NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes - he has made his claim to fame. He has created the most viscious, negative, campaign in the history of American politics with over 75% of his advertizing budget spent on personal attacks (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5100453/)

And, true to his usual style, it generally a platform run on lies, exaggerations, half-truths, and the like. The same style that brought you Uranium from the Sudan, mobile WMD labs, and ruined the career of a senior CIA agent - to the possible detriment of ongoing operations - simply because he was angry at her husband.

Cases in point from his campaign listed in the article:

Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made.

On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax" and saying, "If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year." But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current.

Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry "has voted some 350 times for higher taxes" includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored.

"Senator Kerry," Cheney said, "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. He said, quote, 'I don't want to use that terminology.' In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and more of a law enforcement operation." But Kerry did not say what Cheney attributes to him. The quote Cheney used came from a March interview with the New York Times, in which Kerry used the phrase "war on terror." When he said "I don't want to use that terminology," he was discussing the "economic transformation" of the Middle East -- not the war on terrorism.

And so on, and so on....



you know, most incumbents run on their record.

Gee... I wonder why GW doesn't want to do that?


-Z-

you know, most incumbents run on their record.

Gee... I wonder why GW doesn't want to do that?


-Z-

Maybe because when he tried, all he could say was "Terror, terror, terror. World Trade Center, World Trade Center, World Trade Center. Vote for me or you're un-American!"

Zep....it's been a known fact that for decades the main priorities for Democrats were domestic issues..the Republicans were interested in international issues which affect our economy or national security. Both sides are going to be slinging mud in the next few months, and if it doesn't come directly from them...then local pols would be saying it for them...it's nothing new.

i keep thinking that if all bush can find to slam kerry on is half truths and old news he must be a hell of a guy

What an asshole.

Breaking News : Politicans launch negative attack ads.

The question is, was this message endorsed by George W. Bush?

Has anyone noticed that all the political ads this time around seem to start with either Kerry or Bush "endorsing" them? Does anyone know why this is?

Breaking News : Politicans launch negative attack ads.
:roll: you should work for CNN ;)

The question is, was this message endorsed by George W. Bush?

Has anyone noticed that all the political ads this time around seem to start with either Kerry or Bush "endorsing" them? Does anyone know why this is?

Its part of the new Campaign law I think.

The question is, was this message endorsed by George W. Bush?

Has anyone noticed that all the political ads this time around seem to start with either Kerry or Bush "endorsing" them? Does anyone know why this is?

Its part of the new Campaign law I think.
That and it's to show they "stand" behind them.

Zep....it's been a known fact that for decades the main priorities for Democrats were domestic issues..the Republicans were interested in international issues which affect our economy or national security. Both sides are going to be slinging mud in the next few months, and if it doesn't come directly from them...then local pols would be saying it for them...it's nothing new.

Spending over $100 million on attack ads certainly IS new.


A little mud slinging is always expected. Happens here too. But basing an entire platform for an incumbent on personally attacking the opposition is a rather rare event! Like I said, normally they have a record that they tout and measure the opposition up as lacking against. A platform beyond hatred (do we remember "I'm a uniter not a divider"?) but GWs team isn't even trying to do that.

But they are the first to point to any criticism of GW as being just knee-jerk reactionism by Bush-haters. And they even use that exact term.

Talk about hypocricy!

And sinking to this level of deliberate mistruthfulness is also pretty damn rare. It's a new low in American politics that I hope is never equalled.

-Z-

sigh--

people will figure GW out for what he is soon. and that will be the end.

but what a horrible past 4 years.

The question is, was this message endorsed by George W. Bush?

Has anyone noticed that all the political ads this time around seem to start with either Kerry or Bush "endorsing" them? Does anyone know why this is?

some big thinker decided that the "i endorse this message" was more forceful than the "paid for by the committee to elect this candidate, joe smith treasurer" messages that they used to use
and i think they are more effective. it makes a candidate look like he stands for something

sigh--

people will figure GW out for what he is soon. and that will be the end.

but what a horrible past 4 years.
But, some people won't.
If people are comfortable with the status qup, they'll keep him.

That is certainly one of the things I've noticed in a few of Bush's "approved" ad's.. Where they talk about how many times Kerry voted for this or that.. What they fail to tell you is he might of voted for that 20 years ago when it was the right thing to do. Kerry has been in government for 30 years.. it is natural to change ones position over a long period of time as the world is not static.

Just remember, while Kerry has been busy changing his mind as the time required it (aka "flip flopping") GW was out getting stoned and driving while drunk.. I don't think it's rocket science to figure out which man has more character.

It's not Bush.

Just remember, while Kerry has been busy changing his mind as the time required it (aka "flip flopping") GW was out getting stoned and driving while drunk.. I don't think it's rocket science to figure out which man has more character.

It's not Bush.
Of course, the American people and most liberals showed that they don't really care about this in 1992 and 1996.

Breaking News : Politicans launch negative attack ads.


In other news: Researchers at SomeImportant University prove that no substantive correlation neccessarily exists between sarcastic rebuttals and facts initialy presented.

Just remember, while Kerry has been busy changing his mind as the time required it (aka "flip flopping") GW was out getting stoned and driving while drunk.. I don't think it's rocket science to figure out which man has more character.

It's not Bush.
Of course, the American people and most liberals showed that they don't really care about this in 1992 and 1996.

Just a damn second. What sort of a crack is that? Are we yet again going to complain about Clinton? If we can vilefy that man, nearly four years since he left office, for his "lying", then why, exactly, are we going so lightly on GWB's lies that have gotten huge numbers of people killed?

Just remember, while Kerry has been busy changing his mind as the time required it (aka "flip flopping") GW was out getting stoned and driving while drunk.. I don't think it's rocket science to figure out which man has more character.

It's not Bush.
Of course, the American people and most liberals showed that they don't really care about this in 1992 and 1996.

Clinton again? *Yawn*... I believe we were talking about Bush & Kerry.. :!:

Besides there is a huge difference with admitting you inhaled a joint of weed once or twice in college and having a drug and alcohol "problem"

Just remember, while Kerry has been busy changing his mind as the time required it (aka "flip flopping") GW was out getting stoned and driving while drunk.. I don't think it's rocket science to figure out which man has more character.

It's not Bush.
Of course, the American people and most liberals showed that they don't really care about this in 1992 and 1996.

Just a damn second. What sort of a crack is that? Are we yet again going to complain about Clinton? If we can vilefy that man, nearly four years since he left office, for his "lying", then why, exactly, are we going so lightly on GWB's lies that have gotten huge numbers of people killed?
I'm simply saying that the American people have shown they don't care about "character", so its an especially pointless point for a liberal to make when the Democrats fronted Bill Clinton for two elections. Bill Clinton admitted to using pot and there's no doubt that he drank as well. The same thing that makes Bush have less "character" than Kerry.

Breaking News : Politicans launch negative attack ads.


In other news: Researchers at SomeImportant University prove that no substantive correlation neccessarily exists between sarcastic rebuttals and facts initialy presented.
What, this kind of stuff has been going on since the beggining of the US. John Adams and the federalists floated lies that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with a slave. Andrew Jackson supporters told people that John Quincy Adams had turned the White House into a casino. The amount of money (over $100 million) is unimportant, as spending amounts are always being broken with every new election, because the amount of money in circulation keeps growing.

Both parties are guilty of attacking the other side. During the debates, George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had". Kerry was caught labeling whole chunks of Conservatives and Republicans, and saying numerous insults about them.

I don't see whats so shocking about all this. We hear all the time about a "Recession George Bush caused" and George Bush didn't cause it. Both sides are guilty of slandering, so I don't see the point of all the "outrage".

Clinton again? *Yawn*... I believe we were talking about Bush & Kerry..

Besides there is a huge difference with admitting you inhaled a joint of weed once or twice in college and having a drug and alcohol "problem"
Thats far from the only thing Clinton has done that a lot of people would consider unclassy and immoral, and we both know it.

George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had"

Correct this when it's wrong.. He is the worst President in modern history. The whole world can't be wrong!

George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had"

Correct this when it's wrong.. He is the worst President in modern history. The whole world can't be wrong!

Sure they can. The whole world believed in letting Hitler take the Sudentenland, remilitarize the Rhineland, annex Austria. The majority can be wrong, and it commonly is.

Breaking News : Politicans launch negative attack ads.


In other news: Researchers at SomeImportant University prove that no substantive correlation neccessarily exists between sarcastic rebuttals and facts initialy presented.
What, this kind of stuff has been going on since the beggining of the US. John Adams and the federalists floated lies that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with a slave. Andrew Jackson supporters told people that John Quincy Adams had turned the White House into a casino. The amount of money (over $100 million) is unimportant, as spending amounts are always being broken with every new election, because the amount of money in circulation keeps growing.

Both parties are guilty of attacking the other side. During the debates, George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had". Kerry was caught labeling whole chunks of Conservatives and Republicans, and saying numerous insults about them.

I don't see whats so shocking about all this. We hear all the time about a "Recession George Bush caused" and George Bush didn't cause it. Both sides are guilty of slandering, so I don't see the point of all the "outrage".

I already posted that mudslinging was a normal part of campaigning. However focusing 75% of the budgetted campaign to such tactics represents a great departure from the normal campaigning of the incumbent. Most run on their record.

But then again - most HAVE a record they think will win them reelection....

So while the dollar value may not matter much (except my amazement at the amount of cash wasted on the American electoral process), the percentage of the total budget being used in this manner IS an abberation.

Oh yes, and in case you forgot - DNA testing conclusively proved that Sally Hemmings' children were fathered by a Jefferson. While the family denies that Thomas was the father, they have also never pinned it on another family member either. So the jury IS still out on that one.


-Z-

I already posted that mudslinging was a normal part of campaigning. However focusing 75% of the budgetted campaign to such tactics represents a great departure from the normal campaigning of the incumbent. Most run on their record.

But then again - most HAVE a record they think will win them reelection....

Yeah, but politics is changing all the time now. Back even just 30 years ago, it was a bipartisan group of senators that led the charge against Nixon, not just Democrats. Even big attacks from an incumbent have a precedent, Lyndon Johnson's campaign was largely based on "Barry Goldwater is a right-wing extremist". Or semi-incumbents like Al Gore or George Bush Sr. who, in 1988 and 2000 respectively, focused on attacking Dukakis and Bush Jr. instead of pointing to their records as Vice Presidents. And they were both after very successful, highly popular Presidents. The rules and way politics happen have changed, and so are the campaign. Its gone from a "Gain the middle voters" technique to a "Get your supporters out", and the best way to get your supporters out to the polls is via attack ads.

Give GW a pretzel instead

George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had"

Correct this when it's wrong.. He is the worst President in modern history. The whole world can't be wrong!

Sure they can. The whole world believed in letting Hitler take the Sudentenland, remilitarize the Rhineland, annex Austria. The majority can be wrong, and it commonly is.

This is not one of those cases... GWB is the WORST President in modern history. In fact, John Dean has a new book out called "Worse Then Watergate" It's a good read.. very enlightening.. you might want to pick it up.. ;)

Both parties are guilty of attacking the other side. During the debates, George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had". Kerry was caught labeling whole chunks of Conservatives and Republicans, and saying numerous insults about them.the difference being that Bush is claiming factually incorrect things about Kerry (tax increase of $900 billion, 350 votes to increase taxes, attempt to delay defending America until the UN approved, has taken both sides of every issue,) while Kerry's accusations have been opinions (not prepared for Iraq, responsible for low employment, crooked.)

The other difference is that with the exceptions of the ad with Laura Bush and the ad with the flag-draped 9/11 firefighter, all of Bush's TV ads have been about John Kerry or Howard Dean. With the exception of an ad about both Kerry and Bush, all of Kerry's ads have been about Kerry.

George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had"

Correct this when it's wrong.. He is the worst President in modern history. The whole world can't be wrong!

Sure they can. The whole world believed in letting Hitler take the Sudentenland, remilitarize the Rhineland, annex Austria. The majority can be wrong, and it commonly is.

This is not one of those cases... GWB is the WORST President in modern history. In fact, John Dean has a new book out called "Worse Then Watergate" It's a good read.. very enlightening.. you might want to pick it up.. ;)

True as the sun shines. Don't ask me what that means. I just made it up on the spot. What i'm trying to say is I agree with Stephistan.

George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had"

Correct this when it's wrong.. He is the worst President in modern history. The whole world can't be wrong!

Sure they can. The whole world believed in letting Hitler take the Sudentenland, remilitarize the Rhineland, annex Austria. The majority can be wrong, and it commonly is.

This is not one of those cases... GWB is the WORST President in modern history. In fact, John Dean has a new book out called "Worse Then Watergate" It's a good read.. very enlightening.. you might want to pick it up.. ;)
How far back does modern go? Post-WWII? If it goes to the beggining of the 1900s, then its no doubt Warren Harding, but only the most foolish liberals would claim that Bush is worse than him.

Other than that, its up to debate about what exactly George Bush has done that makes him bad. If your a liberal, yes he's probably bad because he hasn't done anything liberal. If your a Democrat, he's bad because he led the party to the 2002 Electoral Sweep.

Both parties are guilty of attacking the other side. During the debates, George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had". Kerry was caught labeling whole chunks of Conservatives and Republicans, and saying numerous insults about them.the difference being that Bush is claiming factually incorrect things about Kerry (tax increase of $900 billion, 350 votes to increase taxes, attempt to delay defending America until the UN approved, has taken both sides of every issue,) while Kerry's accusations have been opinions (not prepared for Iraq, responsible for low employment, crooked.)

The other difference is that with the exceptions of the ad with Laura Bush and the ad with the flag-draped 9/11 firefighter, all of Bush's TV ads have been about John Kerry or Howard Dean. With the exception of an ad about both Kerry and Bush, all of Kerry's ads have been about Kerry.
Bush's are factually correct, that dosen't mean that those facts are in the right context, though.

Just remember, while Kerry has been busy changing his mind as the time required it (aka "flip flopping") GW was out getting stoned and driving while drunk.. I don't think it's rocket science to figure out which man has more character.

It's not Bush.
Of course, the American people and most liberals showed that they don't really care about this in 1992 and 1996.

Just a damn second. What sort of a crack is that? Are we yet again going to complain about Clinton? If we can vilefy that man, nearly four years since he left office, for his "lying", then why, exactly, are we going so lightly on GWB's lies that have gotten huge numbers of people killed?
I'm simply saying that the American people have shown they don't care about "character", so its an especially pointless point for a liberal to make when the Democrats fronted Bill Clinton for two elections. Bill Clinton admitted to using pot and there's no doubt that he drank as well. The same thing that makes Bush have less "character" than Kerry. Speaking as someone who has never failed to cast my ballot in the last 25 years I can say that what I don't care about really is personal character. What I do care about is political character. Attacks on personal characters are usually the last resort of those who want to obscure a lack of political character by their candidate. Sure Clinton committed adultery and lied about it and used drugs while in college. BFD. His political record and character on the other hand brought about the most prosperous time for this country in recent years. In fact the biggest inhibitor to blissfull peace and prosperity during the Clinton administration was the constant right wing witch hunt that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and countless hours of our governments time to only reveal that, horror of horror, Bill was getting a little on the side and like any sane, married man, didn't admit to it until faced with undeniable proof. :roll:
Dubya on the other hand has led us back into deficit spending, the loss of american jobs and the only ones prospering are some big businesses, specifically the ones he and his cronies have financial interest in. That is a serious lack of political character in my book. I could care less about his personal life, it's his public one and how it effects us that is gonna cost him my vote.

Both parties are guilty of attacking the other side. During the debates, George Bush was constantly attacked as a "gang leader" or the "Worst President we've ever had". Kerry was caught labeling whole chunks of Conservatives and Republicans, and saying numerous insults about them.the difference being that Bush is claiming factually incorrect things about Kerry (tax increase of $900 billion, 350 votes to increase taxes, attempt to delay defending America until the UN approved, has taken both sides of every issue,) while Kerry's accusations have been opinions (not prepared for Iraq, responsible for low employment, crooked.)

The other difference is that with the exceptions of the ad with Laura Bush and the ad with the flag-draped 9/11 firefighter, all of Bush's TV ads have been about John Kerry or Howard Dean. With the exception of an ad about both Kerry and Bush, all of Kerry's ads have been about Kerry.
Bush's are factually correct, that dosen't mean that those facts are in the right context, though.I'm sure everyone's seen that e-mail quiz that compares three nameless politicians, giving only specific information about each of them, negative things about the first two and then positive sounding things about the last and asks the reader to choose one. It's then revealed that the first two are Churchill and FDR and the third is Hitler. That is a prime example of how selective information and context can twist the perception of anyone. "Factually correct" information can make the most revered icon seem a monster and the most despised man in history seem a paragon of virtue and honor. Never trust a political ad, especially those that talk about the opposition.

my feelings exactly, tlp

not that ive ever actually VOTED for a republican. but i never minded W's dad when he was president.

it drives me crazy that a republican president can be so very bad at the things that people vote republican for
fiscal responsibility
national security

the man has none of the good points of either party

id vote for hillary clinton before id vote for him

I could care less about his [b]personal life[/b
Which is what "character" was being defined on for that discussion's purposes.

Bush's are factually correct, that dosen't mean that those facts are in the right context, though.they are as factually correct as 2 + 2 = 5. When trying to prove that Kerry would increase taxes by $900 billion per year, Bush instead showed $900 billion over 10 years assuming none of the spending cuts that Kerry's tax plan relies on. When trying to prove the 350 votes for higher taxes, Bush also counted votes to keep tax rates the same and votes to cut taxes. Fuzzy math. I don't know of any attempt by Bush to back up the permission-to-defend accusation

I could care less about his [b]personal life[/b
Which is what "character" was being defined on for that discussion's purposes. :roll: Yes, I'm aware of that. To restate what I said in that post, I find that much less relevant than a politicians political record (or political character if you prefer). Politicians that focus on their oppositions personal life are always suspect in my book.

What an asshole.Well, well! Looks like somebody has missed that Kerry's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN has been based on slamming Bush. That's why Kerry hasn't exactly been cleaning up from Bush's dropping numbers: people aren't confident about him. He hasn't given people anything that says "Look... this is what I plan to do, plain and simple." And his shifty voting record probably doesn't help either (ie: voting for the patriot act and whining about it afterwards)

At least Bush didn't use the dedication of the WWII memorial to slam his opponent... unlike a certain politician I could name...

Speaking as someone who has never failed to cast my ballot in the last 25 years I can say that what I don't care about really is personal character. What I do care about is political character. Attacks on personal characters are usually the last resort of those who want to obscure a lack of political character by their candidate. Sure Clinton committed adultery and lied about it and used drugs while in college. BFD. His political record and character on the other hand brought about the most prosperous time for this country in recent years. In fact the biggest inhibitor to blissfull peace and prosperity during the Clinton administration was the constant right wing witch hunt that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and countless hours of our governments time to only reveal that, horror of horror, Bill was getting a little on the side and like any sane, married man, didn't admit to it until faced with undeniable proof. :roll:

Dubya on the other hand has led us back into deficit spending, the loss of american jobs and the only ones prospering are some big businesses, specifically the ones he and his cronies have financial interest in. That is a serious lack of political character in my book. I could care less about his personal life, it's his public one and how it effects us that is gonna cost him my vote.

THE LOST PLANET - That was beautiful. No spin, no bullshit.. beautiful 8)

Kerry= A Big Goverment Liberal Democrat
Bush = A Big Goverment Liberal Republican

Franky, I don't like either one but at least Bush has shown he's willing to go after terrorists. I don't beleive that anyone can honestly say to themselves that Kerry would do the same.

bush has proven that he'll drop the ball on terrorism to go get an easier target that he has a personal agenda about

Speaking as someone who has never failed to cast my ballot in the last 25 years I can say that what I don't care about really is personal character. What I do care about is political character. Attacks on personal characters are usually the last resort of those who want to obscure a lack of political character by their candidate. Sure Clinton committed adultery and lied about it and used drugs while in college. BFD. His political record and character on the other hand brought about the most prosperous time for this country in recent years. In fact the biggest inhibitor to blissfull peace and prosperity during the Clinton administration was the constant right wing witch hunt that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and countless hours of our governments time to only reveal that, horror of horror, Bill was getting a little on the side and like any sane, married man, didn't admit to it until faced with undeniable proof. :roll:

Dubya on the other hand has led us back into deficit spending, the loss of american jobs and the only ones prospering are some big businesses, specifically the ones he and his cronies have financial interest in. That is a serious lack of political character in my book. I could care less about his personal life, it's his public one and how it effects us that is gonna cost him my vote.

THE LOST PLANET - That was beautiful. No spin, no bullshit.. beautiful 8) :oops: Well thanks, Steph, I guess the most eloquent arguements are those that you don't really have to think about. I've followed American politics for over thirty years (complete with scandals, lies, treachery and mudslinging) and like to think I've developed a bit of an immunity to bullshit.

I'm simply saying that the American people have shown they don't care about "character", so its an especially pointless point for a liberal to make when the Democrats fronted Bill Clinton for two elections. Bill Clinton admitted to using pot and there's no doubt that he drank as well. The same thing that makes Bush have less "character" than Kerry.

No. The difference is A (Kerry) has owned up to the indiscretions and mistakes of his past, has reformed his ways. Dubya (B), on the other hand, while it is KNOWN he has a checkered past full of booze, cocaine, and DWI convictions, to say nothing of draft dodging...HE stands there and acts pure as the wind-driven snow, acting like he's so perfect and "moral." He's a self-righteous pig slinging mud at his opponents, when his own house needs it's windows washed!!

THAT is the difference. And THAT is where character comes in.

We all make mistakes. The difference is, some recognize and own up to their mistakes, are truly sorry for them, and reform their ways, and make up for the mistakes of thier past. Others, like (B)...they pretend they never have made any mistakes, when they know damn well they have...and sling mud at the other guy (A) for (A's) mistakes, to draw attention away from THEIR OWN (B's) mistakes. Now which has more "character?"

My answer is Kerry (A).

I'd sooner vote for a guy who has made mistakes, admits to them, is sorry for them, and has lived and learned, and changed his ways...than a guy who pretends he's never made any mistakes! Then again, I think Dubya really DOES believe he's never made any mistakes, and has nothing to be sorry for. And THAT is truly scary.

bush has proven that he'll drop the ball on terrorism to go get an easier target that he has a personal agenda about

Oh horsehit...if I see that stupid insinuation one more time that President Bush went to War with Iraq out of some personal beef or that he wanted to do what his father did then would somebody please call me an ambulance..

Just offer me one shred of credible evidence that Bush one day sat down and said "Dad..well..you went to Iraq...why can't I?"...or "Gee..Dad.I'm gonna make you proud of me by invading the same country you did"

It's B.S....unproven lies...propaganda..caca...doodoo..and a host of other epithets I could hurl that way in response.


There are a damn good many reasons why taking out Saddam was a damn good thing....did Bush hinge his bets on the WoMD thing, not really, but it was the only one that galvanized the American public to the point we didn't want to hear bout anything else..and it's the only one that mattered to the UN..forget the fact that he was a murderous bastard that deserved to die..let alone take capture.....the US can't take care of every despot..would that we could..but we can't so we have to take out those we think might also have dual-purpose...taking out Saddam was a good thing, and frankly I'm tired of people saying it wasn't....It's either (A) You wanted to keep him in power...or (B) You think he should have been removed.....if you are (a)...then I have no respect for you...if you are (b) then quit you bellyaching we got the job done that no one else had the balls to do.


Ok..rant over...back to your regularly scheduled posts.

DP

DP

Oh horsehit...if I see that stupid insinuation one more time that President Bush went to War with Iraq out of some personal beef or that he wanted to do what his father did then would somebody please call me an ambulance..

Just offer me one shred of credible evidence that Bush one day sat down and said "Dad..well..you went to Iraq...why can't I?"...or "Gee..Dad.I'm gonna make you proud of me by invading the same country you did"

It's B.S....unproven lies...propaganda..caca...doodoo..and a host of other epithets I could hurl that way in response.


There are a damn good many reasons why taking out Saddam was a damn good thing....did Bush hinge his bets on the WoMD thing, not really, but it was the only one that galvanized the American public to the point we didn't want to hear bout anything else..and it's the only one that mattered to the UN..forget the fact that he was a murderous bastard that deserved to die..let alone take capture.....the US can't take care of every despot..would that we could..but we can't so we have to take out those we think might also have dual-purpose...taking out Saddam was a good thing, and frankly I'm tired of people saying it wasn't....It's either (A) You wanted to keep him in power...or (B) You think he should have been removed.....if you are (a)...then I have no respect for you...if you are (b) then quit you bellyaching we got the job done that no one else had the balls to do.

Very well said! :D

Here's a quote from Bob Woodward on asking Bush if he consulted with his father before he invaded Iraq.

'Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? “I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, ‘Well, no,’ and then he got defensive about it,” says Woodward. “Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, ‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.’ And then he said, ‘There's a higher Father that I appeal to.’"

So, it looks like even George W. thinks his Daddy's a wimp. Of course, if you believe this, you should read the rest of the article to see how the Iraq decision went down and went down twisted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml

The question is, was this message endorsed by George W. Bush?

Has anyone noticed that all the political ads this time around seem to start with either Kerry or Bush "endorsing" them? Does anyone know why this is?

Its part of the new Campaign law I think.That's exactly where it's from, and ironically, it was meant to be a deterrent to negative ads, the idea being that if a candidate had to state that he or she approved the message personally, they'd be less likely to go on the attack because of the potential for backlash.

But here's something interesting I've noticed about the ads for both presidential andidates. If the ad is positive--i.e. it's an ad about the candidate himself and his accomplishments, the approval statement comes at the end of the ad, usually with some sort of punchy closing ("I'm ...and I approved this message because I believe in a better tomorrow" or something like that).

But if it's an attack ad, the approval statement comes at the beginning, so the end of the ad--the last thing the viewer sees--is still an attack, and not a reversion to the candidate. So the end of the attack ads are still able to end "John Kerry, Asshole" or "George W. Bush, Asshole." (Figured I've give equal time there.)

Both sides are doing it this way--Bush has just been doing it a lot more lately.

bush has proven that he'll drop the ball on terrorism to go get an easier target that he has a personal agenda about

Oh horsehit...if I see that stupid insinuation one more time that President Bush went to War with Iraq out of some personal beef or that he wanted to do what his father did then would somebody please call me an ambulance..

Just offer me one shred of credible evidence that Bush one day sat down and said "Dad..well..you went to Iraq...why can't I?"...or "Gee..Dad.I'm gonna make you proud of me by invading the same country you did"

It's B.S....unproven lies...propaganda..caca...doodoo..and a host of other epithets I could hurl that way in response.


There are a damn good many reasons why taking out Saddam was a damn good thing....did Bush hinge his bets on the WoMD thing, not really, but it was the only one that galvanized the American public to the point we didn't want to hear bout anything else..and it's the only one that mattered to the UN..forget the fact that he was a murderous bastard that deserved to die..let alone take capture.....the US can't take care of every despot..would that we could..but we can't so we have to take out those we think might also have dual-purpose...taking out Saddam was a good thing, and frankly I'm tired of people saying it wasn't....It's either (A) You wanted to keep him in power...or (B) You think he should have been removed.....if you are (a)...then I have no respect for you...if you are (b) then quit you bellyaching we got the job done that no one else had the balls to do.


Ok..rant over...back to your regularly scheduled posts.

It is a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power, of course that does not mean that the war was a good thing since there are other considerations to be taken into account such as:

1. The credibility of international laws and institutions have been completely undermined, and before these are disregarded as irrelevant I would remind many people that the Bush administration was all too happy to talk about the ones that Saddam had violated.

2. The diplomatic and political isolation that the U.S now faces, it will find it much harder to win allies and influence the decisions of others after Iraq.

3. The increase in support for Islamic extremist groups across the Middle East at the expense of more moderate, liberal Islamic opinion thus hampering the process of reform which was under way in many countries and causing a massive process of destabilisation across the whole of the Arab world.

4. The increased threat of terrorism that the western world now faces due to the establishment of what many perceive as a focal point of American, anti-Islamic imperialism.

5. The massive amounts of public cynicism which have arisen, undermining the credibility and integrity of those governments that supported the war and making it much harder for those countries to pursue an aggressive foreign policy in the future if and when it becomes necessary.

It is not as simple to say that "the world is a better place without Saddam and for that reason alone the war is justified" since there are wider considerations to be taken into account, which that argument either chooses to ignore, or is simply not aware of.

bush has proven that he'll drop the ball on terrorism to go get an easier target that he has a personal agenda about

Oh horsehit...if I see that stupid insinuation one more time that President Bush went to War with Iraq out of some personal beef or that he wanted to do what his father did then would somebody please call me an ambulance..

Just offer me one shred of credible evidence that Bush one day sat down and said "Dad..well..you went to Iraq...why can't I?"...or "Gee..Dad.I'm gonna make you proud of me by invading the same country you did"

It's B.S....unproven lies...propaganda..caca...doodoo..and a host of other epithets I could hurl that way in response.


There are a damn good many reasons why taking out Saddam was a damn good thing....did Bush hinge his bets on the WoMD thing, not really, but it was the only one that galvanized the American public to the point we didn't want to hear bout anything else..and it's the only one that mattered to the UN..forget the fact that he was a murderous bastard that deserved to die..let alone take capture.....the US can't take care of every despot..would that we could..but we can't so we have to take out those we think might also have dual-purpose...taking out Saddam was a good thing, and frankly I'm tired of people saying it wasn't....It's either (A) You wanted to keep him in power...or (B) You think he should have been removed.....if you are (a)...then I have no respect for you...if you are (b) then quit you bellyaching we got the job done that no one else had the balls to do.


Ok..rant over...back to your regularly scheduled posts.

It is a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power, of course that does not mean that the war was a good thing since there are other considerations to be taken into account such as:

1. The credibility of international laws and institutions have been completely undermined, and before these are disregarded as irrelevant I would remind many people that the Bush administration was all too happy to talk about the ones that Saddam had violated.

2. The diplomatic and political isolation that the U.S now faces, it will find it much harder to win allies and influence the decisions of others after Iraq.

3. The increase in support for Islamic extremist groups across the Middle East at the expense of more moderate, liberal Islamic opinion thus hampering the process of reform which was under way in many countries and causing a massive process of destabilisation across the whole of the Arab world.

4. The increased threat of terrorism that the western world now faces due to the establishment of what many perceive as a focal point of American, anti-Islamic imperialism.

5. The massive amounts of public cynicism which have arisen, undermining the credibility and integrity of those governments that supported the war and making it much harder for those countries to pursue an aggressive foreign policy in the future if and when it becomes necessary.

It is not as simple to say that "the world is a better place without Saddam and for that reason alone the war is justified" since there are wider considerations to be taken into account, which that argument either chooses to ignore, or is simply not aware of.

The question is, was this message endorsed by George W. Bush?

Has anyone noticed that all the political ads this time around seem to start with either Kerry or Bush "endorsing" them? Does anyone know why this is?

Its part of the new Campaign law I think.That's exactly where it's from, and ironically, it was meant to be a deterrent to negative ads, the idea being that if a candidate had to state that he or she approved the message personally, they'd be less likely to go on the attack because of the potential for backlash.

But here's something interesting I've noticed about the ads for both presidential andidates. If the ad is positive--i.e. it's an ad about the candidate himself and his accomplishments, the approval statement comes at the end of the ad, usually with some sort of punchy closing ("I'm ...and I approved this message because I believe in a better tomorrow" or something like that).

But if it's an attack ad, the approval statement comes at the beginning, so the end of the ad--the last thing the viewer sees--is still an attack, and not a reversion to the candidate. So the end of the attack ads are still able to end "John Kerry, Asshole" or "George W. Bush, Asshole." (Figured I've give equal time there.)

Both sides are doing it this way--Bush has just been doing it a lot more lately.

What an asshole.Well, well! Looks like somebody has missed that Kerry's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN has been based on slamming Bush. That's why Kerry hasn't exactly been cleaning up from Bush's dropping numbers: people aren't confident about him. He hasn't given people anything that says "Look... this is what I plan to do, plain and simple." And his shifty voting record probably doesn't help either (ie: voting for the patriot act and whining about it afterwards)

At least Bush didn't use the dedication of the WWII memorial to slam his opponent... unlike a certain politician I could name...

Yes, that was a bit off the mark, but considering 3/4 of Bush's ads aired are negative attacks and, on top of that, either misleading or outright lies, I'm inclined to give the man that. As for the entirety of his campaign being based on slamming Bush, you're way off the mark. Care to back that up with any facts? The Campaign Media Analysis Group has stated that Bush has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 media markets, 75 percent of his total ads run. Kerry, on the other hand, has run 13,336 negative ads in those same markets, only 27 percent of his total. Seems the facts disagree with you.

From the get go, the Bush machine has tried to slander Kerry's character (anyone remember an alleged affair with a staffer that turned out to be a completely fabricated attack), political records (trying to damn him for initially supporting a war that the President himself has concocted) and military service. When a recent poll showed Kerry leading Bush in 11 of the 16 battleground states, the Bush machine immediately stepped up the negative ads. This is on top of the earliest negative campaigning by an incumbent in history.

Bush has chosen his battleground, yet again, and it's full of murk and mire and mudslinging. How wonderful that we have such a principled, moral President who runs on the issues and not slander. :roll:

Can we give him a prize for sheer stupidity on the world stage? :twisted:

What an asshole.Well, well! Looks like somebody has missed that Kerry's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN has been based on slamming Bush. That's why Kerry hasn't exactly been cleaning up from Bush's dropping numbers: people aren't confident about him. He hasn't given people anything that says "Look... this is what I plan to do, plain and simple." And his shifty voting record probably doesn't help either (ie: voting for the patriot act and whining about it afterwards)

At least Bush didn't use the dedication of the WWII memorial to slam his opponent... unlike a certain politician I could name...

Yes, that was a bit off the mark, but considering 3/4 of Bush's ads aired are negative attacks and, on top of that, either misleading or outright lies, I'm inclined to give the man that. As for the entirety of his campaign being based on slamming Bush, you're way off the mark. Care to back that up with any facts? The Campaign Media Analysis Group has stated that Bush has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 media markets, 75 percent of his total ads run. Kerry, on the other hand, has run 13,336 negative ads in those same markets, only 27 percent of his total. Seems the facts disagree with you.I had never heard that. I'll concede that, but Kerry has made quite a few major flip-flops. I know that you are going to say now that Bush has made some, too, and that is true (nation-building comes to mind, so that's what I'll address.)

Bush promised not to engage in nation building before nineteen guys decided it would be fun to ram planes into buildings, and they were traced to Afghanistan. Okay, look back fifteen years. Afghanistan was decimated by the invading Soviets. We supplied them weapons and training, and the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to take the country as a result. Then we made a mistake. We didn't help to rebuild Afghanistan, we pulled out. Then the Taliban took control of the country. Look what it got us.

Now we have invaded Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban and Al-Quada. We can't just pull out of there without setting up a government, or ten years from now we'll have the same problems. Oh-oh! That's a flip flop! WELL, there was no way to avoid it. We could go into Iraq, but this would be a whole other topic.

From the get go, the Bush machine has tried to slander Kerry's character (anyone remember an alleged affair with a staffer that turned out to be a completely fabricated attack),Uh, I was under the impression that that one was started by General Clarke.

political records (trying to damn him for initially supporting a war that the President himself has concocted)WELL, he has changed his stance on many things many times:

The Patriot Act
>Voted in favor of it
>In December, when the Iowa caucuses were still weeks away, Kerry condemned the Patriot Act.
"At this very moment," he said in Iowa City, "an FBI agent could be rifling through every Web site you've ever visited, and you would never know it. . . .

"Officers could be entering your house while you are gone - rifling through your possessions - and leaving without ever letting you know they had been there.">Now he makes a point of saying that he stands by his vote for the Patriot Act and even wants to strengthen some aspects of it.

Iraq
>Voted for the Iraq war
>Voted against increased funding
>Attacks Bush for lack of funding and supplies to military (look at today's news-he's campaigning on this in Missouri as I speak)

Then there are some things he has failed to address. Remember when he said that "leaders" wanted him to win the election? And he never said who those leaders were? And how at that rally, he dodged the question by askingAre you a republican? DID YOU VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH?as if the guy being a republican meant his question wasn't genuine?

Seeing some of the things he does is unsettling. Like the WWII memorial dedication: he said that the memorial was a "reminder of alliances" that have been "shredded by Bush." It's common courtesy! You don't use that kind of event to slam a political opponent! He might as well have had people hanging "Kerry '04" banners on the podium! It's a dedication, not a party rally.
and military service.If I remember correctly, Bush was attacked first. Besides, none of Kerry's wounds even required hospitalization. People complain that Bush uses 9-11 (3000 dead) in some of his ads, but Kerry flaunts Vietnam (58,000 dead) every chance he gets.


When a recent poll showed Kerry leading Bush in 11 of the 16 battleground states, the Bush machine immediately stepped up the negative ads. This is on top of the earliest negative campaigning by an incumbent in history.

Bush has chosen his battleground, yet again, and it's full of murk and mire and mudslinging. How wonderful that we have such a principled, moral President who runs on the issues and not slander. :roll:So? Kerry's no better.

Rather than paste individual replies into your comment, Reynes, I'll address them here.

Your defense of Bush's actions toward Afghanistan might hold some water if there were any indication that the US really gave a crap about what happens there. The coalition currently controls the city of Kabul and little else. The rest of the country is pretty much as it was before the Taliban took over--warlords/opium growers run everything. We've sure imporved the situation. And besides, Iraq is such an unnecessary disaster that it would overshadow whatever good--if any--were to come out of Afghanistan.

The Kerry rumor was actually first reported by Drudge, and Wes Clark apparently said something about it during the primary season. The media is the guilty party there. The woman involved--Alexandra Polier--wrote a great piece on it for New York magazine last week.

As far as Kerry's vote on the Patriot Act is concerned, I won't even try to justify it. Here's the difference--Bush wants to make all of it permanent, and Kerry wants to let the parts that have sunset provisions expire and tighten up the parts that have been abused so that the abuses stop.

As far as the funding of the Iraq war is concerned, you're mischaracterizing the votes. I'm not surprised, since that's been the RNC line all along, but let me spell it out. Kerry voted for a supplemental bill for the war in Iraq--one that paid for itself with a rollback of some tax cuts. Considering that we're looking at a half a trillion dollar deficit, that's a responsible vote. The Republican congress said no, we're going to go into more debt for this supplemental bill, and Kerry said no, as did a number of other Democrats.

As far as the major leaders wanting him to be elected is concerned, it came out about a week after the story broke that the reporter who wrote the original story said he may have mistranscribed what Kerry actually said on the tape. I'll see if I can find the link.

As far as military service was concerned, the Boston Globe is who really started it--back in 2000. Now realize--the Globe is no friend of Kerry, regardless of his position as Senator from Massachussetts, and besides, they started that investigation back when Gore was running for President. Other media outlets picked up the story from there.

And I think the fact that 3/4 of Bush's ads are negative as compared to just over 1/4 of Kerry's puts Kerry significantly on the high ground in that department.

I had never heard that. I'll concede that, but Kerry has made quite a few major flip-flops. I know that you are going to say now that Bush has made some, too, and that is true (nation-building comes to mind, so that's what I'll address.)

Bush promised not to engage in nation building before nineteen guys decided it would be fun to ram planes into buildings, and they were traced to Afghanistan. Okay, look back fifteen years. Afghanistan was decimated by the invading Soviets. We supplied them weapons and training, and the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to take the country as a result. Then we made a mistake. We didn't help to rebuild Afghanistan, we pulled out. Then the Taliban took control of the country. Look what it got us.

Now we have invaded Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban and Al-Quada. We can't just pull out of there without setting up a government, or ten years from now we'll have the same problems. Oh-oh! That's a flip flop! WELL, there was no way to avoid it. We could go into Iraq, but this would be a whole other topic.

No one has yet questioned the validity of the war in Afghanistan. Even the most ardent detractors of the war in Iraq are silent when it comes to the war in Afghanistan because that war was actually what it was supposed to be about. (Personally, I'm against all war period, so I didn't support it out of religious and moral reasons, but that is also beside the point) To dismiss the war in Iraq while addressing the issue of nation building is a hugh mistake. Additionally, to look at flip flops and misdirection of truth and not look at the war in Iraq is a monumental oversight as the whole reason we were supposed to go there in the first place, immenant threat from WMD, has turned out to be untrue (see Tenet's "resignation" from the CIA).

So Afghanistan was less of a flip-flop and more of a response to a changing political climate. Iraq, however, was pure and blatant colonialisim that has not only gotten our boys killed but ruined our reputation.


From the get go, the Bush machine has tried to slander Kerry's character (anyone remember an alleged affair with a staffer that turned out to be a completely fabricated attack),Uh, I was under the impression that that one was started by General Clarke.

Clarke made an offhanded comment to a bunch of press people, which was stupid as one of them sent it straight to Drudge who blew it out of proportion and ran with it inciting all of the usual right-wing pundits to pick up the battle cry.


political records (trying to damn him for initially supporting a war that the President himself has concocted)WELL, he has changed his stance on many things many times:

The Patriot Act
>Voted in favor of it
>In December, when the Iowa caucuses were still weeks away, Kerry condemned the Patriot Act.
"At this very moment," he said in Iowa City, "an FBI agent could be rifling through every Web site you've ever visited, and you would never know it. . . .

"Officers could be entering your house while you are gone - rifling through your possessions - and leaving without ever letting you know they had been there.">Now he makes a point of saying that he stands by his vote for the Patriot Act and even wants to strengthen some aspects of it.

Iraq
>Voted for the Iraq war
>Voted against increased funding
>Attacks Bush for lack of funding and supplies to military (look at today's news-he's campaigning on this in Missouri as I speak)

Then there are some things he has failed to address. Remember when he said that "leaders" wanted him to win the election? And he never said who those leaders were? And how at that rally, he dodged the question by askingAre you a republican? DID YOU VOTE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH?as if the guy being a republican meant his question wasn't genuine?

How is changing one's views in light of new facts disqualifying? Holding the same views in spite of new evidence would seem to be more troubling. Otherwise, we're right back where we were on Bush and even the war in Afghanistan isn't justified because it's no more than a flip-flop.

I'm well aware that he's campaigning in Missouri because I live there and attended his rally yesterday. He did vote against increased military funding...in 1994. The last evidence anyone has on him "voting against increased military spending" was from 1996, almost 10 years ago after the end of the Cold War. The Defence Department itself has reported that some 14 trillion dollars are unaccounted for in it's budget so with all this talk of cutting pork projects to gain social services money without a tax raise, it seems that at the time, the military budget was some place that could use a little trimming. If you're going to claim that that is relevant then expect me to bring up someone's alchohol soaked college years. Since the Iraq war, regardless of what you're trying to imply, he has not voted for a decrease in military spending.

Bush, on the other hand, has made some interesting flip flops on military spending. On 1/17/03, Bush said the following:

Seeing the care that these troops get is comforting for me and Laura. We should and must provide the best care for anybody who is willing to put their life in harm's way.

And on 1/3/04 he said:

I want to make sure the housing is the best possible for our military families.

The same day he said this, his administration announced that it was cutting off health care access for approximately 164,000 veterans. The administration was also pushing a cut of $1.5 billion in military housing and medical facilities, a 14% reduction, while UPI reported in October of 2003 that hundreds of sick and wounded soldiers, many who served in Iraq, were waiting months to see doctors (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031017-024617-1418r)

On 10/9/03, Bush said the following to the National Guard and Reserves:

Your lives can be changed in a moment with the sudden call to duty. I want to thank you for your willingness to heed that important call, and I want to thank your families. I want to thank your sons, daughters, husbands and wives who share in your sacrifice, who are willing to sacrifice for our country and who stand behind you.

Less that two weeks later, the Bush administration announced a formal opposition to a proposal that would give National Guardsmen access to the Pentagon's health-care plan, even though 1 in 5 Guardsmen has no health insurance.

On 7/9/03, Bush said the following to Rummy:

The services and the Joint Staff have been working with Central Command to develop a rotation plan so that we can, in fact, see that we treat these terrific young men and young women in a way that's respectful of their lives and their circumstances.

After delay after delay after service length increase and so on, many troops still have yet to find out when they get to come home. In fact, we're all kind of interested on when we're actually going to get to bring our boys home.

On 1/3/03, Bush said the following:

I want to make sure that our soldiers have the best possible pay.

On October 1st, 2003, the Bush administration announced that it wants to roll back monthly immenent-danger pay from $225 to $150 and family-separation allowance from $250 to $100 for troops being fired upon in Iraq. With a government thanks like that, I might be willing to knock around a few prisoners myself.

On October 16, 2003, Bush said the following:

I twice led the Congress to pass historic tax relief for the American people. We wanted tax relief to be as broad and as fair as possible, so we reduced taxes on everyone who pays taxes.

According to the Children's Defence Fund, 1 million children living in military and veteran's families are being denied child tax credit help under President Bush's tax cuts. Over 260,000 of these children have parents on active military duty.

So I guess you're right. Everyone does doublespeak.


Seeing some of the things he does is unsettling. Like the WWII memorial dedication: he said that the memorial was a "reminder of alliances" that have been "shredded by Bush." It's common courtesy! You don't use that kind of event to slam a political opponent! He might as well have had people hanging "Kerry '04" banners on the podium! It's a dedication, not a party rally.

I admitted I thought that was a bad move, but it is a point considering GWB is travelling to Europe soon to celebrate our past alliances which he has brutally betrayed and destroyed. Italian protests are expected to be particularly fierce. I'm also reminded of another dishonerable photo op, one where a leader landed on an air craft carrier with the banner in the back ground saying "Mission Accomplished" and swore to us the war was over. Additionally, as a veteran who voluntarily served in Viet Nam, I guess he has the right to say whatever he wants in comparison to GWB who may or may not have been in the Coast Guard at the time.


and military service.If I remember correctly, Bush was attacked first. Besides, none of Kerry's wounds even required hospitalization. People complain that Bush uses 9-11 (3000 dead) in some of his ads, but Kerry flaunts Vietnam (58,000 dead) every chance he gets.

Not by Kerry. Bush's military record, which he himself brought up, has been questioned since he first arrived in the White House.

So? Kerry's no better.

Actually, yes he is. 75% to 27%.

Wow Zepp. Your Prime Minister up there in the northern wastes must be a saint! All of your politicians must be! You never worry about anything they do, only about what a foreign President does, so it must be true, Canada has only honest politicians!

Wow Zepp. Your Prime Minister up there in the northern wastes must be a saint! All of your politicians must be! You never worry about anything they do, only about what a foreign President does, so it must be true, Canada has only honest politicians!

*notes: This is how people respond when they have no valid argument*

Wow Zepp. Your Prime Minister up there in the northern wastes must be a saint! All of your politicians must be! You never worry about anything they do, only about what a foreign President does, so it must be true, Canada has only honest politicians!

*notes: This is how people respond when they have no valid argument*
This is how people respond after listening to endless ammounts of mindless drivel bashing the actions of a leader whose motivations stem from desire to put his country before the rest of the world, the way a leader is supposed to be.

Not only that, the two most active bashers (Incertonia may be more active, but i'll go out on a limb) aren't even citizens of the country this man leads! Why does this matter? They don't spend their time just criticizing his foreign policy, that'd be fine, we could argue about that. They sit for hours bashing his domestic policies, when the policies of their leaders are nowhere near perfect, and need just as much work. But, do they sit here and devote threads to Canadian corruption? How about the ghetto life of native populations in Canada? Nope. Nothing. You people are nothing but downers and nags, hating all over someone for something your own leaders are guilty of. Hypocricy in action.

Wow Zepp. Your Prime Minister up there in the northern wastes must be a saint! All of your politicians must be! You never worry about anything they do, only about what a foreign President does, so it must be true, Canada has only honest politicians!

*notes: This is how people respond when they have no valid argument*
This is how people respond after listening to endless ammounts of mindless drivel bashing the actions of a leader whose motivations stem from desire to put his country before the rest of the world, the way a leader is supposed to be.

Not only that, the two most active bashers (Incertonia may be more active, but i'll go out on a limb) aren't even citizens of the country this man leads! Why does this matter? They don't spend their time just criticizing his foreign policy, that'd be fine, we could argue about that. They sit for hours bashing his domestic policies, when the policies of their leaders are nowhere near perfect, and need just as much work. But, do they sit here and devote threads to Canadian corruption? How about the ghetto life of native populations in Canada? Nope. Nothing. You people are nothing but downers and nags, hating all over someone for something your own leaders are guilty of. Hypocricy in action.



Speaking of "mindless drivel"....

Here is a thought. If you want to debate a specific point of Canadian politcs - by all mean start a thread. I've done so in the past, however too few people here follow Canadian politics and so they died rather quickly.

But if you think that a Canadian has no right to an interest in the domestic policies of it's largest trading partner - (gosh - that couldn't affect us either could it?) - then I guess you will now have to concede that Bush has no business now using the "moral liberation" argument as his basis for the war on Iraq. After all - that represents taking an interest in the domestic policies of a nation that the US had cut ties to - which means thay had even less of a reason to complain about them than we do with GWs policies.


So, now we have no WMD, no ties to al qaeda, and Saddam's domestic policies were none of the business of anyone but Iraqis (using your fatuous, whining diatribe as being your official position on such things). In other words - you just shot out your last possible reason for supporting GW on the war.

Way to go!

:lol:

You may now return to your infantile ranting.

Or you COULD actually try to engage in a rational debate on a subject.

Nahhh - infantile seems much more your style....

-Z-

you know, there are times when Zepp and Steph get a tad too radical for my tastes, and even times when they downright annoy me. but this is not one of them.

well done, well posted, well written. and way to trounce a troll on this page, Zepp...i just love it when people try to derail arguments about Bush's failures by throwing stones at other people/governments; it's a lovely mirror of Bush's own campaign tactics. "Quick, insult the other guy!!! If we don't bash him, and fast, people might start asking why we're doing such a piss poor job at absolutely everything!!"