (but i dont think he wants that)
You wanted to go to war. Bob wants to end a war. Both involve death. Neither of you want it. But its a reality. So quit acting like one person is "inhumane" and the other is fighting for liberty and democracy. Afghanistan: I don't really know the context of what you are asking. But here is my opinion. It was needed. I actually opposed invasion at the time. But that was the Kucinich coming out in me, and I was wrong. We needed to invade and dismantle the taliban. We maybe should have sent a few more troops. The situation should definitely be better over there, but resources were diverted. I dont know what else I should say. Overall, I think Bush did a decent job there. He probably waited too long and sent too few troops, but I'll cut him tons of slack for that because he was in a crazy situation right after 9/11.

BOB: Alright, well these back and forths between Chuck and Jay have been entertaining. Chuck, thanks, but give it up. (I would appreciate it if one of the conservatives on this Blog would chime in and tell Jay that he is being irrational. He just doesn't listen to us unAmerican liberals.)
You know what? To save everyone from this ridiculous arguement: I conceed.
Jay is a compassionate conservative who wants peace and liberty to be spread across the world.
I am a blood-thirsty liberal who wants death, yes, iron-maiden, skull-and-crossbones, faces-of-death type shit. (I did go through a short Goth spurt in High School).
For God's sake, let's move on to real issues!
Wanting death (of this lame arguement), Bob
PS Also Jay, at the bottom of the #8 thread I wrote:
"PSS Jay: I ALREADY TOLD YOU that I wasn't against AFGANISTAN! We have had this conversation 10 times already! I am not/was never against toppling the Taliban."
So I have resonded to this already as well.
Let me just say, for the last time: I do not honestly remember saying that. IF I said that we flat-out shouldn't invaded Afganistan and bring the Taliban to justice, then I was wrong. I can't tell you anymore about a conversation that I honestly don't remember.

JAY: bob, are you going to sit there and insult me and yourself by totally lying? you don't remember sitting at a booth at arnies w/ patty and i adamantly protesting the war in afghanistan? you and patty were saying how the civilian casualties outweighed the benefits of the war. i'm sure maney will remember. this was right in the beginning of the war in afghanistan. at least chuck can admit he was against it in the beginning. ask patty if she remembers. if you don't admit this you have lost all credibility in my eyes and i will be forced to call you by your new name "flipper" (i think you just don't want to admit you were wrong and i was right). i'd like to get a direct e-mail from patty on this. by the way i'm not truly a conservative. i have always voted democrat and i'm on the democratic ticket on all the civil liberty issues. however, the issue of iraq and national security trumps everything right now and i like bush's stance. the gays can wait a few more years.

BOB: Now I am really getting annoyed, Jay.
I told you: I don't remember the details of some half-drunk conversation that we had at Arnie's a few years ago. And I don't.
(I know that that sounds unbelievable, but its true.)
And you think that I should be worried about 'losing all credibility' in the eyes of someone who is proclaiming that "bob wants death"?!
If you are so sure that Maney remembers this conversation, then get him on the line! He is a member of this Blog, you know.
So call me 'flipper' or whatever you want, as long as you get off this so that we can start talking about the real issues of this election again. Bob
PS stop pretending to be on-the-fence

JAY: this is it. i swear. you are attempting to make me look like i'm misleading what you said. so in your own words. "Jay, I WANT TO SEE DISASTER!..... I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer. Do you think that I am disturbed?" (blog 4) Then i asked what constitutes a modersate disaster and among other things you claim constitute a moderate disaster you say, "A moderate disaster constitutes: Any number of scenarios that turns U.S. public opinion against the War. These could include: increased U.S. casulties." (blog 10) In your own words you say it. So you say you don't want death? you just want u.s. casualties. am i spinning this in some way? i don't think so. i understand completely about your other scenarios, but when you say us casualties you go to far.
afghanistan. once again ask patty and as soon as i get a hold of maney he'll respond. i have never been as irritated as i am now. you are denying you ever stood against the war in afghanistan by saying you don't remember? your defense is i don't remember. just want to emphasize this for our record. sounds convincing to me. now i'm off this.
about "pretending to be on the fence." i am voting for bush period, period, period. do you consider me a conservative if i'm for bush's stance in iraq, i'm for gay marraige, for gays openly in military, for gay adoption, for abortion, for stem cell research, for heightened gun control. does that sound conservative to you?
i'm done w/ these issues. i still think you are lying about your afghanistan position. if anyone remembers bobs stance in afghanistan jump in. patty, maney, zelin?
read your argument against the war in iraq. the same one that follows your explanation about "bob wanting deaths" (blog 10 and 4). how can you say that and aprove overthrowing the taliban and pushing democracy in afghanistan. i think you are all over the board. You say, "Could be anything really, anything that insures that the American people don’t allow this type of imperialism-in-the-name-of-national-security to be repeated." Isn't that what we did in afghanistan?

CHUCK: this is out of hand, but now i am jumping back in. Jay, if bob's wants death, will you please admit that your position (invading iraq) could also be seen as 'wanting death' in the name of making america safer. because any reasonable person knows attacking a country will result in death

#9: Need Some Wood?

2004-10-09T16:18:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 9th, 2004
Following the second Presidential Debate...

CHUCK: Absolutely no question Kerry won. But it wasnt it a route like the first debate. Bush performed way better. (3 times better). Kerry performed better (2 times better). So that still leaves a kerry win. Kerry still looked amazing and presidential, again. Bush looked better, but still clearly inferior.

PETE: That's funny...I thought Kerry looked like he'd been sucking on alemon dipped in hydrochloric acid. He also seemed awfullyangry...quite unbecoming for a regularly breathing human being who'smarried so well.

ZELIN: Zazzon, I said that I spoke with soldiers when I was in Korea last year. No American soldiers here, the Chinese Dragons wouldn't really go for that one.

BEN: i think there is some question.......i think bush did very well tonight, and every repub. i have talked to tonight feels the same. i got mad when people tried to say bush won last week - he didnt. i got mad when people tried to say edwards won - he didnt. i can see kerry people saying he won tonight - he had a good performace, but i think bushs was better. this should re-energize the repub. base and i think it will start to show up in the next round of polling. we were really down in spirit - not so now.kerry really seemed to get rattled when bush talked about his senate record. bush needs to do more of that in the 3rd debate, and also suddenyl domestic issues dont look so bad for bush now, espically if "values" issues come up like abortion again

SAMMY: Pete, Great to see you join us.I am drunk, so if this seems a bit under the influence, I am sorry. Pete, You say that you are 150,000 in debt on college loans (for law school). I hope. Under the Bush administration this will all be for not. You know for a fact he is outsourcing jobs. What makes you think your 150,000 dollar education is better than an 8 dollar an hour lawyer from another country. OK Bad example. We Know that can't happen, but for other jobs, like engineering like myself, it sucks. We all know you are smart and deserve the best. But, yes the sky is falling down on you if you live in Cleveland. Their are no jobs here. So, this election should hit home for all of us. If you wanted to stay in REVERELAND, and raise a family, YOUR FUCKED! This is a great place to live. Look at us, we all turned out pretty damn well.150,000!! Your gonna pay that off in 3 years. I hope you do, but for the rest of us. Who aren't making 300,000 a year we have a problem. The deficit is not going to go away in a hurry. I can't wait to see you in 3 years and see if you paid off your education in that time, without the help of your parents. ( Although I hope you do). It will take you years more to pay off that kind of money. Just like it will fro the US. A lot more.Now, for tonight's debate. Bush did an excellent job. He had actual facts to back up his claims. He seemed like he knew what he was talking about. He seemed like a president. This debate was close. Now I know I am biased towards Kerry, but I still believe Kerry Won. The debate on foreign policy is a wash in this round-table, so I will not discuss it. When it comes to domestic policy Kerry won, by a hare. For me, Kerry wins in the abortion and stem cell debate hands down. Kerry made headway in the fiscal policies. Just because Bush lied. Yes, BUSH LIED!. Check my previous posting about Domestic Discretionary Spending. Bush stated again that he has decreased it. He stated that that the Clinton administration was increasing at 15% and he is only increasing at 5%. This is completely wrong. Clinton was increasing at 5% and he is increasing at 25%. Check the white house publications and my old posting. He lied about this once before and was called out on it, with nothing to back it up, but what the white house says. Which is the opposite of Bush.And Pete How have civil liberties been violated. I know this is stupid, but I bought I shirt that says FUCK BUSH, for fun. Guess what I have been flagged by the government. Yep, the patriot act(which I am all for) at its best is probably... OVER WORD LIMIT

CHUCK: Pete, Its fine to think bush won, and to agree w/ his stances. There are arguments to be made, and i just dont agree w/ them. BUT: You are seriously dillusional if you thought Kerry was the angry one. Bush was clearly more angry and aggressive thoughout. Bush fucking intimidated the moderator at one point and was being very wild and angry throughout. There may be question of who one the debate, but there is no question of who acted more presidential. (no question in my mind who won, though)Seriously Pete, you are absolutely out of touch w/ reality if you think Kerry was the angry one. (but to his credit, angry bush was better then bush from the first debate)Tonight, George Bush had another chance to make his case to the American people. Again he failed. Again, he showed that he is out of touch with reality on Iraq. Again, he offered no plan for jobs and no plan for cutting the cost of health care. Again, he pretended that our problems don't exist. Again, he refused to level with the American people. George Bush just doesn't get it, so he can't fix it. (by the way, Bush's health care plan is to cut 1% of the cost off by eliminating frivilous lawsuits....that's his only claim. 1 FUCKING PERCENT. That will get who insured? That will benefit who? And if it does have some good affect, what is the rest of the plan? What is it? Someone answer this! Its outrageous that we act like Bush really cares about average americans problems.)PETE, Breaking News: Keeler Report (10/9): Both (especially Bush) seemed to be yelling into their respective microphones.Now the Keeler Report is not exactly pro-Kerry, but it noted the Bush yelling. So my point is made. Now that does not declare my reasoning for anything other then you not correctly who was more aggressive. (NOTE: keeler report does not claim bush (or kerry) angry, but his noting that Bush yelled more seems like a strong rebuttal to your baseless claim that kerry acted wild, angry and unpresidential)I've been thinking about this more, and its driving me nuts. All Bush did was bash Kerry. How can anyone say that leads to victory. That's all he did. (except for claiming he heard about something on the "internets" and many other ridiculous errors). Seriously. Where was one idea for Iraq? Where was one domestic idea aside from tort reform? Where was any IDEA? Any VISION for a better future? Where? What? Iraq? He is living in fantasy land there. He claims its improving....what a joke.....is there even one other person that agrees with him on that? Its like everyone is giving Bush credit for speaking in full sentences. Its like he is benefiting from sounding near-retarded in the first debate. And how did John Kerry sound? The same as the last debate. A pro. Bush likes to say "you know where I stand." Really? I dont know… OVER WORD LIMIT

DAN: sammartano, where you drunk when you wrote this?

BOB: About the debate,
These swing voters can't decide cause they have a general distrust of Bush and alot of doubts about Kerry. In these debates, Kerry has been clearing up those doubts, while the cloud of distrust continutes to hang over Bush's head...only he's raised his voice!
Everyone is saying the debate was a tie...just wait, the polls will show Kerry taking the lead after the second debate.
Yours truly, "Moderate Disaster" Hewitt
PS Kerry is going to win this election.

SAMMY: If my hangover serves me correctly. YESSSS. Its 7 o clock and still very hung over

BOB: Pete, in regards to Civil Liberties…you just don’t get it, do you?
I think you’re overdue for a little reread of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. I encourage you to go and brushup, especially on Amendments 4-8: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
If you do, you’ll notice that half of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are about the Rights of the Accused…5 out of 10. Our forefathers did this for a reason, and not cause they ‘had something to hide in their black bag.’
The unchecked power that the Patriot Act gave the FBI was unconstitutional, don’t believe me? Read this...(don't just skim it)
Wednesday, Sept 29th CNN reported: NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations. The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects being held in places like Guantanamo Bay can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The ACLU sued the Department of Justice, arguing that part of the Patriot legislation violated the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards. The judge agreed, stating that the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge." Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.
Thank God the ACLU and others have stood up to protect our Civil Liberties…if they hadn’t, these unconstitutional provisions would still be in place...and more would be on the way.
Sincerely, "Stay out of my black bag" Hewitt

CHUCK: Pete claimed its irrelevant if there were WMD's because he had the capabilities. What a joke. The Duelfer Report (the final chance to justify the war) said: SADAAM POSED A DIMINISHING THREAT. DIMINISH: To become smaller (Webster's Dictionary) Synonyms: Reducing, Weakening, Shrinking. Its fine to think the war was needed for spreading peace, etc (which i disagree with), BUT can we please stop this nonsense about his threat to us. Its bullshit. No doubt.
Kutuchief had a great idea. Anyone want to defend the Bush economy? Job growth has been poor (and well under what Bush promised after the irresponsible tax cuts)
Come on guys, defend. Its a challenge, I know. But "bring it on"
(by the way, 9/11 is not a reason why we only created 90,000 jobs this month when Bush promised 250,000 a month....a figure which he has never met)

SAMMY: OK I'll take the challenge. Wait I can't find any evidence to back up any claim that Bush did a good job with our economy. Chuck I conceed you win. Damn looks like I'll vote for Kerry.

BEN: Has the economy under GWB been all that great in the last 4 years? No. Do I think it would be worse without the tax cuts? Yes. I dont have a whole lot to work with if I want to defend it. The job growth has been disappointing. He will be the first President in 72 years to lose jobs. Lets be honest - his economic record is hard to defend.
The problem with this issue is that for whatever reason, people dont seem to blame Bush as much as the Democrats wish they would - and need them to do. In most polls, Kerry is only slightly ahead on this issue for whatever reason, if he is ahead at all. Right or wrong, people are buying in to what Bush says "inherited a recession, sept. 11, corporate scandals, oil prices" etc. Bush can sit there and say Kerry voted for higher taxes 98 times and he will raise your taxes and thats just the way it is" and he can fight to a draw on the issue. Higher taxes or "roll backs" as Kerry calls it just are not a winner.
People who make 25,000 or 30,000 a year appreciate getting a 400 or $1000 child tax credit or other refunds. that is a pretty damn big deal to those people - and they dont want to lose it. And they know if they vote for Bush they wont. They simply dont blame him, and it makes the Democrats furious. Bush can sit there and say "1.9 million jobs in the last 13 months and not a single month of negative job growth" and they are like "well, thats good enough for me."
Kerry campaign has either A) done a terrible job getting their point across, B) dont believe anything Kerry says he will or wont do, or C) simply dont care that much about the economy and dont blame Bush anyways. I think it is a combination of B and C. It is going to be hard in the last 3 weeks for Kerry to change people minds - especaillty those in WV, MO, AR, and similar states - they care about the economy, but they also care about abortion, their troops and their guns and because of that they are voting for Bush, because they think he has their values - and that is what most "blue state" voters dont get - that "red state" voters vote more on those issues than economy.
keep in mind i am voting for Bush, but it is a tough record to defend.

CHUCK: Ben said something very important. He gives Bush's reasons for a failing economy:
1) Inherited a Recession: Not true. Economy was slowing, but the recession started in Bush's first year.
2) Corporate Scandals: Do I need to explain that Enron was all of Bush's buddies, and Enron was just absolutely devastating, especially to California. And yes there were other scandals. And no, Bush has not done anything to crack down. In fact, corporate oversight is down under Bush.
3) Oil Prices: Do you think that has anything to do w/ the stability (or lack thereof) in Iraq? Do you think our amazing consumption, which republicans refuse to curb w/ just slightly higher emissions standards is having an impact?
Well, we know all this. And Ben explains well about why its not that important to voters. But that is what is sad about this country right now. Sure this country has all the best, but its reached a sad point where there is such apathy, to where voters do not even analyze the root of problems, or even care.
All the voters care about is how Bush can manipulate the word 'nuisance' in the next 3 weeks.

KYLE: I think Ben gave a fair evaluation and I think the answer is A, the Kerry campaign has done a bad job on this argument. I want to make a point about the tax cut working class people got of $1,000 or whatever from Bush. I agree the money means a lot to working families, but the problem is while they recieve a small tax cut from the Federal Government, they end up paying more at the state level. Take Ohio under the leadership of Allstar Republican Governor Bob Taft. In order to pay for Bush offset the cost of tax cuts, all states recieved fewer federal dollars. States don't have the option of running a defecit like Bush does. To make up the difference Ohio had to raise state taxes and cut programs like closing 1 of only 3 state run Mental Health facilities for the retarded, cut funding for higher education resulting in the cost of tuition at every state university in Ohio increasing by at least 9.9% in 2004, and raising the cost of all kinds of basic state services like drivers license fees.
The state has also increased sales taxes to raise the money that used to come from the federal government on almost everything you buy. The beauty of raising money through a sales tax instead of an income tax is that everyone pays the same tax on everyday goods.... and the dreamy result for the rich they keep more of their income through income tax cuts while working class people pay a MUCH higher percent of their income in sales taxes.
I bet working class people would gladly give back or give up thier income tax cut provided to them by the Bush administration if they knew how much more they pay in so many other ways. Man, if I was a working class Republican and found this stuff out, I would take a minute to smoke a cigarette as I begin to realize I have been getting fucked for the past 4 years.

#8: Upset Yet?

2004-10-07T16:39:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 7th, 2004

BOB: Well, I was looking back on the old posts and something that Nugent said really jumped out at me. I urge everyone to reread his post. In the begining of the second thread he said: “You’re upset about the 1000th American death? These people are soldiers- their profession, their duty is to fight and die if the situations is such. Read “Russia at War” to put 1000 deaths into perspective, or take a look at the numbers associated with heart disease or traffic accidents.” Well, I took a look at those numbers, and it turns out that Nugent was right. 1,408,000 Americans die every year from Heart Disease (according to the American Heart Association). A big number like this really does dwarfs the 1,000 Americans who have died in Iraq. Or as Nugent says, ‘Puts it into perspective’ I would give this same advice to those 3,000 families who lost a loved one on Sept 11th. Because although that day was tragic, it is only a fraction as tragic as August 6th 1945, when 135,000 Japanese civilians died when the first atom bomb was dropped. And for those who had a loved one killed/sodomized by Jeffery Dahmer. It might help to point out that while Dahmer killed 13 innocent people, this pales in comparison to the 800,000 people who are killed by Hippos every year on the African Continent. Is comparing U.S. casualties in Iraq to people who die in car crashes really any less ridiculous?! Nugent, I would love for you to visit one family who has lost a son, father or husband. I would love for you to sit down at that now-empty chair at the Thanksgiving table and ‘put things into perspective’ for them. You could explain to them that their loss, while tragic, is relatively minute compared to the losses that Russia suffered during the second world war. Or why not the Black Plague!? I urge everyone to reread Chris’s comments, cause it exposes a sick mentality that exists in SOME Conservatives: justifying and marginalizing the lose of human life in any way possible. What really worries me is that Nugent and our president are on the same page on this one. To answer Nugent's question: “Yes...Yes, I am upset!” My question for Chris is: How high does the body-count need to get before you join me?

JAY: HYPOCRACY!! Since I know nugent does not have the free time I do, I decided to respond since it completely shocked me. Bob, you stated on the blog, "I want to see a moderate disaster in Iraq because I truly believe that in the long run it will make America safer. Do you think that I am disturbed?" I asked you what constitutes a moderate disaster in iraq and you failed to respond. I assume disaster is determined by the amount of casualties, coalition or opposition (yes, i'd like to see the opposition throw in the towel). What else would determine disaster? You state to everyone, "I urge everyone to reread Chris’s comments, cause it exposes a sick mentality that exists in SOME Conservatives: justifying and marginalizing the lose of human life in any way possible." I think what you said is sick. Chris is not hoping for death to prove a point, I think he is merely stating that compared to other wars, the casualty level is significantly low (chris, if you meant something else sorry). You want people to die so the U.S learns a lesson. Compare the statements and honestly tell me which is worse. You then state, "I would love for you to visit one family who has lost a son, father or husband. I would love for you to sit down at that now-empty chair at the Thanksgiving table and ‘put things into perspective’ for them." I would love to see you visit a family and tell them you hope for a "moderate disaster." I think you would become a casualty of protest. I can't speak for all the families with a child in the war, but I'm sure some (maybe most) agree with the war. If you visit them you'd be slapping them in the face by telling them it's a wrong war. You'd be telling them that their son/daughter died for nothing. At least Chris would be honoring their child stating that they died for a good cause. Compare again please. I am for gun control, and I know you are against it claiming the right to bear arms is in the constitution. Do you know how many people in the U.S. alone died from guns in 2002; 28,663. I'd like to see you visit those families at thanksgiving. Tell them that the right to bear that automatic weapon is in the constitution. How many deaths are enough? One more thing, I remember you being so adamant against the war in Afghanistan (we argued at Arnies). Do you still oppose that decision b/c it seems like nobody does? Kerry wanted us to focus more on that country. Who is for gun control? Does anyone share Bob's opinion that the war in Afghanistan was/is wrong? We have a new issue to discuss if anyone else is interested; gun control.

DAN: Your argument is negated soley due to the fact that these soldiers that were killed SIGNED UP on the own recognizance to serve in the US military. They were not drafted or forced into the military, this was their own decision. Everyone in the US military must take the oath (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=us+military+oath), which clearly states that they must obey the orders of the President of the United States. Every one of them knows the consequences, and what ultimately could happen in war. If you are afraid to die, DON'T SIGN UP!!! I could bring up the argument, if you don't agree with what is going on, don't sign up, but you give up that right after the words, "so help me God." This is black and white. There is no gray in this argument, Bob.

BOB: Jay, I only have 15 minutes, so I must be brief: I did respond to your question about what constitutes a 'moderate disaster'. Go check the previous threads. Let me explain the difference between Nug and I: I want to end the bloodshed, I explained in great length how I think this is accomplished and I even gave a big long analogy about poor kids in Brazil. I also pointed out time-and-time again, that I am deeply upset by U.S. casualties (even numbers as small as 1100) this is exactly why I am hoping for failure and quick withdraw...to minimize casualties in the long run. Nugent and (apparently Dan now) seem to think that because these people signed up, they are disposable and we shouldn't be so concerned that 1100 of them are dead in a war that was based on a lie. Jay, I explained in great detail what I ment, but you just don't seem to listen. Please reread my explanation. PS I will address all of your other questions when i have more time

JAY: maybe i can't read, but i don't think you have defined moderate disaster. it's an easy question. fill in the blank: A moderate disaster constitutes _____________________________. I think you say unsuccessful enough. What do you mean? Unsuccessful enough = _____________. how many deaths? disasters are measured by casualties.

DAN: Don't put words in my mouth. I have never claimed anyone's life as being disposable. My point was those that enlist know exactly what they are getting into....or have the potential to get into. The loss of one's life is never taken lightly or just tallied on some board like you are insinuating.

SAMMY: Bob writes at the end of this posting "How high does the body-count need to be before you join me?" I wounder is this enough? American deaths; as far as I can find, have reached 1066. Here's the kicker; Since "Mission Accomplished" 927 soldiers have died. Yep Mission Accomplished. HUH I wonder how many have died since we captured Saddam. Oh 606, only about half. So we really got the point across. Alright, Alright we get the point, Iraq doesn't like us. Hold on, what about injuries? 9651 injuries. Damn, thats a lot. Isn't It? OK OK, enough sarcasm. So I will ask Bob's Question once again How many must die? Also, Do you believe this is enough lives? Oh shit I forgot we can't forget how many Iraqi civilian lives have been taken. Now this is hard to judge, but it is estimated that upwards to 15,149 civilian lives have been taken. So lets add it up 16,215 total deaths. Oh shit what about coalition deaths. 137. Man they just keep adding up. So now the grand total gets us up to 16,352, and that may not be up to date, just 2 days off. Now ask yourself again Pro-Iraq war people have you had enough or do you want more. Because as John Kerry and John Edwards have stated "Bush and Cheney just have more of the same for you" Now if thats what you want then please feel free vote for Bush. Also, we know now that Bush has made a mistake and attacked this country with bad intelligence. All these people dead with no WMD's and no real treat to the US. Although we do have Saddam. Oh shit that didn't help, because as I stated above we still keep getting killed after capturing Saddam. Maybe you conservatives would just like to kill them all and start over. Hey its just one country. Why not? Lets just get rid of Iraq all together. Thats the mentality of you conservatives, and don't tell me its not (Well Thats a little Harsh). But Nugent did start the comparison. Hey, 1 country out of 210 (including Vatican City) It's not that big of a deal. Right? Let me tell you how hard that number was to get. Bob you think you got time on your hands, I counted all those form a globe! Yep , I'm a loser.

JAY: first, this is an irrelevant argument ("how many deaths are enough"). if kerry is elected is he going to pull our troops out? no, he keeps bashing bush,who was listening to his generals on the ground, for not sending enough troops (you guys even argue that). so do you want more troops or pull them all out? don't bother, i know the answer to that. you say, "Bush has made a mistake and attacked this country." kerry made the same mistake correct? he would have gone to war correct? this is a dumb argument. regardless, we would be at war in iraq right now. maybe, and i emphasize maybe, kerry would have gotten more allies, but i highly doubt it. kerry would not have pursuaded france and germany to join against their finacial interests with the stance, "hey help me fight the wrong war, psst we should probably go to other countries first but don't tell anyone." so to sum up, the liberals (kerry and edwards) would have gone to war as well as the conservatives. that's what they say now, but who really knows. why don't you ask kerry how much he thinks is enough b/c he wants to send more troops in.

DAN: I don't understand your logic, Sammartano. Your responses tell of strong emotion toward the killing of human lives, many American. Yet you are for abortion. As of the year 2000 (most recent info found), 21 is the yearly number of LEGAL abortions per 1000 women in the US, age 15-44. For 2000, there were 857,475 abortions REPORTED. Sammartano, that is nearly 800 times the death, and they didn't even have the choice, unlike these soldiers. I don't understand how you can feel so strongly about one life over the other.

SAMMY: That is becuase I beleive a baby isn't a baby till it is out of the woman. And becuase I don't want to have a child yet, but I still am gonna have sex. Trust me I value human life, but abortion is for the parents to decide. I am very pro choice. If you don't want a kid, so be it. Abortion for me is a form of birth control. I know this is a bold statement. But that is how I feel. yes I think you should use condoms and birth control, but if those fail what next. Its obvious ABORTION. Also if their are going to be birth defects, I would like to have the choice in the decision of raising the kid or trying again. That will probably hit home with Chris, but that is how I feel. I do not want to raise a disabled child when it comes time to have a kid. Also, the choice arguement is terrible. I fetus can't decide on anything. Also, the soldier can't decide on anything. They are told what to do by the president like you said in your last posting. yes they enlisted. But I would like to see a poll taken on how many soldiers believe this war is the right war. I bet if those soldiers had a choice they would all come home and call it quits. Remember, we know now that iraq was not an iminate threat to us. So basically, Iraq is a waste of time and life. Hey, think about it without abortion Coffee and Morgan would have children right now. I'm not knocking them, but they are obviously not ready to raise a child.

NUGENT: Im flattered that you want me back bad enough to write that email. And not unlike feeding a dog at the dinner table or providing socialized medicare- Im going to reply to your jab. Since you'll be gallivanting through the country side for ten days, Ill take my time to write it. Honar... your alive! Those who quote the man who dropped the A bombs (the buck stops here) and think a little blood shed in Iraq will teach Bush a lesson - should not sign their emails with "Peace Bob" Also, thank you to Dan and Jay for keeping a respectable viewpoint amongst the weak minded

DAN: John, I appreciate your liberal, "well what about how I feel about the war" bullshit, but like I mentioned in my original e-mail...if you don't like the situation that being in the military may bring upon you, DON'T ENLIST!!! This is a profession that is not for the weak-hearted. When it comes to a weak heart and the military, to quote Mr. Fouser, (Nugent, this is for you) "It's survival of the fittest, and you lose."

ZELIN: Regarding Vicscione's last comment on survival of the fittest, it is not quite as dramatic as Dan states. First off, not trying to take away from American soldiers, but we must also face up to the fact that the American Military is one of the greatest welfare programs in the United States. When living in Korea, I was able to meet with many of America's 30,000 soldiers we have stationed there. Most were 18 year old kids from either small rural towns where they had no opportunities for employment or inner city black kids who couldn't afford education. Every, EVERY person that I spoke to said they were going to stay in the Army, then use it for education. Shit, I would to. So, just wanted to tone down Viscione's survival of the fittest a bit. It is not like every John Rambo is training at home and getting ready to join the US military.

BEN: no one is possibly reading them all.......no minds have changed.......there are other issues tomorrow night is huge. i think if kerry wins, he will take the national lead in most polls and pull even in key states. if bush wins, he will regain momentum. if it is a tie, well things stay the same - and i think it will likely be a tie. really bush cant do much worse than last time, so he wil improve, but i look for another strong performance from jfk. then again i dont know how many losers other than myself will be staying in on a friday to watch it. back a few emails there was a gun control comment by someone - i forget who said it. i will say that gun control is my big split with the party......i am generally not for govt. telling people what they can and cannot own, but guns really are a major problem in opinion. and nugent and i am still with dan and jay on iraq- i just dont see the point to write stuff out when no one is going to change minds because samartano brought it up i am not saying i am for or against now, though i do have an opinion. democrats claim that if bush wins - no more abortion. that is really not true. right now on the supreme court it is 6 votes to keep it legal (stevens, breyer, ginsberg, souter, oconner, kennedy) and 3 to ban it (scalia, thomas, rehnquist)......and if bush wins rehnquist will retire, so he appoints anti-abortion judge so things stay at 6-3. so for roe to get overtuened 3 pro abortion judges have to retire and be replaced by 3 pro life judges - not going to happen. so a bush supreme court might result in some things libs dont like, but no more abortion is not one of them all judges but breyer and ginsberg on are on record dealing with abortion from the 1992 case casey v. planned parenthood...and one can only assume where those 2 stand since they are huge libs and have voted constantly with the left wing block of judges now - i am against abortion, but unless it is critical, i dont think peoples already granted rights should be taken away - that said if it was somehow overturned i would be happy but i dont really consider it a big deal right now

JAY: zelin, bullshit you talked to american soldiers over there. did you tell them your stance on the war? you are too into asian women to waste your time. liar. i can picture you sitting in your little internet cafe, chubbin up b/c the asian women around you, laughing b/c i called you out. bob, i like nugent's comment. from now on you should sign out w/ : "moderate disaster, bob" instead of "peace, bob. it fits you better

KYLE: I agree with my friend Ben, too much about Iraq and for Democrats it isn't our strongest issue. The Economy: Today, the last jobs report before the Election came out and the low expectation for today's report was there would be at least 150,000 jobs created. Only 96,000 jobs were created. In addition, the Bureau of Labor revised the August numbers from 144,000 down to 128,000. The result is that George W. Bush has a net loss of 585,000 jobs during his four years. I read this makes him the first President since Herbet Hoover (1929-1933) to have a net job loss during his Presidency. Pretty bad. Now, I can imagine you Republicans taking a break from not reading or watching the news (because it contradicts your opinions on Iraq) to say, "what about 9/11 you liberal douche bag." There have been 11 Presidents since Hoover, and every single one has managed to overcome the obstacles of their time in office to create jobs. Besides, Bush said he could fix things. Remember all those tax cuts?

HONAR: Instead of focusing on how the candidates are making the polls move, I think it would be interesting if our group presented what the concerns of our politicians ought to be, and also if we started presenting (occasionally) our own ideas to make the country better. In short, if we started leading where our political leaders have not been.

BOB: Well, Honar good point. We have touched on alot of issues on the other threads: stem cell research, gay marriage, tax-cuts and illegal downloading. But in my eyes we haven't touched on the most important issue that faces us: that is the proper balance between national security and civil liberties. In the wake of 9-11, I feel that civil liberties are being quietly trampled. So what I most want to see from the next president is:
· An end to the madness at Guantanamo.
· Reestablishment of checks and balances (No more Congress loaning war power to Bush + no more marginalizing the Judicial Branch)
· A reversal of PARTS of the Patriot Act:
o An end to the use of 'black bag' or 'sneak and peek' searches by law enforcement.
o Reasonable limit to wiretapping and surveillance
o End to military tribunals to try suspected terrorists outside the criminal justice system I hope that the REPs realize that standing up for civil liberties isn’t in opposition to being strong on national security and that both deserve equal attention. This is where I would start. Honar. “Not in denial about WMDs,” Hewitt PS I read an interesting article at the ACLU website that really outlines this issue well: http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=9857&c=24]
PSS Jay: I ALREADY TOLD YOU that I wasn't against AFGANISTAN! We have had this conversation 10 times already! I am not/was never against toppling the Taliban.

PETE: there's a reason why people want to and should talk about Iraq. Domestic concerns should always be secondary to dealing with those wish to kill everyone in the domicile. If the administration has to placate obstructionists by authorizing a little extra domestic spending now so be it. When people in the Middle East see what can be accomplished when people are free to determine their own destinies the positive effect on the global economy will make the deficit disappear in a hurry. For those who are overly concerned about deficits, a thought experiment: I'm borrowing over $150,000 to finance my education, thereby running a huge deficit for the next three years. Does this mean that the sky is falling on me? Huge deficits have gone away in the past and there is no reason to think they won't do the same in the future. Re: Iraq and WMDs. It is insignificant whether or not WMDs were found inside Iraq. Saddam had the money, the know-how and the desire to cause severe damage to our country and Israel and openly and repeatedly announced his desires to do so. Has anyone seen the Saddam-commissioned painting of him standing strong in front of the burning twin towers that was considered public art in Iraq? The canard, most recently trotted out by John Edwards, that there was no Saddam/Al Qaeda connection is absurd on its face. Both entities had a demonstrated hatred and desire to kill a common enemy (Israel/United States) and your head is in the sand if you think they wouldn't act on it whenever they could. In light of the sanctions on Saddam it is even more naive to think that they would not do everything in their power to hide this connection from the global community...Saddam had enough money and an enormous country from within which to conduct his operations so as to do this...we know his billions wasn't going to making better lives for the citizens of Iraq. This is to say nothing of the Al-Zarqawi connections within Iraq, Iraq's harboring of terrorists on the run, and Saddam's payment of $25,000 (which goes a lot further over there than It does here) to the families of suicide bombers. Bob, As for your concern about civil liberties being violated: How have yours been violated? Right now there ARE limits to wiretapping and surveillance...what is it that you're afraid of? The government cannot act on what they find in their surveillance without just cause. Who is being violated by these black bag searches? What is in your black bag that you're so concerned about hiding? If these measures make us safer in a time of war (and it's hard to say that they haven't) then make an argument for why they should not be implemented. Remember, during the Civil War Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus. Desperate times desperate measures dude...and everything turned out fine. I've got an idea for our representatives at home for Honar. Stop subsidizing the…OVER WORD LIMIT

#7: MVVP?

2004-10-05T17:48:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 5th, 2004

BOB: Enough about Michael Moore....The much anticipated VP debate is here!
I know that everyone will be quick to chime in after the debate to claim victory for their side, but the big question is:
Does this VP debate really make a difference?
Will it really influence anyone’s vote?
Will it move the polls?
Your thoughts...

BEN: before the debate - answer to your questions -
1, Historically the VP debates dont make a damn bit of difference, any poll movement has always normilized after a week, but this is a different election in many ways. i think tonight is much more important for Bush/Cheney than Kerry/Edwards because Cheney needs to stop some Kerry momentum. Also, he will try and make Edwards looked inexperieced, much like Lloyd Bentsen did in 1988 against Dan Quayle, though he was successful and was considered to overwhelmingly have won the debate, it didnt affect the polls at all
2. I dont think it will change any votes, just add to momentum and help to reinforce sides - barring something very unforseen. i look for cheney to mainly attack kerry while i think edwards will also go after cheney as well as bush (a strategic mistake in my mind if it happens)
3. Polls will stay the same....but it will be hard to tell with the next bush-kerry enocunter on Friday Night. polling is everywhere right now, and everyone can find one or two to their liking
I think Cheney will "win" but if I am wrong I will say so - jsut like I said Kerry performed better than Bush last time.

DAN: I think this debate is in fact a deciding factor in the election. One may think that this doesn't matter at first glance, though it does. There are a couple of reasons behind that. First of all, their views reflect their running mate's views. Maybe not in full, but to the degree where they can run together. With this in mind, some of the same questions will be asked from the previous debate. This may reiderate certain highs and lows, or maybe even make things more clearer, after hearing it from a different person. Also, in Bush's case Cheney is well know to be his "attack dog." Where Bush may be a "good 'ole boy from Texas," Cheney is quick to strike and lets people know where he stands right off the bat. He does this in almost a nonchalant manner, too. It is very apparent that he has had much experience dealing with people on an executive/higher-up level. He is powerful and can be intimidating when he wants to be. On the other hand, Edwards being a trial lawyer should know what to expect, and how to counter. He is younger, which may appeal to a lot of people in comparison to Cheney's age and "CEO" look.
This trial lawyer thing may be his downfall though. Especially when dealing with the fact that he was a malpractice lawyer. Many doctors, and others in the medical fields, have strong negitive opinions on malpractice lawyers. They are the reasons malpractice insurance is outrageous, which in return affects A LOT of people. Many people will not vote for Kerry, just because of Edwards and his past.
It will though, be a good debate. They are allowed to talk to each other and are sitting at the same table, which may stir things up a bit. Both have good articulation as well, meaning things shouldn't be dry, nor should there be any stumbling over words.
Good luck to both parties

CHUCK: I am still trying to determine if the Miami Heralds recount was as exhaustive as the major media outlet recount, which I dont believe it was. That said, I apologize for overexaggerating my case. (call it making up stuff if you please, but i thought it was widely recognized that the major media poll was the most comprehensive)
That said, when overseas ballots are counted ILLEGALLY (postmarked/cast after election day) does that make victory LEGAL?
I think Cheney won. As far as delivery. Cheney is just tougher (and he just made some stuff up). Edwards just hasnt been the VP we thought we were getting. Either way, I dont think Edwards did anything to hurt Kerry/Edwards. But he did get beaten. Nothing like the Bush beating.
I am hoping this ends up exposing Bush's incompetence even more. Bush can't even talk. Yet Cheney is so solid and on message. Maybe even more people will ask, why Bush is such an idiot.

SAMMY: well boys, I don't know what to say, I'd have to call it a draw. Edwards was fierce at the begining, but Cheny slowed him down midway, and at the end Cheny seemed to begin to tire. But, I would have to say all in all it was a draw, and this may help the Kerry Edwards campaign. Just because Cheny could not beat down Edwards, which I expected. And I think most expected this. Therefore, it could help Kerry but I highly doubt it.

DAN: Chuck, I am curious to know, what do you think Cheney made up?

KYLE: I think the debate was a draw. There was no clear winner. I think people's opinions fall along party lines and independents won't vote on tonights debate. I give the Vice-President credit for a tough performance, but Edwards was tough as well. It comes back to style and what you are more comfortable with. I think both men pandered to the base and we saw Dick Cheney more able to articulate the administration's policy than the President because he has been such a large part of setting that policy.

CHUCK: well, claiming the US only suffered 50% of the coalition deathes. He wanted to count Iraqi's. COALTION DEATHES. Iraqi's cannot be counted in the COALTION. Under that logic, Iraq was one of the members of the US-led COALTION to attack Iraq (which would leave them attacking themselves, and my head spinning).
He claims this article: http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=261 clears him on Halliburton. Not true. Coincidentally, please go to www.factcheck.org because it clearly outlines all of the misleading ads. 5 of the last 6 articles articulate how Bush distorts the facts.
Okay, so I'll go on. Cheney says HE NEVER SAID THERE WAS A CONNECTION B/W SADAAM AND 9/11. That is simply not true.
In general, though I thought Cheney did good. And I am not sure if he is actually evil. Now I think he is only an asshole.

BEN: cheney won. i know because A) I wathced it B) because tv commentators said either a cheney win or a draw (which means edwards lost) and C) because after Bush got beat by Kerry last week I already had about 76 emails telling me Bush had lost plus lots of phone calls from democrats asking me "what did you think" then cutting me off after 5 seconds to proclaim kerry victory
i agree with chuck though - no minds changed. it gives bush/cheney some momentum back but now a lot of pressure on bush friday night- and as a loser i will be staying in to watch

BOB: About the VP Debate. It looks like Cheney won. Although it wasn't a thrashing like Kerry/Bush. Sometimes Cheney seemed snappy and rude, but sometimes Edwards seemed slimy and beaten. They both made some good points.
I think Cheney really delivered the point that the Kerry/Edwards ticket has its head in the clouds, that their records are sketchy and he even dodged the Haliburton attacks unscathed.
Edwards did a good job pointing out that the Bush/Cheney ticket is shady/untrustable, in cahoots with big business etc.
All things considered, it was a good night for the Republicans, unfortuantely for Cheney though, Bush will have to return to the podium twice more before the people vote.
I do think it is interesting though, that the REPs in this roundtable (minus Ben) were unable to conceed that Bush lost the debates while the DEMs all seemed to agree that Edwards didn't win or straight up lost. This really demonstrates who in this roundtable has lost the ability to be objectve and who hasn't.

CHUCK: I've got one more lie. It was the first thing Cheney said: CHENEY HAS MET EDWARDS BEFORE. It was obviously preplanned......a preplanned lie. Additionally, it was a really untrue lie. They have met several times. Cheney still won as far as 'who did what they had to do', because Cheney didnt short-circuit (literally) and actually seemed human.
Proof of the gross lie: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041006_463.htmlBut why didnt edwards bring it up? I dont know. Edwards was just off. He was intimidated.
Oh well. plus swing voters are probably more interested in how damn good looking edwards is.

JAY: the debate clearly went to cheney. chuck, you talk about flat out lies. why don't you mention Edwards' lies. he mentioned time and time again that the cost of war in iraq, as of now, was up to 200 billion. he was even corrected at the debate, and still misrepresented the facts to the american public. another thing that struck me was Edwards statement, "A resume doesn't prove good judgement." That is the biggest crock o shit. I'll start telling that to future employers. A resume and history of your past reveals everything about judgement. I liked it when the issue was MEDICAL MALPRACTICE and Edwards jumped into a sob story about a products liability case. way to mislead the audience who probably thought he was referring to med mal. look at Edwards record since 9/11 (36/38 votes). that's a true leader. he couldn't even respond to it. chuck i read your so called proof on the meeting. in one a name i mentioned, the other is backed by Edwards aids, and the third (only potential one) is a handshake after a talkshow. was there one meeting in congress? i think that was the point cheney was making. edwards looked like cheney's kid at times. edwards is trying to paint a black and white picture w/ tax cuts, attempting to mislead the public stating "republicans tax the rich less." however it's not so black and white. the tax bracket over 200k (which edwards stated, "multimillionaires by the pool") is to benefit small businesses which many americans are fining jobs, yet you don't here edwards say that

HONAR: First of all, of that majority of americans who have chosen their man, the debates are unlikely to matter a damn. Of those voters who have yet to make up their minds, the v.p. debates are unlikely to have a significant impact; barring some serious gaffe on either candidates part. The only influence it is likely to have on the undecided voter's, is maintaining their interest level in the upcoming presidential debate.
I really have to wonder about these undecided voters who are waiting for these so called debates to help them inform their decisions.

CHUCK: Jay, you have never made me personally mad at you, until now. its always been about the specifics, and often painstaking details of stuff we arent clear on, until now. I am really pissed at your fucking ridiculous email, trying to make me look bad. here is why
why don't you mention Edwards' lies. Well Jay, because fucking Viscione asked me what Cheney lied about.
was there one meeting in congress?WOW! you act like that is what Cheney said. Cheney said he never met him...not I never met him in Senate. Another interesting thing: The fact that Cheney is at the senate every Tuesday.....he is there every Tuesday to host a Republican-only lunch. Should he crash the lunch?
I liked it when the issue was MEDICAL MALPRACTICE and Edwards jumped into a sob story about a products liability case. way to mislead the audience...Way to mislead? He specifically pointed out that frivilous suits are 0.5% of the costs of health care. He also needs to explain that a family that saw a fucking girl that had her intestines ripped from her body, would be denied compensation of greater then $250,000 under the Bush Plan. Compesation for emotional damage is exactly at the heart of this issue, so its not misleading to touch into emotions.
the tax bracket over 200k....Good luck making me feel bad for them when 4 million just entered poverty. Seriously good luck. Paint the debate however you want. Good luck. Additionally, its not hard to incorporate and doesnt cost shit, so why dont they do that. I dont know much about it, but it seemed business didnt have a problem at the higher tax bracket during the Clinton Era....when there were 20 million jobs were created
cheney clearly wonI think cheney won, and said so. but i dont think its clear. polls show a split. and I think he won as a white male. I am sure edwards won in the black community (cheney admitting he did not know of the extent of AIDS). I bet women preferred edwards, because cheney does not radiate a great deal of compassion. So its not clear, like the Kerry v. Bush debate.
Finally, either way, I agree w/ Honar about this not mattering. And just to clarify, I thought Cheney won, and then in parenthesis i mentioned that cheney made some things up. Then viscione asked for examples. I provided examples. Jay went on some nonsensical trashing of Edwards. But remember, Jay wants everyone to know that I (and bob) are the ones that cannot be calm or objective.
Also, I wish Jay would not be allowed to claim he might not vote for Bush. It insults everyone of us.

JAY: wow, I touched a nerve. i have attacked your ststements before and you never gave me hostile responses such as this. i'm going to have to read what i said, read your response again, and then respond. i have class in 4 minutes and i think this personal attack deserves more time. and you did bring up the cheney lies 1st, and then dan responded w/ "what did he lie about?" anyway, i'm disappointed you are taking this so personally, maybe that's a weakness. take that personally as well. i hope you realize I'm laughing right now. this is just a political debate, no reason to get personal.

DAN: I don't know where you get off saying the Cheney meeting Edwards comment was preplanned. I don't know if you are convincing yourself of that, or if you are just making shit up, but statement is just stupid. I didn't click on your link (so it may differ), but I did hear on the radio last night on my way home that the first time they met was at a senate prayer meeting three years ago. Three years is a long time to remember someone you met once, maybe twice, especially being that the person you met is a stiff. That really doesn't say much on Edward's part being that he obviously didn't leave a lasting impression in Cheney's mind. In fact, it just proves Cheney's point of not remembering having met Edwards due to the fact that in the past THREE years "gone" Edwards has been absent from 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, and almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. (And this guy, in the past, has talked of the "involvement" with the Intelligence Committee and how being part of it is a good selling point as to why he should be President and now VP). Give me a fucking break!! I don't blame Cheney at all. How can you remember meeting someone three years ago when you haven't seen them since?!?!

JAY: chuck, sorry if you took offense to my e-mail, but i have to respond further. for the inconsistancies on the debate, got to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6188565/ brings up both vp's misreps (including haliburton). i don't buy them ever meeting. why? because edwards had an opportunity to contest that, and he didn't. that's the only fact. w/ medical mal, the issue presented was health care and edwards gave a stupid sob story over products liability; pool drain cover case (no relevance and misleading). you say "i agree chaney won" and then say "i don't think it's clear." do you think he won or are you unsure? then you insult me by saying "I wish Jay would not be allowed to claim he might not vote for Bush. It insults everyone of us." It's obvious that i speak heavily against kerry on iraq, but there are other issues that we havn't discussed, idiot. before i divulge into the other issues, these are the reasons i like bush on iraq: kerry has war inconsistencies. then he approved the war stating we need the un and others. now he says we should have gone to other places first and it's the wrong war, but we should have more allies helping us in the wrong war (see how illogical that is). he is playing both sides. then he says we should be reinforcing our troops, but voted against the 87 billion. he gave his reasons, but they don't fly. our troops in harms way deserve that $. edwards stated that "we need to lead an aggressive attack on terror." does that mean going to the un for a 17 resolution that won't be complied w/? does aggressive mean waiting until the threat evolves into disaster? another thing i don't like is that they say we should go to iran right now. hold on, you mean the un then iran right? if it was such a threat how come the un hasn't done anything yet? you argue that it's not up to us, it's up to the un. the "resume does not reflect good judgement" slogan is just stupid. so if the iraqi soldiers aren't counted as part of the coalition and not the opposition, then who are they fighting for? of course they are w/ the coalition. 750 dead iraqi police and soldiers, 1000 dead u.s.. i agree w/ multilateral negotiations w/ iran and korea instead of the bilateral kerry wants. they misrepresent that as well. i have more, but i'm reaching my word limit.
other issues: i'm for abortion, for stem cell research, for heightened gun control, think gays should get married ad adopt, need to research more on their health care and spending policies, for death penalty,
so i have to weigh all the issues and do a little more research. sorry for insulting any of you, i just though it was ipmortant to be well informed on everything (not just who's misrepresenting the facts in iraq)

ABROMOVICH: The real issue here as far as a Vice President is concerned is who, Edwards or Cheney, would you want running your country if the something happened to the President. That is the real question that needs to be answered. The Issues are going to reflect his running mate in almost all cases. But would you want this country in the hands of a trial lawyer with no experience. Imagine this scenario - John Kerry is removed from office - for whatever reason, and one John Edwards is now running a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and who knows where else by them - Scary I know.

CHUCK: Well, I'll first say that I may have seemed to take it too personal. I am always laughing about all of this, but this time i just got really annoyed. Bob is the only one to probably understand this, but it has just been a cumulation of times where jay frames his emails in a way to act like i have no ability to look at anything reasonably. And that is what happened w/ the "you don't mention edwards lies"......I WASNT ASKED. And i didnt think it was important, because I dont think Cheney's misrepresentations were important, either.
And they did meet. And Edwards blew the chance to get him back. Edwards missed a bunch of chances. I mean Cheney said he never said 9/11 and Iraq connection, and Edwards let him get away with that, too. Edwards was not as ready as he should have been.
Med Mal: Again, the elements of the little girl being killed by the pool drain are relevant. Again, emotions are at the heart of the issue.
And if you really believe all these horrible things about kerry and his ability to defend us, then you would be insane to vote for Kerry. And that is why I believe its crazy to talk about maybe not voting for Bush. If you were even the slightest flexible on Kerry's stance or forgive some of his mistakes (like you obviously forgive Bush on iraq), then maybe you could vote for kerry. But you have never done anything but slam Kerry every second on Iraq, while never questioning Bush's rush to war.
If you want to look at everything objectively, then why do you go on these tangents about Kerry going to the UN '17 times'. That's not objective. That is a wild point to make kerry seem like a pussy. I hope that you would consider Kerry, but it just seems like you are lying to yourself if you really think so. If i had that opinion of Kerry v. Bush on defense, I would never vote for Kerry.
Iraqi's Count: Okay, if the 750 iraqis count in the coalition, then I DEMAND more discussion on the 13,000 dead INNOCENT civilians.
North Korea: So you think its better to not talk to a madman w/ a Nuke then talk to him one-on-one. See because, that's all we can get. So we better take it, and calm this nut down.
Viscione. They did meet. And it was a planned comment. There is no doubt. That said, Edwards has a bad senate record. Finally, Bob makes a good point on a weakness of Edwards. It would be more effective if Bush had any experience (aside from a series of horrible decisions in iraq)

#6: Global Test? > Moore?

2004-10-04T12:15:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 4th, 2004

BOB: Well, I think we have exhausted the ‘Saddam since the Gulf War’ topic.
I'd like to move on to the topic of the UN. In the debates Kerry said something about passing a 'Global Test' and the Bush camp went crazy. Now they are both running ads to address this situation.
---Did Kerry say something damaging?
---Should US foreign policy have to stand up to a 'global test?'
---Has the UN become irrelevant?
---If so, should it be abandoned or reformed?
---Do you think that this type of Global body can work?
Post your thoughts on the UN.
PS Dan is right, my boycott has been lifted and I encourage all others to do the same (chuck) Also I'd like to thank Jay for admitting his mistake (I only wish Bush was so forthright)

JAY: a new movis is coming out soon. some of you may be interested. you can watch the trailer at http://www.celsius4111 it is the truth about the lies of farenheit 911. you left wingers have constantly been saying how horrible post-war iraq is going. here are some "fun facts." Within two months, all major Iraqi cities and most towns had municipal councils; something that took eight months in postwar Germany. Within four months the Iraqi Governing Council had appointed a cabinet; something that took 14 months in Germany. An independent Iraqi Central Bank was established and a new currency announced in just two months; accomplishments that took three years in postwar Germany. Within two months a new Iraqi police force was conducting joint patrols with coalition forces. Within three months, we had begun training a new Iraqi army; and today some 56,000 are participating in the defense of their country. By contrast, it took 14 months to establish a police force in Germany and 10 years to begin training a new German army.” I bet you leftys would have been making the same arguments for hitler as you are for saddam.

ZELIN: Jay, did you see Fahrenheit 9/11?

KYLE: Jay, Your fun facts set up a completely false analogy. The list of accomplishments that you regergitated as "fun facts" have been administration talking points for months and have gone nowhere because they are known to be absurd by anyone who has picked up a history book.
Here is how the Gaurdian details why your argument is "transparently ridiculous." You can click on the text to read the full article:
"The parallel between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany is transparently ridiculous. In the late 1930s, Hitler's Germany was the world's second largest industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its neighbours. It would go on to enslave most of Europe and carry out an industrial genocide unparallelled in human history."
"Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn't even control all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or biological weapons Iraq may retain, they are clearly no deterrent, its armed forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force in history - Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of the US's $380bn budget. The attempt to equate the Iraqis' horrific gas attacks on Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war with the Nazi holocaust is particularly grotesque - a better analogy would be the British gassing of Iraqi Kurds in the 20s or the US use of chemical weapons in Vietnam."
"Hitler analogies have long been the stock-in-trade of Anglo-American war propaganda - perhaps not surprisingly, since the second world war still retains near-universal legitimacy, just as Nazi Germany remains the archetype of an aggressive, genocidal state."
Hitler was found dead in a bunker that was part of an military complex. We found Saddam under a rug in a hut.

CHUCK: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
Here is factual support for EVERY LINE IN THE MOVIE. He just draws inferences based on facts. MOST DEATHS LAST MONTH THEN ANY OTHER MONTH. But you're right, its going great because we are building things faster then we did in the 1940's
Boy that movie was such smash hit. "Coming to theatres in September" according to the website. Gosh, i couldnt even get a ticket to see it. (maybe that's because it was never in one theatre.....what does that say, supply and demanders)
http://www.celsius4111.com/4111/c4111%5Fcontents/about/

JAY: chuck, are you saying moore did not misrepresent anything? you are even directing me towards moore's own site to review his facts. you don't think he is extremely biases. yes zelin, i have seen the movie. i downlaoded it on bearshare. another issue we can talk about is illegally downloading. i had a conversation w/ zelin once and he seemed to think it wasn't wrong. if anyone agrees w/ him, we can discuss. anyway, here are some of the misrepresentations. if you ant me to explain more in depth i can:
Rep. Porter Goss does have a toll-free number
Moore claims Saudis have $100 billion more invested in America than is believed they have invested in the entire world
Fox called Florida for Gore first; CBS was the first network to retract the Gore result
Privacy laws force White House to black out Bath's name
Gore didn't win "every recount scenario"
Bush was raising money for charity during "have mores" quote
Condi doesn't think Iraq was involved in 9/11
Unger questions Bush/bin Laden relationship
Bush isn't the only one in Carlyle
75-80% of "$1.4 billion" Saudi connection false
All embassies have Secret Service protection
Happy and healthy in Iraq?
Legislative sons in active service
Bush's Air National Guard service misrepresented
Moore's congressmen have ties to terrorists and the U.N. "oil for food" scandal
"House of Bush, House of Saud" not publishable in the UK for legal reasons
Unocal gave up pipeline project 3 years before Afghan war
Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 commission applauds Bush for the infamous "7 minutes"
Disney told Moore over a year ago that they would not distribute
Moore is preparing to sue critics of his film
Moore distorts Bush "vacation days"
Michael Moore had abuse footage months beforehand; did not notify DOD
Three members of the 2004 Cannes jury have ties to Miramax
Michael Moore has called civilian contractors in Iraq "War Profiteers"
On 9/11, George W. Bush did not sign the order for Saudis to leave the U.S.
Groups affiliated with Hezbollah have offered to help distribute Fahrenheit 9/11
Moore's misleading Oregon assertion
Moore misrepresents newspaper headlines, dates
the 8/06/01 PDB
The Iraq-Al Qaeda connection
20 Counties ignored voter removal list
Large number of Congresspeople are veterans
Moore's military double-think
Watch this drive, Yassir!
Bush policies regarding military pay misrepresented
Saddam has murdered Americans

KYLE: Did you write those bullet points or did you get them from another source?

JAY: of course i got them from another source, but does that matter? are we going to address where i got them or discuss the substance?
Bob, where can I learn the stances on this issue. I'm unsure what you want. However, I do have a response to, "Post your thoughts on the u.n.
Quite frankly, and realistically, the UN couldn't fight its way out of a paper bag. Furthermore, the UN organization is notorious for its lack of peace-keeping capability and inability to take control of crisis situations when needed. Were it not for the ongoing military, political, and financial support of the United States, the UN would have crumbled into non-existence decades ago. Shit, we even provide its headquarters, right here in the good ole USA. Ever wonder why we still do that? The fact of the matter is, most Mid-East countries despise the US, yet that doesn't stop them from accepting endless streams of American taxpayer and corporate contributions, provided via our monetary foreign aid, products, and services. The UN Mid-East countries veto US proposals and resolutions 70 to 80 percent of the time. Why do we continue to support the governments of the Mid-East? Why does the US remain a large supporter of the United Nations? Why hasn't the Bush administration pursued punishment for Saudi Arabia, since most of those terrorists involved in the 9/11 activities were citizens or held ties to that nation? Why does the US continue to send millions of American dollars to the very same Mid-East countries that hate us so much and continue to harm us by using our own money, products, and services to defeat and annihilate us? These are some very good questions that require some very good responses from the Bush administration. In essence we are killing ourselves, and we need to consider changing the dynamics of this reality. A first step toward that goal is to provide a tangible and responsible plan and timeline to turnover the governing of Iraq to its people, and to return American soldiers without further incident.

BOB: Jay, did you even read the 'misrepresentations' in your email.
Here are some of my favorites:
· Rep. Porter Goss DOES have a toll-free number
· Gore didn't win "EVERY recount scenario"
· Bush isn't the ONLY one in Carlyle
· Moore distorts Bush "vacation days"
· Three members of the 2004 Cannes jury have ties to Miramax
So let me get this right...Moore makes a film claiming that Bush stole the election, dragged the nation into a war for oil, and lied to the American people about the WMDs...and this is the Right's response:
Moore lied about Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number?!?
That's the best they could come up with?
What an unbelievable admission of guilt!!!
These ridiculous lists only go to show that Bush can’t dispute the devastating allegations in this film.

JAY: bob, why don't you address the other points? what seems to happen over and over is that you address the weakest parts of my arguments and fail to respond to my arguments with the most substance. read the blog. i apologozed to you for the blog, and asked a specific question; you failed to reply. just answer one thing. it's from an e-mail a posted earlier where i stated, "the fact is he looked at the same intelligence as bush and made the same decision as bush. now he says it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. i know you say he approved of the war, but not in the way bush went about it. how do you approve a war if it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. it makes no sense. what he is saying is that he wanted to go to war b/c it's the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, but lets get the u.n. and other nations to help us fight this wrong war. by the way, there are 40 other countries that pose a more imminent threat, but i'll wait a year or two to bring that up. i agree w/ bush on this point: "how do you expect to build the coalition with this message?" Do I quote myself? Seems weird. One more thing, what's this global test thing? Don't forget i still love you. I may seem hostile at times, but this is just politics. I'm a fire starter

CHUCK: jay, i do think moore is very slanted, and sometimes just overly conspiracy theoryish. Anyways, most of you the claims are just irrelevant. for example: FOX news called it for Gore originally.....what does that have to do w/ anything....all Moore does is say that Fox was first to change.....that is true. he makes no other claims. i am not going to fight/defend this movie. it speaks for itself. everything he says if factually correct. and some of the statements are kinda of misleading. its kinda like most campaign ads. By the way, the fact that you cut and paste it IS relevant. Here are a few more claims that are wrong: Moore says "Gore won every state recount" and that is true. Gore won every statewide recount. Gore did not win the recount of the counties that Gore requested, BUT Moore didnt sa that. I can go on, but Jay I would appreciate you make one exact assertion that Moore makes that is a LIE. SHOW ME A LIE Jay, I was thinking about something. Bush must really really suck, because you continue to bash Kerry and everything left-wing.......BUT then you said you are not sure if you are going to vote for Bush. You may never admit it in such words, but I am glad that part of you knows Bush Sucks

JAY: that's exactly what i said. one of my first e-mails in the blog. i don't really like bush, but kerry sucks

BOB: OK Jay, I will honest-to-God, try to respond as directly as I know how...
First, I already conceded that Kerry's authorization to use force vote is unforgivable. I used that exact word: “unforgivable.” And I have voiced my deep disappointment in his inability to stick to a point-a-view during the last 2 years in regards to Iraq.
Bush likes to talk about 'evil' well here's how I see it: There are two types of evil in this world: Those who harm others for their own benefit and those who watch and do nothing to stop it.
Kerry might have been weak when we needed him, but this failure, as disappointing as it is, is nothing compared to what I see as blatant manipulation/lying by the Bush camp. Kerry isn't perfect, but it's still an easy choice for me.
In regards to building a coalition: I think Kerry does have a better chance than Bush. The world hates Bush. Let me repeat that ...the world hates Bush. The more time I spend living outside the U.S. the more I realize it. Call me naïve, but I truly believe that if a fresh face approaches these world leaders with respect and acknowledges that we screwed up, he might be able to hold their attention long enough to demonstrate why it is in their best interest to join us in Iraq. Maybe Kerry will never get France to send troops, but anybody has a better chance than Bush does. Can it get any worse that it is right now?
About the GLOBAL TEST thing: My question was pretty open-ended. I know that usually liberals tend to say that the UN is a global body that provides peace and stability in the world and should be respected by all. While the conservatives tend to say that the UN is irrelevant because when it comes to enforcing its own resolutions it is at best: slow and at worst: impotent.
My only strong opinion in regards to the UN is this: We need to pick a side. We say that Saddam needed to be removed because he was breaking resolutions. But we continue to give Israel un-Godly amounts of support as they break resolutions and we even side-step the Security Council vote on Invading Iraq when it looked like we were going to lose. It is this hypocrisy that bothers me because I think it breeds the anti-Americanism that these terrorist networks are feeding on. PS I love you too, Jay. Peace.

CHUCK: jay, i know you think kerry is so bad, and base his imminent failure on his image that has been jammed down your throat from a a bunch of sound clips in the news and in the bush ads. but think about this: there has been 2 times that america got to see John Kerry, and only John Kerry....the convention speech and the debates. the convention he was okay. the debates he was great. so then you point to his horrible senate record. he was weak. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE. It is a great example of John Kerry's Senate History. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html he led a charge to cut off terrorist funding, all the way back in the 1980's. That's not too bad.

JAY: i think he was great in the debates as well, i just can't see past the contradiction i mentioned earlier today to bob (i should have directed it to all of you). he uses wrong war, wrong time, wrong place and 40 other countries that we should have gone after 1st to attack bush, however at crunch time he voted for the war. the manner in which bush went about the war is irrelevant. kerry sucks for using that against bush when he voted for it as well. if it is wrong war, wrong time, wrong place and there are 40 other countries that we should have gone after 1st shouldn't he have not voted for the war and brought up the other countries at crunch time instead of using it for his political gain now. don't worry bob, i am done with this issue and i still feel it hasn't been justified

CHUCK: Jay, I have been wanting to respond to your claims that Kerry's plan is horrible for the world because it hurts globalization. I have a 2 part answer: First, Kerry's Plan: - He just wants US corporations to quit going into tax shelters overseas. He wants them to pay taxes on their profits. That will in fact (a) make other smaller businesses more competitive w/ the big businesses, (c) increase incentives to invest in american employment, and (c) increase American tax revenue. Additionally, Kerry wants to lower the corporate tax rate, which increases help to small business. Second, Free Market Globalization: - Free trade has positive and negative effects. There is no doubting that. Deference to total trade is a horrible idea. If supply and demand controlled our lives, we would not have a minimum wage. We would have child labor. We would have no right to organize. We would not have free speech at our job. And the horrors would continue. Bottom line: There would be child labor, and women getting paid $3/hr for certain jobs. Do you want to be China, or the United States? - Yes there is demand for us to go to these nations, but we have to show some restraint. There is a fine line between exploitation and progress. The conditions in Mexico are such that the jobs we provide are the best they have. And that is good. But if you try to file a complaint for getting hurt on the job, you get fired and blacklisted. And that is bad. So you requested to "direct stupid arguments to economics"Well, in my opinion you cannot separate the economics and the exploitatoin. We don't separate the 2 in our country. We dont allow our own to be exploited. And for a nation that feels the best way to cure the world (and fight terrorism) is to spread liberty, we better spread the same liberty that we value here in america. Finally, there is no definitive policy. There basically just has to be a lot of pushing and pulling, until a middle ground is found. Kind of like it is right now. But there is still too much exploitation right now. And that is why a great plan like John Kerry's to lower the incentive to go overseas would probably help. Kerry's plan would strengthen America, while still providing overseas jobs to desperate nations. And hopefully then these nations with the infusion of some employment can build a side economy, and not just fully depend on america (that is where aid and other issues come up). There are no easy answers. It is very gray, not black and white. And who would you want to handle a gray area? "With us or against us W" or John "Mr. Nuance" Kerry. Help is on the wayWell, we should really quit the iraq debate cause we go in circles. but i'll just say: Kerry voted for the authority because sadaam was a threat. there was a right way and a wrong way to handle the threat, and bush did it wrong. Kerry said, while casting his vote, that he wanted to exhaust the UN inspections and work to get a coalition. Bush did not. That is where Kerry finds his reasoning to be mad at this war. And, to me, there is not much doubting that it was the "wrong time" for the war because we obviously rushed to war. (i really wish kerry lost the debate, because now i am excited for kerry, but its ruining my life. my head hurts. and sorry for all the emails, i'll try to slow them down)

SAMMY: Jay, you may need to check your sources. Let me go down the list. Fox was the first to change Gore. Gore did win in every state recount. Legis;ative sons in active duty. Show one congressmans kid over in Iraq actually fighting and using a gun. Bush's National Guard involvement. Yes he was in the national guard, but you and me know both their was pereferal treatment. Moore's congressmen have ties to terrorists and the U.N. "oil for foor" scandel. I'm not sure about that yet and so what he is not a congressman and can't vote and congressional levels. 7 minutes. 7 MINUTES!!!!! What more needs to be said about that. The vacation days. It is a known fact that this president has taken the most vacation days out of any president. Camp David is a fun place and I am sure he is doing work their, but he should be at the White House where most of the other employees are. So Moore got the abuse tapes before the DOD let them out. Anyone could have downloaded them from the Internet. I got the new Radiohead album a month before it was released to the public. Am I to blame becuase I wanted them before I could buy it. By the way I did buy it when it came out, because I support the musicians I download. The 2004 Cannes Jury had ties to Miramax. Who better to judge movies than a sucessful movie company that prides themselves in independent films. And the movie obviously deservered awards when it did so well in the theaters. Civilian contractors are "War Profitteers". They are working over their for money. They are not volenteering over their. Did you know the average laborer is making upwards to $100,000 a yr, when the average laborer in the states makes 40 to 50 a yr. Thats what I call profit. Watch this drive, Yessir. Did that not happen? Did they do that with a stunt double, or maybe it was computer generated. Wonders what they can do with computers now a days. Now, to comment on your connections of Iraq and post war Germany. We are in a far more technology based world. We have computers that can do amazing things. So maybe that is why things are moving so much faster along over there. Did you ever stop to think that that was the 1940's and this is 2004. We have super computers, humanitarian aid, jets, a far more technologically advanced army, and a enormous demand from the public to get something done over there. The president is hard pressed to make some advances over there before the election, becuase we can already see that alot of the people of the world are not satisfied with what is going on over there. I also saw your trailer to celius 41.11 and I would like to see based of the last clip of the trailor. A man so eliqueitely put "I would vote for a single celled organism before I would vote for Bush" That guy deserves a plaque.
Regarding your comment on if illegal downloading is wrong, I would have to disagree. Personally I support almost all of the bands I have downloaded, and about half of the porn. But really, for someone that listens to my genre of music it is very hard to find out about bands and get the feel for this type of music. I think Bob will back me up on this. Most radio stations only play hip-hop, rock or country. Jay I know you listen to some smaller named indepedent bands. For me this is the independent radio, where I can pick and choose what I like. Now for the smaller bands you can't find the whole album, so if I like what I hear I go buy the CD or buy it from I tunes. Now I know the big hip hop bands lose out on CD sales from this becuase everyone has the new Jessica Simpson album and has placed it on the internet. But really is Jessica hurting from this, NO! I have seen her house on MTV, Jessica and Nick seem well off. The only people that are hurting are the record executives at major label companies. And they are still doing well. Better than me or you. But have you noticed the smaller bands showing up on MTV lately. I definetly have. Years ago I never tought I would here Modest Mouse on the radio. It seems good to me that small bands are showing up in the mainstream. Jesus Christ, Maney is listening to Snow Patrol and Keane. Great bands, but you won't hear them on Cleveland radio, for sure. Maybe on other markets such as the real major metropolitian areas such as New York, San Diego and Chicago. Where their is enough people to support a small fan base. But Maney would never had heard these bands if not for the internet. And I know he stole them. Yes He stole them. But I on the other hand, did buy their CD, and bought tickets to their concert. Concert! Yes this is where bands make their most money. Performing, what they do best. So as long as you have people like me and people still going to the concerts, bands will do just well and the record exects will do just fine. The music industry has been exploiting us to long, now it is our turn to discover bands not fed to us by record labels and the radio. It is time for people to find their genre via the internet and support those bands.

BEN: sammartano, you need to get your facts straight: Fox News WAS NOT the first to change Florida back to uncalled in 2000 - it was NBC News (also the first to call the state for Bush at 7:49) However, FOX was the first to call Florida for Bush at 2:16 AM, followed next by NBC News and then CNN and ABC. At 2:37 the AP put out an urgent bulletin that said FL was too close to call still, and the networks then followed suit, leaving the totals at 267 Gore-254 Bush. all of this available with a quick search on the internetGore DID NOT win in every state recount. Many after the fact recounts took place, and some showed Bush won, and some showed Kerry won. However, EVERY study I have ever seen showed that using the standards and specific counties that Gore cherry picked and requested the Florida Supreme Court to let him have recounts in he would have lost. gores appeal was the basis of the Supreme Court decsion of Bush V. GoreBottom line on that is no matter what side you were on, is if you lost you would have some legitimate reasons to be mad, but just to claim it is all FOX's fault is untrue

CHUCK: Sammartano said Fox was the "first to change Gore". Technically wrong. I am sure he meant "first to call for Bush"......WHICH IS TRUE. You sound like Bush pointing out "what about Poland?"....you are pulling at any word omission or anything, but the premise is still unchanged, Fox pounced on the chance to call Florida for Bush, before anyone else. Also, Gore DID WIN EVERY COMPLETE STATEWIDE RECOUNT. and here is a source, fucking Drudge: http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm (show me another comprehensive recount....and not to fucking mention all the uncounted voters and votes) And everyone wants to bicker of minor details. Here was the main premise: Florida was Stolen. Simply no question. Maybe the word 'stolen' seems harsh, but what is when more florida voters wanted you to win and voted for you (or tried but were barred) but you lose? Stolen, robbed, what? And that is what makes Bush's presidency more sick. Even if Florida was legit, he did not have a majority of the vote. But he acted like he won in a landslide and led the most partisan presidency in our nations history.

JAY: after reading these e-mails from john and chuck, i understand what their problem is. they are believing everything that moore says. you have to admit that moore's movie is extremely bias and misrepresenting (at least slightly misrepresenting, although i believe otherwise). even liberal democrats understand this. read this article, Michael Moore's Truth Problem; Is Michael Moore a courageous political documentarist who unmasks the chicanery all around us -- or just a charlatan in a clown suit? Is he an entertainment genius or a dangerous ideologue? The answer, of course, is all of the above. The problem is that you never know which of the four is doing the talking in Moore's movies and books. The end result is that the writer-filmmaker spreads a fog of misbegotten notions about America, politics, business, and international affairs among his youthful, left-leaning following at home and, indeed, around the world. Uninformed readers and viewers tend to believe everything he says. The website is http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=252483 . This is from the NEW DEMOCRATS ONLINEim done w/ moore. it's a waste of my time

CHUCK: Jay, as a final shot on Michael Moore, I agree w/ all four statements about him (but i obviously think he is more good then bad). And I also know he slightly misleads in this movie. That said, my main anger about Moore bashing is that he made a very popular movie with an important theme, and it was discredited because of a few statements that were true but misleading. I feel the same way about The Passion, which many on the left bashed for a few things perceived as slightly unfair. They are both good and popular movies. And should not be discredited because of a minor details.

ZELIN: Jay, I agree with you that Moore's points are biased. Shit, he even admits that. Even though pointing out some interesting things, it is for entertainment value and I really don't think most democrats (at least sane ones) are not counting on this movie to sway votes. Try reading this article from NY Times from respected columnust Paul Krugman. Interesteing what he points out regarding Bush's spending: But Mr. Kerry raised the issue, describing how the administration has failed to protect us against terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush's response? "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises." Oh, yes we do. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Mr. Bush's tax cuts, with their strong tilt toward the wealthy, are responsible for more than $270 billion of the 2004 budget deficit. Increased spending on homeland security accounts for only $20 billion. That shows the true priorities of the self-proclaimed "war president." Later, Mr. Bush, perhaps realizing his mistake, asserted, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." But he had already conceded that he isn't. Take from here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ex=1097978047&ei=1&en=5c575b663c1ce318

SAMMY: I would contend my arguement but it seems chuck has done me pretty well. And who really care which network said what at what time. Chuck has given a legitimate resource for the statewide recount. Anyways, this was just a propaganda movie to get people thinking. When that movie came out it was highly criticized and everyone (at least eveyone I knew) knew it was going to be a one sided arguement against Bush. Yes, Moore takes things to the extreme, but it got people thinking. That's what counts for me, not the network that said what at what time. The fact is the movie didn't really bring any thing new to the table, as far as I can remember. Their was no astonishing new revelation about Bush. All that information was out their, you just had to watch the news over the past years. And that is all have to say about a movie that I pretty much forgot about. I'm also sorry for making the fox statement unclear, I was just trying to keep it short. Bob's blogspot is getting pretty big and I was trying to keep things short.

BEN: well john you obvioulsy did care what network called it at what time because you made a point to say talk about it in your email.......but i am sure you made a mistake (for real),. the AP was the one that released the bulletin first showing Bush had won Florida, not FOX News....and still they werent the first to take florida from gore originally.
chuck you citing one study does not mean that every other study agrees with it. here is a link to the miami herald / usatoday study from may 2001. it has some different results. how do you define statewide recount.....there are many ways to do it.....with the undervotes, overvotes, chads, optical scanners, there was more than 1 way to count. i have never disagreed that more people that went to the polls that day inteded to vote for Gore. it is likely true.....but i belive the bush still won legally. just intending to vote for gore, but punchng the ballot for buchanan doesnt mean it is a vote for gore.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/recountindex.htm

SAMMY: Actually I didn't care, the only reason I commented on it was becuase it was on Jay's list.

#5: First Debate? > Saddam, since the Gulf War?

2004-10-01T20:00:00.000-04:00

THREAD BEGAN: October 1st, 2004

CHUCK: KERRY DESTROYED BUSH. Even an unbiased person admits Kerry won. HELP IS ON THE WAY

ZELIN: Well, of course I agree with Chuck. I was impressed by how Kerry was actually saying things and articulating points, while Bush, as we expected, seems to simply state the same few lines over and over again, almost in a pleasing manner. I think that Kerry did bring up some good rebuttals and sound presidential, but I am also worried. The shear fact that Bush is able to sit up there and say a few simple statements over and over, will work among many voters. I think a large amount of voters don't want to hear details and prefer to be comforted by their father type president and told that everything is going to be okay and we are doing just fine. In comes, W.
Waiting for 10 emails from Jay.

JAY: i agree w/ chuck and z-diggity. however, z, you give the pres no credit. kerry did make good points and had trong rebuttles, but bush did as well. they both have strong points and we have to choose which stance we prefer. most of you don't know this, but i am border line with a slight edge towards bush. the one thing that really bothers me about kerry is his contradictions, and yes there were plenty. first he said he wanted to supply the troops w/ all the necessry equipment, but he voted against the 87 billion. then he said saddam wasn't a threat, then he was. the fact is he looked at the same intelligence as bush and made the same decision as bush. now he says it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. i know you say he approved of the war, but not in the way bush went about it. how do you approve a war if it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. it makes no sense. what he is saying is that he wanted to go to war b/c it's the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, but lets get the u.n. and other nations to help us fight this wrong war. by the way, there are 40 other countries that pose a more imminent threat, but i'll wait a year or two to bring that up. i agree w/ bush on this point: "how do you expect to build the coalition with this message?" however, this issue aside, kerry appeared strong. he is a much better public speaker. i like his "fresh start" theory. to bad they really don't debate. isn't that what we really need to see?

CHUCK: First, I will admit bush has one strong point, which you brought up jay. The ability to build a coalition for a 'wrong war'. its a good point. however, i think kerry just rebuts by saying 'it was wrong, but now success is vital, especially for you euros, so you better join'. not super convincing, but its something.
Otherwise, Jay, you must have not been watching the debate (or just not want to acknowledge kerry) if you are still reeling off stuff about 'sadaam not being a threat', 'not funding troops', etc. he stated repeatedly (and even i was impressed) that he had one position: sadaam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, there was a right and wrong way to do it, and bush did it the wrong way. and kerry has never said sadaam was a not a threat. he has just explained that sadaam was not the level of threat that deserved the emphasis bush placed on it.
well, i am going to just sit back and wait for some new polls. after last night i can calm down about all this other stuff, because i know kerry is in the game. bush could have won it last night. but he sucked. he interupted the moderator, and then had nothing to say.....he couldnt understand the color light system......and my favorite, he confused sadaam and bin laden (not a first). and kerry looked and sounded tremendous. i was really happy with the choices he put out there. and for anyone still considering kerry, there are 3 more debates to tune into and see the differences between the parties and the candidates.

DAN: Chuck, I completely disagree. I don't think either was great. But difinately, Bush did better. Obviously, Bush stumbled a bit, but who doesn't know that Bush will do that. He at times sounded redundant, but in his defense, the questions were so closely related it would be hard not to overlap your statements. Bush was clear on his ideas and what he stands for and was telling voters to vote for him.
Kerry on the other hand was not clear on anything. He looked like a immature, crybaby, asshole when calling Bush out when he (Bush) wanted a 30 second extension on one of Kerry's responses (I'd have to watch again to tell you exactly what question and when it happened).
By the way, I have a question...Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to Bin Ladin, trys to rally supporters with a taped message, according to a broadcast Friday by Al-Jazeera television. I know what Bush will/is going to do. After seeing the debates yesterday, what does everyone think will happen/would happen if Kerry were President?
My answer - I have no idea what this guy would do. Kerry continued to point the finger at Bush and said Bush was wrong in his administration. He didn't elaborate on any aspect of his implementation. He did though let the world know where he stands. He is against terror and WM-D's.----Who the fuck does this guy think he is? NO SHIT HE'S AGAINST THEM, SO IS THE REST OF THE FUCKING WORLD!----I feel bad for any swing voter leaning toward Kerry. His generalities and finger pointing are not going to get him elected.
I look at it this way. Obviously, you are for one party or the other (Dem/Rep), or your are in between ("swing"). If you have already made up your mind, either Dem or Rep, the likelihood of switching is slim. BUT, for those swing-voters that don't know what the hell is going on, this is a crucial time for Bush and Kerry. These people aren't looking to decide which candidate to vote for. They haven't made up their minds because they can't choose. They are looking to be told who to vote for. That is why I think Bush did an good (not excellent) job yesterday telling the American people that they need to vote for him. And if they don't then "this, that and the other" will happen. Bob, you have called this on several occasions a "scare tactic." I disagree with that statement. We have all heard this statement many times, "There are leaders and there are followers." These swing voters, guys, aren't leaders. It doesn't take much to realize that. They are waiting for someone to tell them what to do; who to vote for. They aren't waiting for the "perfect answer" from either candidate to all of the sudden push them over the hump. I think Bush did a great job yesterday being a leader by telling the swing voters (on numerous occasions) they need to vote for him. Kerry once again cast no sign of letting the American people know EXACTLY what he stands for, let alone taking charge, being a leader, and telling voters to vote for him.

BOB: THE DEBATE:
In the beginning Kerry looked, well…stiff….like a piece of petrified wood, with the exception of his shaky hands. And I saw immediately that Bush was on his game, laying on the Southern Charm thick like molasses. After the first two question I had my head in my hands. I wasn’t even looking at the screen. I was envisioning another 4 years with Bush and considering Brazilian citizenship.
But then something happened…something incredible. Bush started to drift a little. He didn’t look like the cool, collected, convincing Bush that we saw at the convention. Something was wrong. He seemed defensive all of the sudden. He was smirking off camera like Dennis the Menace. He seemed annoyed. He looked awkward. The Southern Charm seemed to miss the mark. He was rambling, “no…mixed messages…can’t…mix messages…I know world leaders…I talk to them on my phone!” He was getting all excited about the International Criminal Court! He was telling sob stories that couldn’t seem more forced. He looked like a little boy, “I know that Osama attacked us, duh!”
Well…Kerry smelled blood and the last 2/3 of the debate became an absolute thrashing. I couldn’t believe my eyes! I still wonder if I was just dreaming it! If anyone in this group thinks Bush won the debate last night he is one of three things: Delusional, Lying or Stupid.
We’re back baby!

JAY: someone respond to my contradiction theory. besides chuck (thanks).

SAMMY: Really. Kerry was obviously great. He demeaned the president in a respectful way. Pointing out a lot of the shortcomings of Bush. Bush as usual was stumbling over his words and was obviously taking this debate for granted showing up significantly unprepared. We all know Bush was redundant, saying "Wrong place, War, etc." so many times even after the fact of Kerry explaining himself on his past votes on the war.
To call Kerry a crybaby is crossing the line. The only baby I saw on stage was Bush. If he slumped over the podium any more he would be in the fetal position. Now come on STAND UP STRAIGHT. You are the president , act like one.
Bush was definetly irriated by Kerry, maybe for the first time he saw the error of his ways. And to be pointed out in front of all the world to see, how embarrassing.
Hard work. We heard that a lot from Bush. It must be hard work lying to the american people over and over again.
I also agree with Keeler. This will not win the election for Kerry, but when Kerry destroys Bush in the next 2 debates. Their will be a definite change in voter polls. Lets just hope the press keep showing pictures of bush slumped over the podium, rolling his eyes with his smug face, looking nothing but utterly defeated.
Dan, I also must agree with you on your previous e-mail. You make a good point on rep/dem sticking with their man. It is true I can easily pick out Bush's mistakes because I am partial towards Kerry, and the same goes for you. Although, when 56% of immediate polls taken say Kerry is the winner, only giving 33% to Bush clearly says something for Kerry. Kerry did a better job hands down. I also would like to thank Keeler for seeing past his favortism towards Bush and understand that Kerry did win the debate. I can see you are being impartial towards this roundtable and not being closeminded.

BEN: john, if kerry does better in the next 2 than bush, and thats no guarantee, but it still might not be enough,. yeah kerry "won", but all these people all over TV claimng he won were the same people wo said after his convention that he had the thing won already and bush was dead........i just think the debat reinforced sides....which was a net positve for kerry because he FINALLY gave his supporters somethign to cheer about. bush still has the upper hand, but if he performs like he did last night, i agree, he is in trouble. i will wait about a week to see the full effect of the debate. but yes, kerry did a good job. the only negative was that he just sat that and lied that he one position on iraq (because anyone with honesty knows he hasnt), and was jsut grinning the whole time while he said it. now i am sure you all can say bush lied about sometihing as well, so ok. so good night for dems, for sure. but last night just makes me and people like me more determined to do waht we can for bush. calling it as i see it.....ben

DAN: I have to say, I agree with Jay that Kerry did have valid points - as well as Bush. My only problem with Kerry's arguments is that there is no backing behind his counter-points. I will say this about Bush...someone needs to sit down with him and talk with him about proper edicate when it comes to public speaking. I mean, we all know he isn't the best at speaking, but leaning on podiums and banging fists, that shows signs of frustration, which like I stated earlier, swing-voters rely heavily upon what they are seeing when it comes to casting their ballots - in Bush's case during the first debate it shows a sign of weakness.
After talking with Mike Schmeltzer I think we should, for the next presidential debate, switch things up. My point, people see/hear things, in the debate and elsewhere, as they want the see/hear them. It is through a skewed lens. Now, I know it may be difficult, but if everyone could pretend they are voting for the opposite candidate and critique them in a manner as if they were voting for that candidate, I think it may help to realize a completely different perspective of the opposite candidate. Now keep in mind, only focus on the positive aspects as you would if you were voting for them.
Let me know if you think this is a good/bad idea. I figure it will not only change things up a little, but maybe give some realization for the other side's view as well. And like I said, people view/hear things they way they want them to be viewed/heard...this won't be easy to do.
p.s. - Bob, I have talked it over with several people and I agree with you when you said Bush came out strong and Kerry was weak in the beginning. But towards the end, tables may have turned. I still give Bush the upper hand, though slight, solely because of the reasoning that he was more of a "take charge" kind of guy, telling swing-voters what to do, rather than what I felt Kerry was doing, leaving them, "high and dry."

BOB: Jay, you send an email every 3 hours with a question attached
and complain that no one is responding to all your questions.
Meanwhile, I posted ONE question (Iraqi Election) and since you have posted 1,694 unrelated words, (Yes...I plugged it into Microsoft Word and did a word count, and yes...I need to get a life)
These 1,694 words include a dozen more questions and complaints that your questions aren't getting the attention that they deserve. This is ridiculous!
I am boy-cotting JASON THOMAS FILE until I get an answer to my ONE multiple choice question that I posted at the beginning of the last thread.
Period.
Dan, the PS on your last email is interesting. Maybe I am reading it wrong. Just exactly what are you saying? Cause it seems like your agreeing with me when I said, "Bush came out strong and Kerry was weak in the beginning. But towards the end, tables may have turned." Is that it? Cause I surely didn't say that. What I said was for the first 2 questions (15 minutes) Bush was winning big time. Then the next 75 minute Kerry was thrashing Bush. Please clear up this confusion. PS I am game for your bizzaro-world switcharoo idea. Good idea.

SAMMY: I was wondering how everyone expects the vice presidential debate to go on tues. I am gonna have to side with Cheney. But, Cheny will have to overcome the hurdle of his Halaburten controversy to win. And knowing Edwards years experience as a lawyer will make this debate probably one of the best. Hoping the best for Edwards, and Dan I like the idea of watching the debate through others eyes.

BOB: In my city, there are tons of kids who spend their days walking around, begging for change. They have dirty feet, dirty hands, crusty clothes and big, sad eyes. I see it every single day, first-hand.
When I am approached, I almost always say NO. Furthermore, I hope that other people don’t give these kids a penny.
Why?!...Because as the kids spend the days begging, they are missing school. Their poverty stricken parents have all realized that this is an effective way to put food on the table (and too often get money for booze, lottery and cigerettes) So they have pulled their kids from classes.
Now in Brazil, you only go to college if you’re in the top of your graduating class. These kids, after missing crucial years of grammar and math can never catch up. Smart or not, they are doomed to a life of poverty or crime, usually both. And when THEY have kids, they’ll most likely be forced to send them to the same square to beg for change. It is a cycle that needs to be broken.
So, I hope that these kids fail at bringing home money. Not cause I don’t care, but because I care. Because I am thinking about the big picture: their future and the future of Brazil.
The same goes for my view of Iraq. I said that I hope that we fail in Iraq. I said this not cause I like to see violence, but because I don’t like to see violence. I am thinking about the big pictue: the country that OUR kids will live in. We too are caught in a vicious cycle: bad foreign policy that leads to terrorism that leads to bad foreign policy. It is a cycle that needs to be broken.
When I see those kids go home empty-handed, or when I see U.S. casualities on the news, I am deeply, deeply saddened. (And I truly resent comments to the contrary.) But I am sadder yet, when I think about the alternative...an endless cycle of poverty or violence.
Bob “the devil”

CHUCK: I AM ALSO BOYCOTTING JAY.
I am waiting for Jay to point out what Sadaam did from 1992-2004. Examples of mass murder, genocide, etc? And remember, UN violations dont count, because bush makes fun of the UN (and any form of global law). Did we go to war because his son tourched the Iraqi soccer team?
(bob, good reminder of bush coming unhinged about the ICC)
jay, you said: By the way, I have a question...Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to Bin Ladin, trys to rally supporters with a taped message, according to a broadcast Friday by Al-Jazeera television. I know what Bush will/is going to do. After seeing the debates yesterday, what does everyone think will happen/would happen if Kerry were President?
What will bush do? what? what are talking about? what is he going to do? The only thing i know bush is going to do is spew nonsense about how "i will not relent". and then he will go on to undersupport our efforts to attack al queda.
Aside from all the uhm, uh, well, uhm, uh, (sigh), uhm, (i might of even heard an "i'm geting killed"), Here are some of President Bush's most ridiculous lines of the evening:"Of course we're after Saddam Hussein - I mean bin Laden.""We've got a hundred thousand [Iraqi troops] trained now." (The Defense Department's own estimates indicate only slightly more than half that many have been trained.)"The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously.""Well, actually you forgot Poland.""[B]ecause Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operations, we moved rapidly. And a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought we would, they would stay and fight. But they didn't. And now we're fighting them now.""Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.""I'm a pretty calm guy."

BOB: Chuck, I wanted to clarify, that quote about: "Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to Bin Ladin...", was actually DAN not JAY. I loved the Bush quotes. Vociferously yours, Bob

CHUCK: well, then my apologies would go to jay. but jay is on boycott
NOW ITS OFFICIAL. FOX NEWS LIES! Read this story. After a successful for Kerry, what does Fox News coverage provide. Well, the man that follows the Kerry campaign everyday (Carl Cameron) wrote a completely false story mocking Kerry and making up (lying) quotes that claim to have been said by Kerry. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041003/ts_alt afp/us_vote_kerry_media&cid=1506&ncid=1963&sid=96378801
THEY ARE NOT NEWS, SO NO MORE QUOTING THEM. QUESTION: Is Congress going to investigate this? Or just Dan Rather? And for the good guys receiving this email, try not to have a heart attack the next time some fucking idiot tells you about the liberal media.

JAY: when did i say that? i think you are quoting dan

DAN: This e-mail is in regards to Chuck's question of what wrong-doings Saddam has done (during said time period) to warrant our Iraq invasion.
The following is a list that includes, but is not limited to, wrong-doings of Saddam:
1. The invasion and occupation of Kuwait. On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein ordered his forces to invade and occupy Kuwait. It took military force by the international community and actions by the Kuwaiti themselves to liberate Kuwait in February 1991. During the occupation, Saddam Hussein's forces killed more than a thousandKuwaiti nationals, as well as many others from other nations.
2. The suppression of the 1991 uprising. In March and April of 1991, Saddam Hussein's forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians. Most of those killed were civilians, not resistance fighters -- a distinction that Saddam Hussein did not respect in 1991 any more than he has before or since. This qualifies as a crimeagainst humanity and possibly also a war crime.
3. The draining of the southern marshes. Beginning in the early 1990's, and continuing to this day, Saddam Hussein's government has drained the southern marshes of Iraq, depriving thousands of Iraqis of their livelihood and their ability to live on land that theirancestors have lived on for thousands of years. Saddam's efforts have served to render the land less fertile, and less able to sustain the livelihood or security of the Iraqi people. This qualifies as a crime against humanity and may possibly constitute genocide.
4. Ethnic cleansing of ethnic "Persians" from Iraq to Iran, and an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing of the non-Arabs of Kirkuk and other northern districts. This ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing was documented by the former U.N. Special Human Rights Rapporteur for Iraq, Max van der Stoel in his reports in 1999.
5. Continuing unlawful killings of political opponents. Many groups have documented Saddam Hussein's ongoing campaign against political opponents, including killings, tortures, and lately -- rape. The regime is also carrying out a systematic campaign of murder and intimidation of clergy, especially Shi'a clergy. The number of those killed unlawfully is difficult to estimate but must be well in excess of 10,000 since Saddam Hussein officially seized power in 1980. The number of victims of torture no doubt well exceeds the number of those killed.
6. Iraq admitted to producing biological agents, and after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft.
-------to download the full report on the human cost of Saddam's policies by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office------www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/ cdec/4_abuse.html
Feel free to speak freely now, Chuck.

CHUCK: Dan, you just taught me 2 things: 1) you are good at cutting and pasting (do you use right click, or ctrl-C?)2) Sadaam did nothing worthy of war, and was a pussy after Bush 1's war.
And any weapons he might of had left over, the great Bill Clinton destroyed in attacks (which he did in spite of the silly impeachment hearings, which consumed this nation and blinded us to the threats abroad)
There is ethnic cleansing in the Sudan right now, and we wont even send troops

BOB: I received this FWD today.
Note the reference to the Muslims killing those poor kids in Russia.
Do ANY of you conservatives agree with this?...

[Below is the FWD in question]
I don't know if this is true, but I am passing it on. If they do sell it, I won't buy it! Subject: A NEW CHRISTMAS STAMP IS COMING! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?To the list that appears below, we can now add the attack on school kids in Russia!! Subject: Fw: A NEW CHRISTMAS STAMP IS COMING! CAN YOU BELIEVE IT?Maybe I am missing something ... but this one takes the cake! Please let others be aware of this ... How ironic is this??!! They don't even believe in Christ and they're getting their own Christmas stamp, but don't dream of posting the ten commandments on federal property? This one is impossible to believe. Scroll down for the text. If there is only one thing you forward today.....let it be this! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of PanAm Flight 103! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the military barracks in Saudi Arabia! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa! REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE! REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001! REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks! Now the United States Postal Service REMEMBERS and HONORS the EID MUSLIM holiday season with a commemorative first class holiday postage stamp. REMEMBER to adamantly and vocally BOYCOTT this stamp when purchasing your stamps at the post office. To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors. REMEMBER to pass this along to every patriotic AMERICAN you know.

MANEY: I can't believe that, pretty bad must say.

JAY: bob, go ahead and boycott me. actually you have been boycotting me for a while, you are just declaring it now. i am pasting all the questions you failed to answer. there is another question that you failed to answer, but you did not post that e-mail in the blog. what's up w/ that? it was my conflict of interest w/ a bipartisanship. to answer your survey, which displays your inhumane undertone of "moderate disaster", i think the elections will go as planned. there will be a heightened level of resistance, but that is expected. here are the questions. i don't expect you to answer them:
how do you approve a war if it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. it makes no sense. what he is saying is that he wanted to go to war b/c it's the wrong war, wrong time, wrong place, but lets get the u.n. and other nations to help us fight this wrong war. by the way, there are 40 other countries that pose a more imminent threat, but i'll wait a year or two to bring that up. i agree w/ bush on this point: "how do you expect to build the coalition with this message?"
Just for shit and giggles I want one of you liberals to give me the stats on Kerry's voting record. I know it, I just want to hear you say it. And I want some sort of rebuttle.
He found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges. Comments: If this report is correct, do you think Iraq was a threat? Is it enough that he was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons?
Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons. It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay’s October findings. He found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges. Comments: If this report is correct, do you think Iraq was a threat? Is it enough that he was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons?
If there were plans, does that constitute a threat large enough to invade?
It's easy to say what he WILL do, but how is he going to do it? I havn't heard that yet. Do you think Bush is attempting to add to our coalition?
Dont you think it's a little shady that France (and Russia) had large financial incentives not to go to war? What would you think if these allegations turn out to be true?
in 1998 Bill Clinton signed an executive order that stated the US's official policy goal was regime change in iraq.bob, you respond the "maney jokes" e-mail and not mine. mine was specifically addressed to you. what's up w/ that
The Volcker Commission’s refusal to share documentation with congressional investigators demonstrates arrogance and disrespect for Congress and the American public that helps fund the Commission through the United Nations. What do you guys think about this? Is it possible that something fishy is going on (chuck)?
so you are saying beacause it has been a decade since saddam invaded kuwait then it is ok. no prob. and he isn't sitting quietly. why did the UN palce sanctions on iraq? why wouldn't he let people in? looks fishy huh?
where are all the "moderate disaster" e-mails? i think this blog is biased

BOB: Unfortunately, I MUST respond to Jay.
This is the SECOND time he has falsely accused me of not posting emails on the Blog. And it is starting to piss me off.
Please go to the fourth thread and read the third post from the top. There you will find the, "conflict of interest w/ a bipartisanship." email that Jay swears I didn't post. I am ignoring Jay until he retracts this false accusation publicly.

JAY: listen everyone, i'm sorry bob. i see them. my bad. you have to admit there are many q's you have not answered. i will go through them all if you want

CHUCK: i responded to everyone of those.
NOW: WHAT HAS SADAAM DONE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?

JAY: that was addressed to bob

DAN: jay, in bob's defense, i don't think it is fair to call him out regarding him having answered/not answered any of the questions. this is a roundtable. the questions laid out, unless directed directly toward a person, can be answered/ignored by anyone. you, bob, and chuck, and anyone else boycotting need to lighten up.
there is a lot of ignorance in this world...this [stamp boycott FWD] just goes to prove that fact.

JAY: chuck, you seemed ok w/ discussing Kerry's voting record in the 80's, why not saddam's actions prior to 1992? are you saying that there is some sort of statute of limitations? i am also confused b/c you guys and kerry have repeatedly said that saddam posed a threat. are you saying that he hasn't posed a threat since 1992? before i respons specifically to your question, here is a summary of what he has done (which you want to ignore; how do you ignore that?): the killing of religious figures in 1974; gassing of Kurds in Halabja in 1988; killing the Kurdish Barzani clan in 1983; killing members of political parties in the last 30 years; the 1986-88 ''Anfal'' campaign of displacing Kurds; the suppression of the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites; and the 1990 invasion of Kuwaitanyway, here is my response to your question:
Saddam has continued to rule through a combination of fear, a sophisticated security network and various measures of political and economic cooptation. While the internationally imposed sanctions have limited the resources available to it, the regime has been able to establish increasingly sophisticated mechanisms of contraband trade to circumvent them. The sanctions also have deepened the population’s dependence on the regime that they were designed to weaken. Iraqi obstruction of the oil-for-food program is the primary reason the Iraqi people are suffering. Child mortality figures have more than doubled in the south and center of the country, where the Iraqi government controls the program. Rather than spend money to help its people, Iraq's leaders enrich themselves. Saddam Hussein's repression of the Iraqi people has not stopped. He was draining the southern marshes, causing grave environmental damage and forcible relocation of civilians in an attempt to eliminate opposition to the regime. He has destroyed villages and forcibly relocated people in both the north and the south and destroyed villages in the south. The Iraqi regime still is far from complying with its obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions. It has not fully complied with a single resolution. It has not fully declared and destroyed its WMD programs. It has not ceased concealment of its WMD. It has not responded fully to questions from UNSCOM and the IAEA. Saddam has never complied w/ a resolution. We can't let a governing body like the u.n sit idle. What is the point of a resolution if it's not complied with? I can't stand when you guys keep saying we should have waited longer. How long? Should we have waited until he used a WMD? I like preventing disaster unlike others who want to see it.
Iraq has not returned Kuwaiti and third country POWs and missing persons. Kuwaiti POW/MIAs and 34 Saudis remain unaccounted for. It has not returned all stolen Kuwaiti property. In fact, some is still deployed with Iraqi military units. It has not stopped repressing its civilian population. Saddam Hussein and his closest aides have committed a long list of criminal violations of international humanitarian law and the laws and customs of war. It is Saddam Hussein who continues to reject UN recommendations for ordering adequate amounts of food and other basic humanitarian goods. Instead, he seeks to use the oil-for-food program to rebuild his army and export oil in order to build palaces and obtain luxuries for his family and regime supporters. Holds on inappropriate contracts help prevent the diversion of oil-for-food goods to further Saddam's personal interests.
dan, i'm just fueling the fire baby.

DAN: sorry prof. kozelka. next time i'll have my work cited in an APA format for you.

CHUCK: well, Jay, i appreciate your thoughtful response.
unfortunately for you, your description of sadaam's terror completely confirm everyone of my feelings. he was a real horrible dictator. he has done nothing to be deemed a threat.
the one thing you do, which is the only way you can frame the argument, is to connect a long line of dots. 1970's did mass murder (which was okay in US's eyes), 1980's did bad stuff (w/ initial support of US), 1990's went to Kuwait (pissed US off), and since then......DONE NOTHING but be a menace to the UN (the very UN you mock). But then deem the old acts as a threat. you connect a long line of dots to get to a WMD discussion.
sure he was bad. and we could have continued to put pressure on him. he let the inspectors in. he wasnt going to attack us w/ the inspectors there, was he? what was the rush.
well, i'll stop, because you did make your point. i appreciate it. and if you think about it, you connect a long line of dots, to get to sadaam's threat.
Isnt Kim Jung Il. He hates us just as much as sadaam, and has nukes. there are not as many dots to connect

ZELIN: Fellas, just to add some political humor to lighten things up. Check it out, pretty funny. Throughout the debates last night, Kerry could be seen writing furiously and taking notes, but what the camera didn't catch is that Bush was taking notes too. Let's take a peak:
http://www.thatsuncalledfor.com/debate_notes/