# Dangerous question



## thecraw (Oct 12, 2003)

Someone less dumb than the current most powerful man in the world...


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Someone a lot less Texass.

http://starterupsteve.com/swf/this_land.html


----------



## Ed Hansen (Oct 12, 2003)

I'll be voting against G. "Dubya" Bush.


----------



## alan (Jul 11, 2004)

*no one*

I am not going to vote. I can't stand W or Kerry.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

I am going to go out on a limb and say no one will be voting for Kerry, they will be voting against Bush. I probably will vote for Kerry and then I think I will vote for Bush, oh wait... I voted for Kerry before I voted for Bush but now I want to vote for Bush... ah f it. 

If Kerry wins I am going to Canada.

GW04

Bryon


----------



## alexhenes (Oct 14, 2003)

If the Canadians know you voted for Bush they won't let you in.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

So if I lie, would theyrespect that? Works for Kerry (or does it). The only good that would come of Kerry being elected is that he would probably be assassinated by one of the Vets that he spit on or lied about within a year. But then again no Dem is a good choice so Edwards would be no better. Hence, Hello Canada


----------



## Squints (Jan 18, 2004)

Im going to practice my constituanal right not to vote. i havent seen anyone whos running that i would feel comfortable running the free world. viva la canada


----------



## benrodda (Mar 27, 2004)

bush may be dumb and texan..... but at least he is consistent.

ben


----------



## surfpiper (Nov 18, 2003)

This is really a bad subject to try and unify boaters with. If you want to associate only with members of your own beliefs and political party, that's pretty sad and very, very naive. If you feel so much in despair about the state of the world, then get off you ass and go volunteer for someone who needs it. There are plenty of good causes to take your mind off which of two people is going to save the human race. mytc.


----------



## marv (Jan 22, 2004)

Sounds to me that most are pretty much unify to me. Bush is A war mongrel, Kerry is....................... alot of things. Vamos A Canada


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

I personally think that it would be a pretty boring place to be if everyone thought the same things. There are 2 sides to every arguement and somewhere in the middle lies the truth. The only thing I worry about is the saftey of ALL Americans and who is going to provide us the best protection from those that want to hurt us. There are to many things at stake to put someone in office that would try to negotiate with people who have no intention of holding up their end of the bargain. Unfortunatley we are the worlds super power and we have an obligation to the rest of the world to not give in to the terrorists. Someone has to do it, God knows France and Germany wont. (throw Kerry on the same list)

Why would I go and volunteer when I could go and boat.


----------



## Mountain (Oct 11, 2003)

VIOLENCE=VIOLENCE 
Don't be a slave to the propaganda of the war machine 
WMD=$$$$$$$$$$$$$
WAR=$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
and who is making the most $$$$$$ off Iraq
Chaney= Halliburton
WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO = CHANGE
WE DESERVE MORE THAN A TWO PARTY SYSTEM
DOWN WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLAGE
LONG LIVE TRUE DEMOCRACY
FUCK THE PLUTOCRACY
POWER TO THE PEACEFUL
FIRE THE LIAR
RENEWABLE ENERGY = SUSTAINABLE PEACE
NO LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN ANY OTHER
MOVING TO CANADA IS NOT THE ANSWER
RISE UP PEOPLE WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
ONE SMALL CHANGE AT A TIME

Peace and love
MM


----------



## Tyler (Oct 13, 2003)

benrodda said:


> bush may be dumb and texan..... but at least he is consistent.
> 
> ben


Ben, you are probably being sarcastic. For those that didn't pick up on that subtelty, ask yourself if consistently wrong is better than sometimes right?

Mountain, thanks for the motivation! We've gotta do something besides not vote. Your kids deserve more than putting your head in the sand.


----------



## wycoloboater (Nov 18, 2003)

Here is something that might unify boaters a little:

If Bush is re-elected he is going to continue cutting down forests, building roads into wilderness, and damming rivers. A vote for Bush is a vote against the rivers,forests, and wildplaces that we kayakers enjoy so much.

Think of it as a vote not for Kerry, but a vote against Bush.

Zach.


----------



## Lurch (Jun 8, 2004)

*Those who don't know their history are failed to repeat it.*



h2oxtc said:


> I personally think that it would be a pretty boring place to be if everyone thought the same things. There are 2 sides to every arguement and somewhere in the middle lies the truth. The only thing I worry about is the saftey of ALL Americans and who is going to provide us the best protection from those that want to hurt us. There are to many things at stake to put someone in office that would try to negotiate with people who have no intention of holding up their end of the bargain. Unfortunatley we are the worlds super power and we have an obligation to the rest of the world to not give in to the terrorists. Someone has to do it, God knows France and Germany wont. (throw Kerry on the same list)
> 
> Why would I go and volunteer when I could go and boat.


France already learned the hard way that you can't beat terrorists with violence alone. Ever hear of two countries called Vietnam and Algeria? If you are perceived as an oppressor no matter if that perception is true or false no amount of “preemptive war” will bring you peace.


----------



## ZLSeth (Aug 17, 2004)

*What Bush's re-election would mean to the rivers*



wycoloboater said:


> If Bush is re-elected he is going to continue cutting down forests, building roads into wilderness, and damming rivers. A vote for Bush is a vote against the rivers,forests, and wildplaces that we kayakers enjoy so much.


ditto.

This is the subject that makes this topic appropriate for the Buzz.


----------



## surfpiper (Nov 18, 2003)

Your kids deserve to be alive to have the same freedoms you have... at least mine do. Backing down to terrorists is not the answer, and Kerry doesn't have a "plan" for anything. Would you like the UN to handle our security? Bush has done as good a job as anyone under the circumstances over the past four years. If you want to replace him with a filthy rich, Massachusetts liberal (who's best friend is Teddy "I can't swim" Kennedy), who will no doubt raise your income taxes (If you work, that is) first thing in office, and has NO plan for Iraq or our security, that's your choice. Also, remember that a guy who owns his own Gulfstream, is worth 1/2 a billion dollars, married THREE very rich women for his own cause, owns a fleet of SUVs, probably doesn't really give a shit about your precious environment... and yes that's Kerry.


----------



## Livingston (Jan 8, 2004)

I've got the perfect way to spice up this post, let's bring religion into it. That retard W can't make a speach without talking about his F_cking God. He even said once, soon we will have "our God's peace" in Iraq. Either he is an instigator or an Idiot, I believe both. If you get upset or pissed when you hear Iraqis talk about Jihad, imagine how they feel.

There is a reason people hate us, and it is not because "they are jealous of our freedom" as our leader has often said. The significant portion of the world population is a victim of our leisure... got a meeting to go to, gotta go.

-d


----------



## surfpiper (Nov 18, 2003)

wycoloboater said:


> Here is something that might unify boaters a little:
> 
> If Bush is re-elected he is going to continue cutting down forests, building roads into wilderness, and damming rivers. A vote for Bush is a vote against the rivers,forests, and wildplaces that we kayakers enjoy so much.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, that's certainly buying into the Kerry rhetoric, however how does one build a house without trees for wood? How does one fight a forest fire without access to the wilderness? How does a river flow all year without a dam (by the way, all the rivers you kayak on are damned in Colorado and the west, to do otherwise is pure ignorance). The water does not exist for kayaking, and without dams your season would last about a week. 

Oh, and to the person who hates God in this forum.. keep it to yourself.


----------



## badkins (Oct 30, 2003)

> how does one build a house without trees for wood


The vast majority of national forest land already has roads in it, let us keep the small and fragmented areas that are roadless!



> How does one fight a forest fire without access to the wilderness?


Duh, its a freekin' wilderness! Fire is natural and good for the health of the forest. Currently they generally don't fight fires in wilderness areas, they fight them when they threaten property and homes. Also, have you ever heard of smoke jumpers?



> How does a river flow all year without a dam (by the way, all the rivers you kayak on are damned in Colorado and the west, to do otherwise is pure ignorance).


Ever heard of the Yampa? How about the Salmon, or the Yellowstone? Betcha money that if the bush administration could these would be dammed also. And yes I would rather have them running free with a short season than paddling artificial flows in september.



> Oh, and to the person who hates God in this forum.. keep it to yourself.


We sortof have a secular government, bush is trying to change that, religion and politics should not mix

that's my 2 cents


----------



## matobs (Nov 26, 2003)

Let's cut taxes for wealthy and raise spending faster than any modern president
with our tax cuts for the wealthy we can drastically raise the cost of medicaid, spend more money on education than ever before, pass the largest pork barrel farm bill ever, oh yeah and we can wage two wars - don't worry though those tax cuts for the wealthy will pay for themselves --I don't know about you but my taxes are the same

Let's get involved in a war of choice without help of allies

Let' leak the names of CIA agents for our own political purposes

Let's play hide the ball on the true cost of Medicare by coercing employees and using a ploy that has never been used by Congress before and hold the vote open while we twist some more arms -- oh did I say it'd cost $400 billion ooops we really knew it'd cost $550 billion (those tax cuts will pay for that)

Let's not let people buy medicine from Canada b/c it'll hurt our pals in the drug industry

Let's have our good ol' boys from the energy industry tell us how the country's energy policy should go 

Let's squelch civil liberties and throw away the constitution -- yeah we can imprison people forever and never give them a trial -- oh really says the Supreme Court - no you can't we still have this thing called a constitution

Let's foster an atomosphere where toture of people is condoned - and no one gets fired over that one?!?!! 

Let's vote for Bush if you don't care about the why this country founded, and want an arrogant, ultra-conservative, and ultra-stupid president

If your not outraged you're not paying attention!

Not voting is lame


----------



## Livingston (Jan 8, 2004)

I don't hate God, I hate Bush's God. And W should keep his God out of politics because no one ever backs down from an argument based on faith (because of it's very nature). The leader of the free world should not be proselytizing. I didn't bring religion into this election, W did.

W even asked religious leaders to preach to their congregation and persuade them to vote for him. (Now I'm really going to piss some people off!) I guess he felt his best opportunity for reelection was to target the most gullable of the population. 

I can't blame this post on low water, the Big T was stellar last night and I fly to Gauley next week. For those of you who say you are not voting, at least throw Nader bone!


----------



## wycoloboater (Nov 18, 2003)

> Not voting is lame


No matter who you vote for, it is your constitutional right to vote, everyone and anyone who complains, bitches, or otherwise likes/dislikes the President and his policies should vote. If you don't vote you have no reason to complain, you obviously don't care enough about it to spend five minutes in the voting booth. That is five minutes that can change your life and the lives of the people around you in a miriad of ways. 

There is no water, nothing to ski, life in Colorado is pretty dreary on Nov. 7 so you have no reason not to vote; besides, it will get you out of work for a few minutes. 

Do your part and vote!

Zach.


----------



## Clark (Apr 24, 2004)

> The only thing I worry about is the safety of ALL Americans and who is going to provide us the best protection from those that want to hurt us. There are to many things at stake to put someone in office that would try to negotiate with people who have no intention of holding up their end of the bargain. Unfortunately we are the worlds super power and we have an obligation to the rest of the world to not give in to the terrorists.


To this point- The Bush admin policies are not making us safer abroad of at home. Read a newspaper today and you will see that recent US Intelligence Reports are highly pessimistic about Iraq. Iraq was not the home-front of the war on terror, but it is now and so as it slips from bad to worse we elevate the danger to ourselves and the international community that tried so hard to keep us out of there because they knew it wasn;t about terrorism but installing a free-market economy in a resource rich nation. 
- Military brass from both sides of the political fence agree that by diverting human and financial resources from Afghanistan and Pakistan we hurt our chances in the war on terror. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent there and Osama Bin Laden is loving every minute of this war in Iraq. Imagine how much easier it is to enlist young Islamic men to join against the west when Paul Bremer fired 500,000 state workers in Iraq in time for them to watch as 14,000 CIVILIANS have been killed in Iraq. Are they different than any of us? If you think not just be happy you weren't born in Iraq than in the US. 



> Hmmm, that's certainly buying into the Kerry rhetoric, however how does one build a house without trees for wood? How does one fight a forest fire without access to the wilderness? How does a river flow all year without a dam (by the way, all the rivers you kayak on are damned in Colorado and the west, to do otherwise is pure ignorance). The water does not exist for kayaking, and without dams your season would last about a week.


-This is a pretty simple look at the relationship between the environment, the economy and resource use. Seriously, is that all it is to you? Of course natural resources are used to enable our quality of life and that is why they need protection and strong management. The Bush administration has headed agencies that were previously charged with that responsibility with lobbyists from the industries that sell those resources for profit. The environmental situation in this country and the world was bleak before the thugs came into office. I fear that in coming decades we will all feel the hurt from the administrations recall of regulations on mining, timber harvesting, pollution controls, curtailing of clean water standards, new definitions of "wetland" that streamline development or exploitation of wetlands, weakening of clean air laws... Seriously one could go on and on. Do you think he does this for you? Or for industry? This isn't just a question of protecting the environment -for alot of folks that just squishy liberal talk right?- this is an issue of public health. Thousands of people die every year in this country from illness related DIRECTLY to dirty air. Over the past 40 years this nation has fought to change that and we were really making progress in maintaining cleaner air and water, they are undoing it. Try turning off Bill O'Rielly and reading about it, its in the public record. 



> bush may be dumb and texan..... but at least he is consistent


.

No he isn't. First he didn't think Al Qaeda was a threat, then after Sept 11th, he did. Didn't want an independent commission to investigate 9-11 then he did, didn't want a homeland security dept., then he did, didn;t want international assistance in Iraq, then he did. 

He says he follows the teachings of Christ. Is he humble? Is he benevolent? 

He talks about taking responsibility and being held accountable unless you are a large corporation in which case you need loopholes, cutbacks and rules won't apply. 
If anything he consistently misleads the public using hyperbole and vague references to 9-11. Consistent is just not a good way to describe these guys. 

He talks about patriotism as though he owns it, but he is trampling the core values of of this country, freedom to speak out, to question, to practice or not practice any religion you choose, to fight for those who can't fight for themselves, to allow everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. The policies and values of this president are not true, in my opinion to those values that make this country great. We are a country that was built on those values and on strong relationships with the international community. That is our strength, cooperation with the international community. Of course its hard working with the UN and other countries because we all have differing interests, but we are part of an international community and our greatest strength lies in the strength of that community. I fear that under this administration we have lost the moral authority that took so long for this nation to build. Now neither our allies or our enemies trust us and we look bad. Don't believe be? Take a trip, Europe, South America, Asia, and ask people what they think. And the amazing part is that they haven't given up on us as a nation. Most people I have spoken with outside the US take care to separate their frustration with our government from their belief that on the whole we are good people. 
Internally our strength is our people, not our military. Of course a nation as large as our needs a strong military but we also need to educate our public and that is just one more area where this administration has fallen flat. This goes no and on and I respect everyones position wholeheartedly. Just don't get your info from commercials on TV or nutty TV pundits. 
For those who would call this stance weak, thats fine, but I have been to ground zero, and I was at the site of the Bali bombing while the ground was still smoldering and the air reeked. We are fighting ideas not just people and you can't kill idea with bombs. 

Hope I didn't rustle to many feathers. xoxo

Clark


----------



## De la Boot (Apr 21, 2004)

:shock: I guess politics is touchy right now, look at how fast everyone has replied!

Well, here is my 2 cents. 

Granted Kerry sucks ass but can we afford Bush another 4 years? He wants to open land to logging, drilling and roads. His tax cuts are a payoff to the rich in disguise. Just so you know, the top 1% wealthiest are getting 66% of the tax cuts. His arrogance has turned our allies against us. His lack of speaking ability has made us a laughing stock around the world, (and I know because I've been traveling lately) And above all, we can't afford him because he thinks he is on a mission from God to conquer the middle east. In his acceptance speech at the RNC, he said that it is our mission to bring peace and democracy to the middle east and that democracy is not our gift to the middle east, it is god's gift to everyone. The guy is starting to sound a little bit like the Islamic extremists. Mark my words, if W wins in November, Iraq will become just the first in a list of horrible mistakes. The next will be Syria or Iran. 
And besides, if Bush is so great, why aren't the Rep. talking about Bush? Instead they're just bashing Kerry.

Please don't be so easily fooled by the well crafted propaganda put out by the republicans. It's an image, an illusion. I may be with others on that train to Canada.


----------



## cosurfgod (Oct 10, 2003)

There's great boatin' in Canada.  

As for Surfpiper, the only god I beleive in is in the form of snow or water. The forum like our country is freedom of religion so fuck off god boy.


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

Clark, That was beautiful and very well said!!! A lot of great posts. Good topic.

To those whose said, I am not voting. Don't be so foolish as to make that mistake. I made that mistake last election. Now I feel partly responsible for letting that idiot Bush win that election. You are a delusion-ed person not to see what Bush and his party have done to America. Propaganda is a powerful thing...and unfortunately there are a lot a ignorant people out there who can't see past it. What Clark said was perfect, look past TV and what government owned news channels say about whats going on. Think outside of the box...if you do you might realize how Bush has absolutely F'ed this country up!

Right now there are millions of Iraqi kids being breed to hate America!! Why do they hate us?? because we killed their dad, their mom, their friends. Bush hasn't done a thing to help eliminate Terrorism. He is actually creating more Terrorists!! And is a terrorist himself...ALL FOR MONEY!!!!!! It has nothing to do with Terrorism...it has everything to do with Bush's God (money and power)

Chaney = CRIMINAL!!! He should be in jail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on...the man was associated with ENRON!!

Its amazing that humans still feel the need to kill each other over religious beliefs. When will people get over having to always be RIGHT?!? 

I could go on and on but I have to work.

JUST VOTE AGAINST BUSH!!! Our country is fucked if Bush is re-elected.
SO JUST VOTE FOR SOMEBODY OTHER THAN BUSH!!


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Wow, this has stirred the pot. I am very surprised that there are still this many Bush supporters on this forum. Makes absolutely no sense to me.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks Marko for summing it up. Agreed. Don't forget Cheney's and Bush's ties to Haliburton who received all the contracts for rebuild. Tax payers pay for the destruction. 200 Billion?. Haliburton makes billions with reconstruction. Fat checks for being member of board after serving in office. Great scam.


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Big ups to Clark, marko, matobs and badkins for explaining how it really is. Well put. Surfpiper, you been watchin too much FOX news


----------



## Arn (Nov 8, 2003)

*Join the Republicans*

I am by principle an Independent and believe partisanship is destructive to our polical process. Too many people are drinking their parties magic koolaid and listening to their own propaganda. The partisanship and the lack of campaign reforms has given us two highly funded, very poor quality candidates. I would be an Independent , but that is worthless since they do not get federal funding and have no primary!

I joined the Republicans when I was 18 (many years ago) because their platform was strong foreign policy, strong economy, less beauracracy and they used to have a far better envirnomental policy then they do now. 

But now the Republicans have been taken over by the fundamentalist "Christian? Coalition" and that scares the crap out of me. Now we have a President who ignored the International Community when they declared there was no WMD and that the Iraq war was not justified. He then took us to war that killed 12,000 Iraqis and 1,000 Americans on very poor intelligence that was obvously not strong even before the war. We went from being one of the most repected countries in the world right after 9/11 to being one of the most hated. How can you simply say woops and that it was the CIAs fault? That is hardly a strong foreign policy!!

The economy. We have seen one of the worst downturns since the depression with Bush's reactionary policy of only handing out a tax break. That is not too impresssive to me, since he has racked up a huge deficit to replace the tax cut. Not too strong of a economic policy!

Less Beauracracy and smaller governement. Bush formed the Homeland Security Agency which is one of the largest government agency created in one hell of a long time, which has essentially removed some of our freedoms and has us crapping our pants once an orange light goes on. 

Though the Democrats routinely field these wimpy ass candidates, it is the Republicans with their stronger leadership skills, but taking us in the wrong direction that scares me the most. I simply do not know how a Republicans can vote for Bush with his anti-republican track record without it being strictly partisanship. If the Democrats can't beat Bush with all his weaknesses, then they are pathetic and should disband and convert to Independents!!! So why am I a Republican since I have not voted for a Republican President in a long time, because they need to change from within at the primary stage before these candidates reach the Presidential stage. I can always vote for a Democrat when the election comes around. Anyone want to join me? ....Oh, I voting against Bush!! I can't imagine Kerry being any worse.


----------



## badkins (Oct 30, 2003)

If the writers for the daily show were working for Kerry he would be ahead in the polls! Check out this video, it is hilarious. Click on the video link on the right of the page, it is labeled... George W Bush: Words speak louder than actions.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/


----------



## MBK (Apr 6, 2004)

*November's election*

Ok everyone, I have a few things to say and a few questions for you all. I want to know if the people who still support G.W. truly know why, or do you resond with the time tested rhetoric of, "because he will keep us safe"? Also, for those of you who are not going to vote, do you think that you are really voting for the people who are running for office or are you voting for the issue that you feel strongly about and which administration will carry out more decisions and changes that will directly affect you and your family in a positive way? 

As a historian and beginner boater I felt compelled to add my two cents in. Focusing an entire election on the single issue of who will keep us (Americans) safe is shallow and very rhetorical. Chosing the administration that will be in office working at the highest levels in this great country, needs to respond to a multitude of issues that are occuring in our country, as well as addressing our issues with foregin relations.
As boaters I feel compelled to remind the Bush supporters that he has rolled back almost all of the environmental forward progress that was made during the Clinton administration. He is trying to advocate and get the green light to log on public lands. This translates as your back yard is vulnerable, as well as almost all the boater put ins and take outs that I know of in the West. 
Another thing to remember is that our place in current events can be placed in history and analyzed. There have been other times in history that various administrations have vilified certain ethnicities and races in order to solidify the nation behind a President and/or issues. For example: the FEAR for ones safety was intensly perpetuated when it related to communists and what might happen if communism infiltrated the U.S. The McCarthy hearings, the Cold War. The next came during WWII when our nation was urged not to feel safe with the enemy (Japanese) were living among us, so we put them in internment camps, sound familiar to anyone? I want to remind everyone that the U.S. has made MANY mistakes in its past and we have only paid reparation once, to the Japanese-Americans. Wonder why?
Now, this is not to say that I condone terrorism. The contrary is true, I feel that the people who murdered Americans on 9/11 should be held accountable, but I also refuse to convince myself that going into Iraq helped us get closer to that goal. But I can support someone who would attempt to calm an escalated issue and re-affirm our once distinguished position in the world. I belive that the issue of terrorism is absolutely not new, do some research if you doubt me, and that it will continue if there isn't a change in how this issue is addressed. 
We have many issues such as poor education (manily in urban environments), skyrocketting health care price tags, major climate changes as a result of the poor treatment of our environment, and the people who care for Americans the most are paid the least. Ex: firefighters, police, nurses, caregivers, and teachers. 
So, I encourage all of you to look into the issues that will directly influence and affect your life, not what "they" tell you will affect your life. 
Don't pass on voting, there are men and women who fought a very bloody war inorder for us to have that opportunity. 

May you all be well, regardless of partisan lines 
-MBK 
P.S. Way to go Clark!


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Badkins' video was right on! It's so old hearing people say that Kerry is a flip flopper. Thats what about every politician has always done, thas frickin politics. :roll: The Daily show is the best place to get news anymore, maybe PBS.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Clark, I disregarded everything you said after you said "dont you read the paper" . I wouldnt even bother reading the leftist dribble that is in the newspapers. I know what you are thinking... I watch Fox. I do watch Fox along with the other more liberal stations like CNN and NBC etc. to find some sort of the truth. Both sides are guilty of the same things and making up the same type of crap. At least I dont just take it at face value what comes out of the normal (liberal) media.

What is wrong with having a god? What is wrong with being religious? I personally am not a religious person, in fact I haven't been to church since my parents last made me about 20 years ago. If you dont believe, then dont believe, but you dont have to get on the people who do. Bush isnt trying to make anyone Christain, he is just saying what he thinks and there is nothing wrong with that. The whole religous thing has gotten way out of hand. If you dont want to pray at school, then dont. If you dont want to sing the National Anthem at a sporting event, then dont, but dont disrespect the people that do. Just sit there and keep quite, I am sure they would do the same for you and your beliefs. 

The enviromentalist would like you to believe that the world is in dire straights and we are causing everything from global warming to causing cancer. Sure some things that we do arent that great for the enviroment and do cause cancer, but to think that we as a nation have that much of an inpact on the enviroment is obserd. Look up how much emition type gases and smoke come from one volcano and then tell me that we cause the holes in the ozone (which have always existed and always will). Dams are built to provide energy for the people in a certain area. Would you rather use coal from a near by strip mine. With as many people as there are and with all of the Mormans reproducing like they do what are we to do. Just joking Mormans, its the Mexicans (In jest). 

Oh ya... we arent alone in the war. Their were many countries that support what we are trying to do and believe it is a just cause. Just because France and Germany dont want to play along doesnt mean that we were alone. We all know why they didnt want in, it was becuase there was money for them to loose by doing so. To be honest I think what Bush is doing by trying to start a Democracy in the middle of one of the worst problems that is around today, the middle east, is an outstanding idea. Once the government stabilizes in Iraqi dont you think the non-terrorsits in the other countries would like to have some freedom too. We all know that the terrorist dont want a democracy and wont stop terrorizing until everyone agrees with them, and that wont happen. 

One thing that would get us out of the financial mess that we are in would be to get rid of all of the ILLEGAL immagrants that are getting US citizen benifits and financial aid from the US government. Oh... that would cut the Dem voter base in half in Califormia. Impossible, but you have to admit it is a problem.

I've had about enough fun. Sorry about my spelling and grammar, I am in a hurry and it would take a while to spell check all of the errors.

For those of us that support Bush, keep the faith and go vote. 

GW04

:lol: I mean no disrespect to anynone I just like to push buttons, and listen to the s#%t hit the fan. I think this post has made a lot of people think, that wouldnt have if they hadnt read the post. Thinking is never a bad thing, no matter what side of the isle you are on.


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

haaaha, sounds like a true bush believer. H2o, you dug your own hole on that one.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

I know, if it isnt what you believe its wrong. I am not that nieve to believe that I am right all of the time.

You guys cant keep saying that it is about the money. Of course it is about the money, there is no way that theis was about 3000 
Americans (non military people) who died for simply going about there daily lives. I for one would be pretty pissed if that was how my life ended. I am going to hang out with all of those virgins and wait for them to show up one by one.

For those pacifists out there, if you were on one of the planes that was hijacked, what would you do? Would you do like the people on the plane that eventually crashed into a field and fight or would you just sit there and hope that the terrorists come to their sences and let you all go? Be carefull, VIOLENCE=VIOLENCE

I for one would go down fighting. Do they care if we talk nice to them or beg for our lives? F no they dont, ask the hostages that were beheaded what they think.

For all of those conspiracy theorists out there, Just because someone knows someone else and has worked with and for a company doesnt mean that he is behind some conspiracy to make money for them. Just like Clinton had nothing to do with White Water. Right!?! From what I have heard, Haliburton (sp?) was the only bidder that could handle the job. Of course they should get the contract. Should it go to someone from France? If so, why? They had a good deal going on with Saddam and now that is all gone. What are they to do now.

The next thing I expect to hear is that it is Bush's fault that we are getting pummeled with hurricanes. Oh wait, I am sure that it is global warming. It has nothing to do with the cycles of the earth though. Im sure Bush is just doing it just so he can give away the contract to rebuild Florida and the rest of the Gulf Coast to Chaney's company.

Do you think that the economy can be blamed on Bush? Bush gave the Democrats about half of what they wanted in the form or programs and the other crap that you are blaming him for. Whos fault is that? Does the president have the ability to change the economy in the blink of an eye or does it take a while for things to develope? If you are being honest you know that the later is the true answer. Since that is the case wouldnt the economy be Clintons fault? 

What did you do with your refund? I am sure that you sent it back since it wasnt neccesary. I for one spent mine the day I got it. That adds up to a hell of a lot of money being put right back into the economy. Now that makes sence! I want some examples of the economy being that bad. No it isnt as good as it was a couple of years back but it isnt as bad as the media makes it sound. I for one have made a lot of money in the stock market. If it was that bad would that be the case? Unemployment is lower than it has been in quite a while. I know... they are low paying jobs. Well, suck it up and take a job if you dont have one. You can make a decision to make your own fortune or you can sit there and wait for some demoract program to take care of you. I will make my own fortune and no one has the right to keep me from doing that. You have the same rights so take advantage of it.

Do you care if someone doesnt like you? Who cares if they hate us? All they have to do is respect us and (how dare I say this) fear us. Who does everyone come to when they need assistance? I am sure they put their personal feelings aside in order to get help. Like it or not we are the big brother to every deserving country and some that dont deserve it. Doesnt the world deserve to be protected from tyrants and dictators. I know... Bush is a dictator. Just keep thinking that and you will become as dumb as sound.

Taxe relief for the richest Americans. What a joke. The top 20% of wage earners pay 80% of the tax burdon. Who deserves the refund and who got the last one? I got a check did you? If you arent in the top 20% of wage earners and you believe that this was for the rich, you better send your back, it had to have been a mistake. The only fair way to do taxes is a flat tax. 

keep reading and posting people, you may learn something from one of us, left or right. It doesnt hurt to hear both sides of the story. Make your own decision from there.


----------



## MBK (Apr 6, 2004)

*Wow*

Hey h2oxtc, 

Are you just trying to rial people up or are you really this much of an ignoramus?

Oh, by the way, try using spell check.


----------



## thecraw (Oct 12, 2003)

After this...not much more needs to be said.
http://www.campchaos.com/show.php?iID=868

I am neither republican nor democrat. My only concern is to ensure that we have a leader that can think for himself (which is obviously in serious question) and represent the things that the American people vote for him to do... 

Everyone has an off day, but for crying out loud!!! When is there enough evidence to convince at least every American that there is a total dunce at the helm of the Free World.


----------



## alexhenes (Oct 14, 2003)

"So here we gather... the haves and the have mores... some call you the elite... I call you my base." This is a quote from George W. Bush at a fund raising event.

Open your eyes folks... Bush is looking out for the wealthy... not the common Joe that 90% of us are.

Like others... I am also shocked at how many Bush supports use this web site. It honestly blows me away. I am neither a Republican or a Democrat... I just think Bush is the worst thing to ever happen to America.

These are the hard facts we are living with under the Bush administration:

- We have more poverty
- We have fewer jobs
- We have lower paying jobs
- We have a tax code that encourages job outsourcing
- We have more enemies
- There are more terrorists with a real reason to hate us
- We have fewer allies
- We have an environment at risk(including our rivers)
- We have a record deficit
- We have a record number of people w/o health insurance
- We are in a war we can not win(read the latest intelligence report on the future of Iraq)
- We are in that war because of lies and bad information
- We are spending more resources on this war than fighting Al Qaeda

The things that might be considered debatable about Bush are:

- his military record
- his alcoholic past
- his cocaine use
- he has hijacked Christianity for his own political purposes
- his intelligence
- his honesty
- his relationship with the Saudis
- his relationship with Enron execs
- his true motivation for going into Iraq
- his arrogance

If we debated these items and came out 50/50... there would be too many things wrong with Bush to re-elect him... not that he was elected in the first place.

Can anybody tell me with a straight face what is better today than it was 4 years ago?

The Bush administration has used issues like abortion and gay marriage to drive a wedge into America. His administration has not united the American people. This is poor leadership. They have created an environment where there is not much middle ground. Their policy is that you are either for us or against us... on pretty much everything. I can not remember a time when there are so many extreme views in our country.

What Bush has is a great marketing organization and a great ability to spin. The more times people hear their lies and spin the more they believe it. Sometimes I find myself getting sucked in too... but then I catch myself and look at the facts.

When I read what many of the Bush supporters are writing it sounds like they feel the same way about Bush and Republicans as they do their favorite sports team.... they will support them because they always have... win or loose... right or wrong... not because they are the best choice.

All I can say is open your eyes and look at the facts. Read or listen to news other than US news. Take a look at the news of our allies... take a look at Canadian news, British news, Australian news. You will get a much different perspective. Then think for yourselves. If you do... I think you will find it extremely difficult to justify supporting Bush.


That's my two cent.

p.s.

I posted some new video in under the 'Video' link at the bottom of the 'Paddling' section of www.merelyafleshwound.com

The new vids include:

- Bailey Helmet Cam
- Big South
- Popo Agie
- Encampment

Check'em out


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

A little of both. I am an ignoramus because I have an opinion? I guess you are too then. I'm not going to call you names or anything like that. You are apparently a lost cause and aren't worth the time or the effort since you are always right and your opinion is the only right one. 

I am just trying to make people think a little and god forbid do a little research of their own rather than just believing the first thing that they hear. In order to make an informed decision you have to hear both sides. If I just listen to you then I have lost myself and my ability to make an informed decision. Vice Versa as well. Whatever you decide is right for you is right for you. 

You got my point without spell check but I will do it to make you happy!

If we are to believe what we hear on TV, why is there such a stink going on with poor Mr. Rather? What about the Swift Boat Vets, who is lying? I'm not saying who is right but how do you know?

AHHHHH, stop thinking, it hurts!!!!!! NOOOO, dont do research.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

You must have picked up a flyer from the last Kerry rally. You really should credit them to avoid plagiarism.

Sorry, its bed time. 

Stay tuned tomorrow!

This is fun


----------



## esp (Jun 13, 2004)

Whoa, dude, you're totally right man. :mrgreen:


----------



## alexhenes (Oct 14, 2003)

Sorry bud... I think for myself... never been to a Kerry event or Democratic event for that matter. In fact... I am not a big Kerry fan... I just think he is leagues better than Bush. If someone other than Bush were oon the GOP ticket I just might have supported them.

I just think Bush is the worst thing that has ever happen to this country.

Thanks for the compliment on my thoughts though... are they really sound that profesional?


----------



## benrodda (Mar 27, 2004)

keep in mind that the role of the President of the United States is not a dictatorship. It is easy to blame one man, Clinton, Bush, Kerry, whomever, for whatever mess we have or will have in our country. But we still have a system of checks and balances. The president can still be vetoed. 

I say this because everyone gets so fired up about presidential elections but few of us ever contact our senator or representative to make sure that they are casting good votes for good laws. I think we trust these people way more than we should and lack the trust in whoever our president is. Just a thought.


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Wow, H20, you still have not shown me anything the least bit convincing. TheCraw said it--There is a total f-ing dunce in control of the free world. That should be enough said but for some reason people dont get the picture. Comic book guy said it best "Worst President Ever"

PS- oh yeah, Alex Henes, your site is sweet. So are a few other guys from this site


----------



## PhillyBoop (Oct 30, 2003)

Man the one thing about this election is that people are FIRED up. When when people actually think and not just pull the lever in the booth that's good. I recomend reading "Bushworld" for some scary insight on how the Bushies and cronies are trying to lead this country. Funny, but scary. And yes, the Daily Show is where I get most of my news...At least he rips on both parties.[/code]


----------



## chewie (Aug 26, 2004)

h2oxtc said:


> Bush isnt trying to make anyone Christain, he is just saying what he thinks and there is nothing wrong with that.


Not true  Bush is using religion as a wedge issue to gain more votes. I try not to judge Bushs faith, but when I look at his actions, I guess I have to admit that GW and I have radically different views on Christianity. Take his policy on pre-emptive war. Is that a Christian concept? Is that what Christ would do? No way. Not that Im some sort of pacificist, but couple that with the administrations politics driven use of faulty intelligence on WMDs and alienation of our traditional allies, and you see that they really screwed up with Iraq. And once they got into Iraq, they mismanaged the war, and couldnt win the peace. Unbelieveable. IMO, impeachable. 



h2oxtc said:


> The enviromentalist would like you to believe that the world is in dire straights and we are causing everything from global warming to causing cancer. Sure some things that we do arent that great for the enviroment and do cause cancer, but to think that we as a nation have that much of an inpact on the enviroment is obserd.


Nearly all scientists agree (except those affiliated with energy production) that the earth is warming up as a result of greenhouse gases. As a nation, we are far and away the leading producer of greenhouse gases. To ignore this or say this is not the case is wishful thinking.



h2oxtc said:


> Dams are built to provide energy for the people in a certain area. Would you rather use coal from a near by strip mine.


Id really like to use neither. Unfortunately, with the current administration, both a dam or a coal mine are more likely to be in your backyard, irregardless of the negative environmental or social effects that they may cause. Thats right h2oxtc  your backyard



h2oxtc said:


> Oh ya... we arent alone in the war. Their were many countries that support what we are trying to do and believe it is a just cause.


Give me a break. Just for one moment, compare the coalition from Gulf War I with Gulf War II. After you do that exercise, look at the administrations cost projections prior to the war, compared with the current situation. Then, take a look at who shared the cost burden of Gulf war I (90% allies, 10% US) to Gulf War II (90% US, 10% allies). Even you should realize that the allies that we have in this war are just token allies, participating more from arm-twisting.



h2oxtc said:


> To be honest I think what Bush is doing by trying to start a Democracy in the middle of one of the worst problems that is around today, the middle east, is an outstanding idea.


On this, I happen to agree with you. Unfortunately, I think that the way that the Bush administration has tried to do this is certain to fail. Iraq, a democracy? The security situation is deteriorating  just watch your Fox news  the rate of US casualties has risen since the transfer of power. I just dont see that the path this administration has put us on will lead to democracy in the middle east. If anything, I see us alienating even more of the Arab street with the guerilla warfare we now find ourselves in.



h2oxtc said:


> One thing that would get us out of the financial mess that we are in would be to get rid of all of the ILLEGAL immagrants that are getting US citizen benifits and financial aid from the US government.


Right. Those benefits are a huge part of the problem, especially when you compare the costs to what we are spending in Iraq. In fact, I bet if we stopped all illegal immigration, Im sure that wed get rid of that pesky federal deficit.

Please, boaters, register to Vote: http://www.justvote.org


----------



## Clark (Apr 24, 2004)

> The environmentalist would like you to believe that the world is in dire straights and we are causing everything from global warming to causing cancer. Sure some things that we do aren't that great for the environment and do cause cancer, but to think that we as a nation have that much of an impact on the environment is absurd. Look up how much emission type gases and smoke come from one volcano and then tell me that we cause the holes in the ozone (which have always existed and always will). Dams are built to provide energy for the people in a certain area. Would you rather use coal from a near by strip mine. With as many people as there are and with all of the Mormons reproducing like they do what are we to do. Just joking Mormons, its the Mexicans (In jest).


I mean no disrespect, but I am amazed at the simplicity of this view. Comparing industrial air pollution to volcano's is a stretch. Lets assume though that you are right, difference is that the fumes released by a volcano are natural, occur at relatively regular time intervals and are composed of entirely different compounds than the shit spewing from your local refinery. Whether you want to accept it or not, the earth has biophysical constraints. There are ecological laws just as there are laws of physics, and right now we live in a profligate manner that does not respect any semblance of the ecological limits of the planet. Its tough to see in this country because so much of what we consume comes from other countries, and so the byproducts of that consumption can be found there as well rather than here. A river basin outside of the industrial district in China now has water to toxic to touch much less drink, cancer is the number one killer there by a long shot. If that squishy stuff doesn't matter to you consider that the economy is entirely provisioned by the environment. I challenge you to find me a product that is not derived at some level from resources provided right here on earth. For a long time -post industrial revolution- resources were plentiful and labor was scarce. Now that has shifted and the number one impediment to economic grow th and development is lack of resources. We are now hindered by lack of fish in the oceans not boats to fish for the, lack of timber, not the chainsaws to cut it down, lack of clean water not pumps to bring it to our faucets. We do need to strik a blanace between our needs and maintaining a healthy environment, to think differently is selfish and shortsighted. If you like the fact that the US is as clean as it is then make sure to than those damn liberals for all the regulations they have put in place over the years because without them this country would be in far worse shape and you would -maybe- have a less rosey outlook. 
So when you say that us crazies are painting an ugly picture about the state of the environment you are absolutely correct because the picture is ugly my friend, that is if you are willing to look outside of your bubble. 



> For those pacifists out there, if you were on one of the planes that was hijacked, what would you do? Would you do like the people on the plane that eventually crashed into a field and fight or would you just sit there and hope that the terrorists come to their sences and let you all go? Be carefull, VIOLENCE=VIOLENCE


This is also an interesting connection you have made. Lets be real clear here man, even your boys in the white house -except maybe Cheney- have conceded that there was no connection between Iraq and the hijackers on 9-11. So I think your metaphor would be better like this: If you were on the flight and the hijackers suddenly took over the plane would you jump out of your seat run right by them and go beat the living shit out of the Arab passenger sitting back in seat 10-A? If not you are a pacifist wuss. 
I'm not a pacifist so much as I really think it sucks when thousands of people who don't deserve to die are killed for reasons that are all about money and power. If my life is threatened I will fight tooth and nail, but I think its weak to continue to try to rationalize the killing and collateral damage in Iraq by connecting it to 9-11. The connection just insn;t there. 

nice weekend all- 
clark


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

Looks like I submitted this twice by accident. Whoops- full post below.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

H20-


A few quick rebuttals to your arguments:


1. Don't pull the 9/11 card and equate everyone who disagrees with Bush a pacifist. There isn't anyone on this site that would shy from defending this country with the full might of the military against our attackers. I haven't seen anyone on this site or in the "liberal" media question the decision to invade Afghanistan after 9/11. No one. Not even the most liberal members of Congress opposed going after Bin Laden. So your argument that the anti-Bush community proposes rolling over against its enemies doesn't wash. And don't raise the specter of the folks who died in the attacks of 9/11; it cheapens their sacrifice for you to make a exaggerated, weak political point.

2. The rise of fundamentalist extremism against our government is is not limited to Islam. Do we forget that the most deadly terrorist attack on our soil prior to 9/11 came from one of our own countrymen (Tim McVeigh / Army of God)? We will always have to anticipate groups and individuals that are willing to do us harm and seek to break our will by barbaric measures such as beheadings, and Bush & the Republican party do not get a free pass as the only ones who will fight back against our enemies. The indisputable fact is that people like John Kerry and John McCain enlisted to fight for their country, in a was that was by all accounts a disaster; while Bush, Rumsfeld & Rove sat it out because they felt like they had better things to do. 

2. Bush did not *see* the warning signs- in fact, the evidence in the 9/11 commission (the formation of which Bush initially opposed -flip/flop) pointed to a 'lack of imagination' in the greater intelligence community, which is absolutely Bush's responsibility. The guy dropped the ball, although I know he did not purposefully ignore the warnings. If the same thing happened with Gore, you'd be howling for his impeachment.

3. Whitewater. The is a sad case in American political witchhunting. Ken Starr spent 4 1/2 years and $80 million to put Susan McDougal in prison for a couple of years. They found no connection to the Clintons, so that's fact (remember the whole innocent until proven guilty premise our laws are based on?) If I were her & knew something about their nefarious involvement in this investment, I would have sang like a canary the minute he passed me over for a presidential pardon at the end of his term. There are NO FACTS to support this argument, which has nothing to do with the current world and political environment and is clearly a empty partisan jab against anyone who voted Democratic. Truth be told I didn't care much for Clinton for his whoring around, but it's nothing new in American politics. It was 5 years ago, so move on....

4. Halliburton. Clearly they are capable of handling large jobs as they ones they been given in Iraq. So was Schaumburg in France, and given the climate that Bush created we knew they weren't getting a piece of the action. The fact that Halliburton and it's many subsidiaries have been repeatedly been caught overbilling the US after we generously awarded them a no-bid contract is mind-boggling- we're not talking a few dollars here and there, we're talking billions. Example: $180 for a $14 piece of plywood. We could have a long discussion about war profiteering, but you can't escape the Administration's ties to Halliburton, Betchel and others who are becoming increasing filthy rich from the decision to invade Iraq. It should disgust anyone who calls him/herself a fiscal conservative.

5. On Fiscal Conservatism. You're probably over your head in this argument. The tax cut pushed for by the Bush Administration was cautioned against by Alan Greenspan ( A Reagan appointee and universally respect economic guru) and did not measurably affect the economic engine in the long run. we had about a quarter of uptick before settling back into recession. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) will reduce revenues by $1.35 trillion between 2001 and 2011, at a time when our deficits is growing faster by any standard than it has in our history. Bush's economic plan, as laid out by the GAO (General Accounting Office) will actually cost more than Kerry's plan, between now and 2010, by about a trillion dollars. There is no way, with a looming crisis in Social Security, that Bush (or Kerry, for that matter) can avoid raising taxes in the next 4 years, and it will disproportionally fall upon the middle class and poor taxpayers in Bush continues the current policy. And their numbers conveniently do not reflect any cost that the war in Iraq incurs. Remember that and think fondly on your $400 tax benefit in 2001. 

5. Flat Tax. Flatly naive and incredibly unfair to the poor. Think of it this way: To a guy making $200K a year, a refrigerator might represent tiny fraction of a percent of his annual income in terms of his tax burden, but he needs the fridge, right? To a family of four making $18,000 per year (around the poverty line, of which there are 1.3 million more people than last year), this can represent almost 3 percent of their income. Hmm- that seems fair, right? I'm guessing you aren't making $200K a year in income H20, although you did mention that you "made a lot of money in the stock market" so you must really know the bulls (pun intended). 

6. The Economic Impact of Tax Burdens. Your facts are wrong and skewed in the opposite direction from what's actually happening. When both payroll taxes and income taxes are considered, households with income below $50,000 per year (about the median income) have seen their aggregate federal tax burden increase, while upper-income households experienced a tax decrease. The top 1% of wealth holders now own nearly 40% of private wealth in this country, while the bottom 95% own about the same amount. Yet, the top 1% pays less than 20% of the aggregate federal tax burden, when all taxes are considered (including the regressive payroll taxes), not only the individual income tax. Middle-class taxpayers  with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600  bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5% of all payments in 2001 to 19.5% this year. These tax cuts, which favor the wealthy, deplete the federal coffers at a time when our economy cannot afford them. Basically, if you're making under $220,000 per year, the Bush plan is not doing you any favors. The bigger picture is that when the middle and lower class is not doing well, you (H20) and I and the rest of the the non-wealthy have less opportunity (that is more opinion than a hard fact, I'll admit; but I don't think it's a stretch assumption and neither do many non-partisan economists).

7. The Economic Future: The economy is not a disaster on the scale of the Great Depression, but it is not healthy and the Bush plan of ignoring the deficit does not make fiscal sense in any way, shape or form. In fact, he's made it an art form of trying to misrepresent the economic state of the Union. A recent report made by a Goldman Sachs analyst wrote that the Office of Management and Budget has perfected the art of underpromising and overperforming in terms of its near-term budget deficit forecasts. This creates the impression that the deficit is narrowing when, in fact, it will be up sharply. [FYI: in 2004, Goldman Sachs has given $64,750 to Kerry, but $282,725 to Bush.] In other words, Bush fudging the numbers for political gain. Some patriot- he's mortgaging the economic viability of your kids so he can hold on to four more years of power. 

[Note: I am not anti-wealthy; and I have invested in my education and career so that I can become more prosperous. But I don't believe that this country was built to stand for a society where stepping on the necks of those who have less represents a sound economic policy. If everyone in the US has opportunity and no one is given a leg up over any other, I believe that the wealthy will benefit more than a tax burden would hinder.]

I ask you look at the facts objectively. If you believe something to be true and it supports your political beliefs, go through the exercise to see if it meets that test of truth. Be your own Devil's Advocate. 

This is not a "Democratic" argument; truth be told, if the Republicans had done the right thing in 2000 and nominated McCain, I would have probably vote for him. But you guys are backing a bad bet for the long-term success of the country, and the Republican Party is now stuck on incredibly stupid issues like gay marriage at a time when the future of our country is at stake. I just don't understand it, other than it's become so much about power it makes me ill. I'm not the biggest Kerry fan either, but Bush as driven a wedge through the US and among the nations of the world unlike any other leader we've had. 

Peace.


Well, one more parting shot:

I read this little blurb about Leadership and Moral Convictions, and I think some of you will find it interesting.


*A taxonomy of positions on Vietnam: *

_Category A: Exhibiting the strength of ones moral convictions._ Supported the war and served in Vietnam (John Kerry, John McCain) Opposed the war and served in Vietnam because it would have been unfair to force someone less fortunate to take ones place (Al Gore) Opposed the war and dedicated oneself to anti-war movement at some personal risk, including conscientious objection. (This position is not as dangerous as serving in a war, but it is nevertheless just as moral. The war was evil. Putting oneself at legal and physical risk as many did to try to end this evil strikes me as an unimpeachable moral position, though given Americas political culture, it would also be untenable for any contemporary presidential candidate to hold.) 

_Category B: Exhibiting the strength of ones moral convictions after protecting ones posterior _Opposed the war, protected self, and then worked for anti-war movement (Bill Clinton) This position seems to me to be the minimum necessary to consider oneself a moral being. Risking ones person for ones principles is a lot to ask for most of us, but the least one could ask is that if we identify an evil that is literally killing people, our peers included, one lifts a proverbial finger to stop it, say, by working for the presidential candidacies of Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern. 

_Category C: Having no convictions to protect save self-protection _Opposed the war, protected self, let others worry about it (Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman) This is the position of those who merely opted out of the question, accepted their college deferments and went on with their lives and did not feel any sense of responsibility for their peers and countrymen. 

_Category D: Contradicting ones alleged convictions in the service of protecting ones posterior _Supported the war, preferred to let others fight and die for it (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney) This seems to me to be the least defensible position imaginable. Bush and Cheney both used their privileged positions to protect themselves; Cheney says he did it because he had other priorities. Bush says he did it because he wanted to better himself by learning to fly planes. Whether he deserted his post or notand I think he did-- it is incontrovertible that he wasted the governments million dollar investment in his training by allowing his qualifications to lapse while he was still supposed to be on active duty. (And what if during this period, the Guard was actually needed, if say, Oklahoma had invaded Texas?) 

One day, historians will attempt to explain just how two men who fall in category D somehow made the election about the moral rectitude of a man who fell into category A not once but twice. We have to admit this. This Rove feller really is a genius. Just when you thought the media couldnt be any more irresponsible, he proved it had even more to give. (Most journalists today of the proper age, I imagine, fall into category B or C, with a significant number in D and a tiny, tiny minority in A.)


----------



## Arn (Nov 8, 2003)

I believe Clark responded to this quote about volcanoe emission being responsible for Greenshouse/Ozone gases, which I would like to expand upon. This topic is a favorite with the "Rush powered Republicans".

I worked at NOAA for the group who monitored greenhouse gases, but am not a chemist. The volcano theory which is a favorite with Rush Limbaugh is seriously flawed . He took this idea form a book which was written by a former head of the EPA under Bush I or Reagen. She was not a chemist either, but she was a Zoologist. The major problem with her theory is that Volcanos actual emit a fixed CL2 gas that is too heavy and stable to be transmitted to the altitude where the actual destruction of the ozone occurs, instead of Cl- which is needed to actual destroy Ozone. The Cl- that does destroy Ozone is transmitted by a much lighter CFC or HCFC molecule (Freon), which becomes unstable when the temperature reaches minus 60F, which occurs above 60,000 feet in the Arctic and Antartic regions. It would take a Supererruption to transmit CL2 gases high enough to even reach the Ozone layer, which has certainly not occured in many years not to mention that it is a very stable molecule. This was all confirmed with high altitude flights with instruments aboard a U-2 and published under a peer reviewed article in Nature. Her book had no peer review or scientific data to support her theories. Watch what you believe when you listen to Rush! There are plenty more of his theories to contest!!


----------



## MBK (Apr 6, 2004)

*H2o-*



> The next thing I expect to hear is that it is Bush's fault that we are getting pummeled with hurricanes. Oh wait, I am sure that it is global warming. It has nothing to do with the cycles of the earth though. Im sure Bush is just doing it just so he can give away the contract to rebuild Florida and the rest of the Gulf Coast to Chaney's company.


For starters, this is a ridiculous and pointless statement.



> Do you think that the economy can be blamed on Bush? Bush gave the Democrats about half of what they wanted in the form or programs and the other crap that you are blaming him for.



Those "programs and other crap" would translate into: Health care, $ for proper education for urban and very rural schools, welfare, social security, medicare, women's rights, and environmental problems. These are not crap or silly little programs. These issues affect the majority of the people in the United States and if you don't view them as valid and not crap then... if the name fits, wear it. 





> I for one have made a lot of money in the stock market. If it was that bad would that be the case? Unemployment is lower than it has been in quite a while. I know... they are low paying jobs. Well, suck it up and take a job if you dont have one. You can make a decision to make your own fortune or you can sit there and wait for some demoract program to take care of you.


Ah, another stellar comment! You really shine in this one. Put nicely, you are refering to what was once known as the "American Dream". This was the idea that you could show up at Ellis Island and could then pull yourself up by your boot straps and make it in America. Newsflash, America today isn't remotely what it once was. It no longer enables people to pull themselves out of poverty by their bootstraps. You should look at U.S. history and analyze that. That is what my grandfathers did and I know that this "dream" is almost extinct.





> Do you care if someone doesnt like you? Who cares if they hate us? All they have to do is respect us and (how dare I say this) fear us. Who does everyone come to when they need assistance? I am sure they put their personal feelings aside in order to get help. Like it or not we are the big brother to every deserving country and some that dont deserve it. Doesnt the world deserve to be protected from tyrants and dictators.


Well, I don't know if you could come across anymore ethnocentic and egocentric. You are a prefect example of what kind of American the world loves to hate. Good thing it doesn't bother you. But if you ever want to travel outside of the U.S. I seriously suggest you keep this attitude to yourself, for all of our sakes. 




> The only fair way to do taxes is a flat tax.


I am interested, how this would exactly work and on what research you used to come to this "great" decision? 


-MBK

"Somewhere in Texas there is a village missing an idiot"


----------



## Lil Casey (Jun 18, 2004)

Never trust a man who doesn't believe in evolution. Damn retard thinks the earth is only 10,000 years old.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Mission accomplished. Maybe someone learned something in the past 48 hours. I dont care what they learned or which side of the isle they are on, but they were interested enough to open the post and that is what counts. For the last time, I just want people to quit accepting the words or others and finding out for themselves. If you go into your doctor and he tells you that your leg is going to fall off in the morning but you feel fine and have no pain, are you just going accept that and run out and throw away one of each of your shoes or are you going to get a 2nd opinion?


I am not saying that the education programs are crap programs. What I am saying is that you got part of what you wanted and you still are blaming Bush for doing nothing. We spend way to much on Educ. as it is. It has nothing to do with the money given to them they are still producing lower standards of education. Look at my grammer and spelling. For Christ's sakes, they want to do away with grades. How is that going to help.

Why is it up to the other people of our contry to take care of the people who dont want to work. I started out on the other side of the tracks in a small town in Kansas (let the Dorthy jokes begin) and I have been able to make something of myself whithout ever even going to college. What is stopping those people from doing the same thing? The only person that can make something out of nothing is the one that trys. I could sit around and feel sorry for myself and do nothing or I can go and do what it takes to get the job done. That is what the people back in the day did, what is stopping you? Thats right, YOU are.

I do travel and I have never heard a bad thing said about the US. Maybe it is becuase I am 6'2" 225 and they are scared or maybe things arent as bad as you say. I have never had anyone ask me what my opinions on the things we are talking about. Instead the ask me about some things that have seen here and what is it like. That is soon followed by "man I would like to go and see that sometime".

How is everyone paying the same % unfair. Why should the rich pay for the poor? What did they do to deserve that intitlement? If you need some work done on your house do you go over to your neighbor (who makes more money than you) and ask him to pay for it? I doubt he would and neither would you. I am tired of all of the programs that keep people in the position that they are in just because it is there. Why go and work when I can just sit here and get a check int he mail. Take a little responsiblity for yourself and quit asking for a handout. A national sales tax would be my selection if I had a choice. No more handouts, deal with it.

Enough fun for one election. Off to Idaho... see ya on the river. Dont be afraid to talk to me, I dont bite and you might even like me. Unless you are so shallow that you cant even talk to someone that has another opinion... I would never force my opinion on someone, i just like to discuss things and unlike some, I listen.

THE END


----------



## Livingston (Jan 8, 2004)

*on to the environment, Kyoto...*

73 countries have become signatories to this pact [BBC]. Nearly all countries have ratified the pact including Japan and all 15 European Union states. In 2001 the United States provoked widespread international criticism by rejecting the Kyoto protocol [BBC] as soon as President Bush was inaugurated. 

The US refused to sign the treaty, arguing that its economic interests would be threatened [BBC]. The US also opposed the Bonn refinement of Kyoto because of the cost to US business of Kyoto's prescriptions on the reduction of environmentally harmful emissions which contribute to climate change. 

"Under the Protocol, the U.S. is supposed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by seven percent. *With four percent of the world's population, the country accounts for about 25 percent of the Earth's greenhouse gas emissions*. 
European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström says 'But this ignorant, short sighted and selfish politician, long since firmly jammed into the pockets of the oil lobby, clearly couldn't care less. The talks in Bonn in July must now concentrate on world action independent of the U.S.' " 

Lycos NewsWASHINGTON, DC, March 28, 2001 (ENS) )
US pulls out of Kyoto Protocol

"George W Bush has ... walked away from his international obligations, tearing up international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and ABM treaty, which, however imperfect, have helped bring peace and environmental protection. The least we can say is that he has embarked on a dangerous journey. Why? 

The answer is corporate payback. This has been the defining trait of President Bush's administration. His election was a straightforward capitalist venture for the energy corporations. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies are the power behind Bush; together, they donated more than $50 million dollars to put him in the White House. As soon as he was elected, it was payback time and Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions dead and buried. 

The message was: 'US corporations have the right to pollute the entire planet. The people and the environment don't matter.'" 

-America the Unbeautiful 

President Bush on the Kyoto Protocol said that "This is the American position because it's right for America" and, just to make the point clear, he added: 

"We will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America"

So there you go h2oxtc, you want this puppet who tells the rest of the world to f_ck off to be in control of either foriegn or environmental policy?


----------



## Mountain (Oct 11, 2003)

You can argue with the ULTRA IGNORANT tell you are blue in the face....
What we need is true change, and organization. In our country, just like on this form the MAJORITY seems to be against Bush...... If this election turns out to be like the last and the person with the most popular votes looses WE THE PEOPLE have a civic duty to our country to not just roll over and accept another 4 years of hell.... WHAT CAN YOU & I DO to help institute these changes.... Maby thats what we should be discussing
Peace & Love with lots of POWDER to the people!!!!
MM


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

:!: :!: POWDER TO THE PEOPLE :!: :!: 

H20, I wish I could say I was goin to Idaho right now. I gotta admit though, I knew you didn't go to college, it shows. Do yourself a favor and listen to what these guys are saying on here.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

> A national sales tax would be my selection if I had a choice. No more handouts, deal with it.


Again- a guy who make $8 an hour ($16,800 per year) has to buy food, toilet paper, and all th necessities in life just like the wealthy guy. If his fridge dies on him, he has to replace that. Let's say you're taxing everyone the same percentage (example: 20%), sure the guy making $200k a year kicks more money into the coffers when he goes to buy his Hummer, but the guy down at the local Wendy's gets a significantly larger hit (as a percentage of his income on the things he has to buy) than does Mr Hummer. 

New fridge cost to Mr. Wendys: $500. 
Tax on that item: $100.
Percentage of his monthly take-home pay: 8%

New fridge cost to Mr. Hummer: $500.
Tax on that item: $100.
Percentage of his monthly take-home pay: 0.6%

That's why a Flat Sales Tax is a disproportionately unfair system - over 133 times more impact. Both have to have a new fridge because the old one broke, but the Mr. Wendy's get slammed with that tax on everything he buys. How's he going to make it from the other side of the tracks with taht burden? Same with a Flat Income Tax. 

Plus, Mr. Hummer ain't paying income taxes, so he may be prudent on his luxury items, but he's taking home a lot more because his tax rate is no longer 36%. Of course he could really afford that all along, and managed to legally avoid paying too much of that income tax by taking advantage for deferred savings programs that earn interest. [Factoid: The top 1 percent reported $403 billion in Gross Adjusted Income, and paid $100 billion of that taxes -- an effective rate of 25 percent - that's less as a percentage than I paid last year.] Meanwhile, Mr Wendys can't save a dime because every little thing he has to have to survive gets taxed. 

I do agree that our Welfare system needs overhaul. However, there are enormous far reaching and historically significant reasons we got to where we are now -fostering a small (8% of GDP by most estimates) welfare-dependent segment of our society. You can't flip a switch and make that all go away. You also tend to hear about the most egregious violations of welfare policy (thanks, Media), but in actuality a sound welfare program has historically reduced poverty. Odd, huh? http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm

Enjoy Idaho. Remember- just cause your parents voted Republican doesn't mean you have to.


----------



## akahn (Jan 28, 2004)

*El Flaco*

Hey El Flaco - can I buy you a beer?


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

Nah- I don't drink anymore.




Then again, I don't drink any less. So... you bet.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

My parents are voting for Kerry. They only watch the major tv stations like you guys.

Like I said, why do we, have to pay for the poor? Yes, I said it, WE. I just want an answer why, not the rhetoric about how unfair that it would be to pay your fair share. I want ot take care of myself and not the guy down the block. If he wants a handout, I will send him to you. You apparently dont have a problem with giving your money away. I for one work hard for what I have and no one has the right to take it from me so they can go and buy beer and cigarettes instead of food for their kids. I know this is heartless but I really dont care. I am looking out for my family and myself. Try it, you may not be so bitter about things you obviously dont understand.

Welcome to the Welfare States of America

Bring us your poor and we will support them. Bring us the rich and will take what you have to pay for the poor. Sounds a lot like Robin Hood doesnt it. It was good to be the king until the first liberal slithered onto the scene. Thanks Robin ;(

Boy, this is a pain in the ass to do on the road. But to have you wet your pants with anger is so worth it.

I will rejoin you in about 2 weeks to see what else you have to say. For now, I need to rest my arms for some paddling.


----------



## MBK (Apr 6, 2004)

H2o-


> I am not saying that the education programs are crap programs. What I am saying is that you got part of what you wanted and you still are blaming Bush for doing nothing. We spend way to much on Educ. as it is. It has nothing to do with the money given to them they are still producing lower standards of education.


So it was just the other programs? Oh and since when has education been properly funded? You obviosly don't have any children. Nor have you really looked into this problem.



> For Christ's sakes, they want to do away with grades. How is that going to help.



Dude, where do you get this stuff?!




> What is stopping those people from doing the same thing? The only person that can make something out of nothing is the one that trys. I could sit around and feel sorry for myself and do nothing or I can go and do what it takes to get the job done. That is what the people back in the day did, what is stopping you? Thats right, YOU are.


OH, ok. I had no idea it was that easy. (sarcasim) Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but you make it kind of easy.




> I do travel and I have never heard a bad thing said about the US. Maybe it is becuase I am 6'2" 225 and they are scared or maybe things arent as bad as you say. I have never had anyone ask me what my opinions on the things we are talking about. Instead the ask me about some things that have seen here and what is it like. That is soon followed by "man I would like to go and see that sometime".


There are lots of people who like Americans because they understand that there is a difference between the American people and American politicians. However, I have spent a lot of time in Europe and I have seen a lot of anti-American grafitti and have experienced negative attitudes when I opened my mouth and it was clear where I was from. 



> How is everyone paying the same % unfair. Why should the rich pay for the poor? What did they do to deserve that intitlement? If you need some work done on your house do you go over to your neighbor (who makes more money than you) and ask him to pay for it? I doubt he would and neither would you. I am tired of all of the programs that keep people in the position that they are in just because it is there. Why go and work when I can just sit here and get a check int he mail.


This attitude of yours is a perfect example of what is wrong in American society today. Too many people are all about themselves and don't see why the less fortunate should receive any state or federal subsidies. This attitude reminds me of a 3 year old who won't share his toys with the rest of the children whose parents couldn't afford to by them the toy."Mine, mine, mine, mine,mine!!!!"



> Unless you are so shallow that you cant even talk to someone that has another opinion... I would never force my opinion on someone, i just like to discuss things and unlike some, I listen.


Ok man, have fun in Idaho. If you don't bite maybe your sign off should be less agressive. In any case, thanks for the debate.
-MBK


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

OK, I can't resist jumping into the fray any longer...

As I've said before, it wasn't God, guts, and guns that made the USA a great nation. In the early days it was the boundless resources that allowed us to build our infrastructure and provide mass education to the citizenry. Things were going strong in the early 20th Century, and through collective bargaining, millions of lives were improved as workers gained a just share, in wages and benefits, of corporate profits, while gaining the biggest pro-family measure in history - the 40 hour workweek. Then came a pillar of our prosperity - after WWII we were propelled into the superpower we by an economy manned by a whole generation educated by the GI Bill. In the last century we built the world's greatest transportation, and communication infrastructures and created extensive and safe food, water, and power distribution systems; we made enormous strides in widespread public health and academic research which all vastly improved the quality of life for a historically unprecidented portion of our society. The investments, much funded with taxpayer dollars, made in the first part of the 20th Century have paid enormous dividends in the latter. If you were born a white, middle-class American with half a brain in the latter half of the 20th Century, you're part of the largest demographic group in history with opportunity to advance far beyond your roots - upward mobility is just waiting for a little effort on your part.

So now that we've made ourselves so prosperous, we've forgotten as a people what its like to have to depend on a neighbor to get through hard times. When we see a panhandler, we've forgotten that "there but for the grace of God, there go I." Our nation has forgotten that you need the long view, past the next quarter's profits, and must continue to reinvest in society to sustain progress and prosperity. We have been taught by the media and the marketing machine that material goods (gods?) will satisfy everything from our momentary desire for novelty to the deepest cravings of our worst despair. As a nation we suffer from "affluenza," and are dying spiritually from complications brought on by "consumption."

The CEOs that make up the leadership of the Republican Party are men of affluence, influence, and a well nurtured sense of entitlement, the rest of us be damned. The short term profit is the end-all for the CEO and the mentality that drives their actions isn't in the least bit concerned with what's best for the nation, the public welfare, or the planet unless there's an boost to the corporate bottom line in sight. When this quarter's financials are being rolled up, they'd happily kill a goose that laid a golden egg every month if they could sell the meat for the price of two of those eggs. The black-tie and cocktail hour set running the Republican Party are just be a refined version of the guys making payday loans and issuing 25% credit cards. Now they've learned that with polyester flag patriotism, manufactured down-home talk, and by preaching high morality they can manipulate common God-fearing folk and actually gain a majority vote from the same people who get screwed by the policies they advance. 

If you think that Kerry's no better than W and that you might as well sit out this election, you better think again. Even if you consider the Democrats to be the lesser of two evils remember that for now they're the only choice we've got. At least the Dems actually do something for the environment, education for all, using tax dollars to rebuild our nation's infrastructure and create jobs here instead of tax breaks that'll be spent on Chinese appliances or German cars. The Dems support a woman's option to choose, using diplomacy and outreach rather than arm twisting and coercion to gain support of other nations, and holding in check the less virtuous mechanations of men driven to make a buck off the next sucker that walks down the street (who may just be YOU). The only lip service that you'll get from the Republicans on these and many other issues that improve the lives of the average American was be summed up concisely by what Cheney said when pressed about Halliburton's sweetheart deals - "go F_ck yourself."

If you think that the CEOs will bring business savvy and competence to government, just look at the Iraq financials - the Bush administration's more than 300% over the budget they said they'd need before the war to knock off Saddam and make democracy flourish in the Middle East. If you think that W is an honest and upright man who is consistent, ask yourself whether a consistently wrong approach is what this country needs. Bush may profess idealistic intentions but he's surrounded himself with a bunch of Neoconservative screwballs who are leading us into perpetual low-intensity war abroad. The distinguished tall white men in suits have completely botched the war and ensuing occupation and we're heading for a Vietnam in sandland. Kicking the hive is not how you make yourself safe after being stung by a few bees. 

So get off the couch and make sure you're registered to vote, then go do it on election day or take a few minutes today so you can stamp an absentee ballot on your own coffee table and bring about regime change at home. While you're voting, just remember that a President Kerry will need a Democratic congress to reverse the damage done during the tenure of Bush the Younger and you ain't going to get that by voting Green or for Independent candidates. If you think one vote won't count, remember that Bush won Florida by less than 600 votes, Colo. Republican congressman Bob Bearprez won by 120 votes, and many other races across the country have been won by less than a couple of hundred votes.

Nov. 2, 2004. Get out there and vote.

Now here's a little fable that came to me over the 'net recently that tells the story in a different way:

A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican 

by Donna L. Lavins and Sheldon Cotler 

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his 
pot with good, clean drinking water because some liberal fought for 
minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication while the coffee's brewing. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. 

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan. Because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too along with a weekend and 40 hour work week. He prepares his morning breakfast -- bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to 
regulate the meat packing industry. 

Joe takes his morning shower, reaching for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and its relative amount contained because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and the breakdown of its contents. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree-hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives millions the ability to get to work on time whether they can afford a car or not. 

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with good pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer meets these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union or the Department of Labor, not out of kindness. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get worker's compensation or an unemployment check because some liberal 
didn't think he should loose his home to temporary misfortune.

It's noon time. Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system and helped bring on the ravages of the great depression. 

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. 

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by the Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification where the populaton wasnt dense enough to bring a hefty profit to the utilities (those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark). 

Joe is happy to see his dad, who is now retired. Joe's dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad, Joe gets back in his car for the ride home. He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives. After all, I'm a 
self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have." 

In the years to come, Joe's life may change dramatically. The U.S. dollar could be devalued as a result of our huge deficit, our living standards reduced to that of the average Wal-Mart employee's, our standing with the world diminished with our former allies deserting us, and our social security gone...all because some conservative Republicans made sure made they took care of themselves and their affluent buddies. 

Peace,

--Andy


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

I guess the lesson in this thread is that folks who are uniformed (from both sides of the aisle) will always bring propaganda into a conversation instead of *facts.* Sorry, H20, you have to bring something better than than "I don't want to give handouts". Because here's a little tip: Republicans give the largest handouts around. They're called _subsidies_, and they cost you so much more money than welfare fraud it should make you sick. Every time we sell public lands to mining companies for pennies per acre, or we spend tax dollars to build 1000's of miles of roads (at a cost of about $25K per mile) so that timber companies can take our natural resources at fire prices, who's paying for those handout? Yep- you are. Who do you think is paying the tab on the Enron bailout? Same.

If you would like to engage in a debate, bring some facts- I've had Republican friends change my mind about minimum wage standards and outsourcing jobs, because they brought up convincing arguments that made economic sense and were without rhetoric. I'm not seeing it in this case.


----------



## MBK (Apr 6, 2004)

*so remember to vote*

Well folks, 

I have truly enjoyed reading and responding to this dicussion. For those of you who weren't going to vote in this election I really hope that you change your mind. There are several swing states, especially in the West, and your vote could very well create change for our Nation. So, take care everyone and remember to keep those calendars clear on November 2. After that, bring on the POWDER!!!!!!!


Take care,
MBK


----------



## Id725 (Nov 22, 2003)

Andy, you're so awesome.
Think I met you in Salida once. Hope I get to boat with you some day.
Nice job, everybody. Let's all go create a change for the better Nov. 2.


----------



## mountainbuns (Feb 19, 2004)

*Re: El Flaco*



akahn said:


> Hey El Flaco - can I buy you a beer?


i want to buy you a beer too ! 

Oh wait, just checked your profile, didn't even realize it is you Josh!! :wink: 

Well still I'd buy you a beer - awesome posts, thanks for the great info and informed argument. Are you guys going to Mexico this year? I was considering Mexico this year, but decided Costa Rica in Nov instead. Seriously, if you get up to Boulder sometime soon give me a holler, would be good to see you and your crew again, and I will buy you a beer. Cheers.
-claire


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*hmmmmmmmmmm*

Well, I got to say I'm a kayaking gun-toting Republican who will probably vote for GW instead of Kerry. Sometimes it's better the devil you know than the one you don't. But that being said...Kerry talks in circular rhetoric with no clearly defined ideas on how he would fix things. GW isn't the best President we've had, but he is decisive. He makes a decision and sticks to it come Hell or high-water.

I guess you can ask yourself one question before you decide to vote... Who would Al-Qaida vote for?

Remember, freedom has a price, and those of you lame-azzes who never served in the military will ever understand that.


----------



## ToddG (Nov 29, 2003)

Just a guess here, but Al Qaida would probably vote for W. seeing as it was his administration's massive security failure that allowed the 9/11 tragedy. And since his administration has successfully diverted global attention away from Al Qaida & Bin Laden in lieu of their complete failure to actually do something positive to capture them "dead or alive" ... Right on, Tex ...

I gotta know why you, as a vet, would back a Commander whose a silver spoon baby, who never saw a day of combat, who's a failed CEO that drove every enterprise he's ever been affiliated with into the ground, who's been under fraud investigation by the SEC, & who's had a history of drug & alcohol abuse ... that's comedy .. I mean "security" ...

PS, I likes guns too ...


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

MVHyde,

You are probably just trolling but here it goes anyway..........

Do you really think we are fighting "terrorism" in Iraq? Do you really think that Osama and the Al Qaida(sp?) are afraid of GW? Can you truely say that the U.S. invading Iraq was a matter of are freedom being taken away from the U.S. people? 

Now I know that I am just a lame ass (according to you) but I just can't seem to grasp the real reason as to why U.S. soldiers are getting killed in Iraq. Is it really to protect our freedom or is it a great way for GW and company to make some more money on oil? Before you answer this, MVHYDE, try to think for yourself. 

BTW- Before you insult everybody you should make sure to back up what you say with a little bit of intelligence. Just because some of us haven't been in the military doesn't mean that we don't respect everything the military people are doing and have done for the U.S.

The last statement you made came from somewhere deep inside of you where it is obviously very painful...I forgive you and I'm sorry for you. Just remember that most people really do appreciate what you have done for this country. When people are protesting a war they aren't protesting YOUR actions...they are protesting the actions of the people who command YOU to do what THEY want. 

Nobody once in this forum topic ever insulted the actual U.S. men and women fighting in the Mid East. We didn't insult you so why do you insult us?


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*well...*

Trolling wasn't what I was doing per se...however. one thing I do notice in society in general (not just in here) is this seemingly inherent trait of people to want to fix blame on one individual for the woes of the country and the world at large. 

More than once I have seen in here that GW is to blame for the economy, loss of jobs, terrorism, wars, dictators, failed banks and businesses, etc. I really wish someone would enlighten me as to how one man can be so responsible for all of this? I would think him to be a very busy president indeed.

I have seen and heard everything in the way of every deep dark conspiracy theory when it comes to our current CinC. Most of it is laughable, a lot of it is sad. Sad in the fact that it shows the ignorance of those who purport it to be true. But then that is something the rest of the world has come to expect of Americans, their ignorance.

The world will never be wired into some kind of Utopian dreamland. There are not men/women running around constantly in the shadows plotting to undermine your rights, steal your money, stealing elections, etc. You're never going to have a perfect environmental policy. Big businesses are not suddenly going to become these big generous benefactors, they're in business for one thing...to make money.

A President may have some weight when it comes to influencing sectors of society, but not that much weight to influence a complete outcome. If you really believe John Kerry can fix it, then vote for him. Personally, I think all politicians are worthless trash who should receive their retroactive abortions ex post facto. Most are lawyers. Have you ever noticed how closely similar Lawyer & Liar are?

I am a vet and damned proud of it. I feel for those serving right now in indian country. It sucks, but one thing has to be remembered: They took an oath, they gave up their freedom to defend our freedom in whatever manner the President deems fit. War sucks, it truly does. But the type of evil the people we are fighting would endeavor to bring upon us is something you cannot imagine. 9/11 was a wake-up call. This world is different now. It reaches for a new polarization. Last time it was Capitalism -vs- Communism/Socialism, now we're back to our good old standby, religion, Christianity -vs- Islam with Israel thrown into the mix. We both view each other as fanatics. So it will be interesting whomever gets elected this year. They will have their hands full.

GW served, maybe not in combat, but he served. Even if he did have a few strings pulled to move around, it's nothing no serviceman/woman hasn't tried or done before. One hand washes the other so to speak.

And to now address Iraq/terrorism. Yes we are there to fight terrorism. We went to get WMD and depose an evil tyrant. We got half right. Usama is scared, you're damned right he's scared. He may still issue a few orders and make a few plans, but what has he really succeeded at lately?

Marko, I hate to say this, but you're totally clueless. I'd suggest you go there and get some experience before opening your mouth about something you have no clue about, but then I'd feel really bad if you went and got your head cut off. My TO was the middle east for 16 years, primarily Lebanon (Beka Valley), Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I'm not saying this administration has or had a good understanding of it pre or post 9/11 either. You cannot grasp the situation until you are on the ground and in the shit.

We have a mess over there right now. But the other edge of the sword is the potential mess that would have happened sooner or later given the individual and his crew of pyschopaths. There are bad things out there you do not want to experience.


----------



## wycoloboater (Nov 18, 2003)

Mvhyde,

You have interesting views and I thank you for your service in the military as I believe all people do on this site, but you are mistaken in many ways. 

First off, 


> More than once I have seen in here that GW is to blame for the economy, loss of jobs, terrorism, wars, dictators, failed banks and businesses, etc. I really wish someone would enlighten me as to how one man can be so responsible for all of this?


You are right, sort of, that the President is not the sole reason for our problems right now, but he is a major influence on all of those. Senators and representatives have a say in what is done in government and we should place our votes to influence what is done in congress, but that takes hundreds of votes to change all the congress men and women and by voting for President we as the people of this land are able to directly influence what is said, done in government with one election. 

Actually a quick review of basic civics will answer your question: Someone proposes a bill or a law, a senator sponsors that law and it is placed on the floor. After debate and ratification on the floor, the senate votes on the bill, if the bill passes it then goes to the House of Representatives and they do the same thing. Eventually, if the bill makes it through both houses and is agreed upon by both houses it goes to the big man on the hill, your president. Mr. GW then has the daunting task of either signing the bill, thus making it law or he can veto that bill. Now, just for fun, lets say he vetos the bill, Congress then has the opportunity to overturn the veto by a 2/3rds vote. That isn't just a 2/3 vote in the house or in the senate, but a vote of 2/3 in the entire congressional branch, both the house and the senate have to vote 2/3 in favor of the bill. Due to the nature of our congressional system this is very, very difficult to do. The result is that our President has a disproportionate amount of power in our system of checks and balances; thus one vote, by you, can change the way our government acts.

Now that was just one part of your question, as for the rest, the President, your Commander in Chief, is the man who sends you to war, decides where you are going to die in the name of some cause that you probably don't care about. I support our troops, but I don't support the reason our troops, my friends, your peers, are dying in Iraq. We are fighting a war for a man who is selfish, ignorant, and trying to make Daddy proud of him by winning a war that his father couldn't win.

Now, as to one of your previous statements:


> Kerry talks in circular rhetoric with no clearly defined ideas on how he would fix things. GW isn't the best President we've had, but he is decisive. He makes a decision and sticks to it come Hell or high-water.


This circular rhetoric you speak of is called Presidential campaign rhetoric, it is what needs to be said to win the election. Because of our wonderful diverse nation, it is impossible to be elected by saying what exactly you would do in office and win an election. Too many people would disagree and no one would win a majority of the electoral college votes. Campaign rhetoric wins elections, it won Bush the election in 2000, sort of, and it will be the reason either Bush or Kerry win this year. The only reason you can say Bush makes decisions and sticks to them is because he has had a term in office and is able to apply his campaign rhetoric to the Presidency. Circular rhetoric is the way of the campaign and the winning way. [/quote]

Just my thoughts, hope I was able to answer your questions - Vote 2004

Zach.


----------



## jeffro (Oct 13, 2003)

h2oxtc,
What is your great unbiased news source. you got to share the goods on that man. great stuff.


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*I don't know about all that.....*

I don't believe the President is trying to make 'Daddy' proud. I honestly believe suppositions like that are pure fantasy by the disenfranchised left. Removing Saddam was the right thing to do in any case. It sucks we're still in there trying to play policeman, but staying the course is the only option now. 

The only alternative engaging the world (peacefully or otherwise) is isolationism, a failed policy pre-WWII that proved just how dangerous it is to follow. The lesson we learned from that is that you have to follow through. The constraints the Allied governments placed upon Germany and other nations post-WWI, followed by isolationist policies, sowed the seeds of facisim, which in turn set-up the conflagration of WWII. 

By not getting rid of Saddam the first time and following through with the popular support we had in the Shia areas of Iraq, we enabled him to continue a brutal course and threw away all credibility we had gained with the native Iraqis. Hence our major pains in gaining control in what was once friendly territory. I remember being on the ground somewhere in indian country when news of the ceasefire and withdrawl hit. There were a lot of angry and scared Iraqis, and rightfully so. Why did we stop then? because France, Germany, etc etc. didn't think it was a good idea.

Lesson in facts for you. During the gap between conflicts in Iraq, France & Germany were the biggest suppliers of weapons and ammunition and material for manufacturing WMD components. Germany and France had the largest oil contracts out of any nations with the Iraqi government (wonder why they opposed the war so much?). France was covertly helping Saddam's nuclear power program to bring it back online. The mobile chemical weapons labs found in Tikrit and Mosel were in fact made with Germany's support and technology, nevermind the fact that Germany has signed a treaty to 'never' manufacture such equipment, let alone make it and export it.

Intelligence is dubious at best at times. Based on what intel we did have pre-war (which was deemed reliable at the time) we were more than justified to go in. But the better question is, even if there are no WMD (though small amouts have been found in the form of artillery shells), do we morally have an obligation to remove a brutal dictatorship? I think yes, and I think that with that yes, comes a cost. Sometimes that cost is paid in lives of those we love. A decision to send troops into harm's way is never an easy moment for any commander, from the President on down to the lowliest field commander. It's not easy. It's not without great consideration, remorse, or regret. The consequences of having to write that letter to some troop's parents about what a brave and good soldier they were is one of the harest things I personally know of to do. You live the remainder of your life wondering how you might have done things differently on the battlefield. If you think for one moment that the President is getting a little older and a little grayer each day because of this, I think you must be blind and gravely delusional.

Insofar as the President's influence on the Senate and Congress, yes he has a bit there, they are mostly Republicans. But they're their own creatures and highly unpredictable. Kerry will do one thing for sure, he'll raise taxes. Outside of that, I think he'll be a lot like Clinton, talk a good game, but basically do little (except maybe keep his pecker in his pants). Our current President isn't all that bad when you really look at the big picture. He's made good and bad decisions. His daddy now was a whole different can of worms. I'd vote for Fidel Castro before I'd vote for Geo. Senior. George senior was one evil mutha, going way back before most of the people who will read this were born.

syotr.... yea! we got big flows in Durangoworld


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

The issue seems to come down to your view of the role of the government. 

From my experience, growing up poor right next to Harlem in NYC, working my ass off for 30 years, now being successful and rich, and having seen much along the way, I think that the free market economic system is not very fair. We are moving in the direction of a class society--one with less incentive. 

I don't think you can say one approach is more right or fair. The free market is as arbitrary as anything else. Choose an approach that works best. We want a society where there is opportunity for all and where there is incentive. 

The main reason I was successful is good public schools. Now, with taxes so low, public schools are awful. When we changed our child to a private school, I was amazed at the improvement in teaching quality. Not a good sign. 

If we increase our total spending on schools from 1.5% of our economy to 3%, the investment will more than pay off with a stronger economy in 20 years and a more knowledgeable society. It seems like a no brainer to me. I don't get it. 

I am bothered that the Republicans seem to be run by people who haven't seen all of America, and that they look for simple solutions, and seem to be running based on fear. 

I'm amazed that people believe so much of what the Republicans are saying. Why don't people see all the distortions?


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

Hey stiff, 

While I tend to agree with your view of the right wing, I'm surprised by what you say about opportunity and incentive. 

Can you explain why you think the current system has limited opportunity and incentive when you went from poor to rich as a result of hard work? 

Thanks.


----------



## JJH (Oct 14, 2003)

I personally find this election as most presidentail elections very difficult. As a young entrepreneur I have business beliefs that can be supported by the Right. As a young young outdoor enthusiast/open minded human being I have personal moral beliefs that can be supported by the left. I can't even begin to believe what I hear or read in the media. 
I always try to remeber there are Facts, Theories and Opionions. Which can be brought into and out of every argument/discussion. Deciphering which is which is the hard part.
I want to reitereate a point made earlier, we need to really support our local governments to help make the most changes. 
Did everyone on this post who is so upset about GW, vote in the recent local elections? Voting in the Presidential election is very important, but I feel locally is more important. Why aren't people more fired up about our senators and local councils? 
Attached are some good local websites to get your own information to gain your own opionions, as we all have our own agendas. Wether it is the bling-bling, secuirty, education, enviornment, revenge for lost ones,

if you are a moderate Republican, an unaffiliated voter or a Democrat you might learn something and be able to support our local governement to make a change that you want.

www.thismatters.org and www.wakeupcolorado.org


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*just go out and vote... Free Markets rock*

A free market system isn't supposed to be fair. If it were, we'd be socialists or communists with a mild outbreak of capitalist acne. This is one of my pet peeves and you hit a nerve. No one, not any system, or government owes you a damned thing in life. It's all about survival of the fit. What you have, you should bloody well earn in life, and not the contrary. If you want to live in a welfare state, move to Canada or the UK or Cuba.

An individual in this country is or should be responsible for their own state of affairs in life. They're responsible for their own success, and if they think the system beats them down, then their game plan was weak to start with.

This is the one greatest freedom we have over any nation in the world, the right to self-determination, the right to choose to win, or choose to lose, or choose to fight another day and win. If you want to see a great nation that screwed itself up with a socialized state, go to the UK. They've ruined their country with socialism, heavy taxation, and failed immgration policies.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

*Comparing apples and oranges*

MVHYDE - It is always difficult when you use examples of failed (socialist) countries. Perhaps the UK failed because the empire collapsed and the country was no longer able to support itself by exploiting the colonies. Hmmm, the support of colonies bleeding a country dry. Sounds like Iraq.

Survival of the fittest. So you think if someone suffers misfortune, say for instance a spinal chord injury, this person should just be left to die? Their game plan somehow was inadequate? And if this person were you? We need some sort of common decency or we are just animals.

It is great to see boaters discussing politics. talk abouit a panel of experts! Har.

VOTE

s


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

> I guess you can ask yourself one question before you decide to vote... Who would Al-Qaida vote for?


*From the International Herald-Tribune: *

"The newspaper, Al Quds al Arabi, which is based in London, said on its Web site that it had received a statement from the group, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, in which the group reiterated its responsibility for bombings, which killed 201 people and wounded more than 1,600.
"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections," it said.

Addressing Bush, it said: "We know that a heavyweight operation would destroy your government, and this is what we don't want. We are not going to find a bigger idiot than you." The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world. Comparing Bush with his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, the statement tells the president, "Actually, there is no difference between you and Kerry, but Kerry will kill our community, while it is unaware, because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish infidelity and present it to the Arab and Islamic community as civilization." 
The group also repeated its claim of responsibility for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad last August, when 22 people were killed, including the UN's chief envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
.
The statement described the United Nations as "America's tail."

_Source:_ http://www.iht.com/articles/510898.html

In other words, it doesn't matter to extremists- they going to come at us either way. For someone to make a political statement that terrorists would prefer one of our leaders to another is short-sighted and is meant to generate fear. I personally believe that these two candidates have played too heavily on the fears of the public, although the Bush Administration takes the cake on that front. 

As far as who's best to respond to the terrorist threat, I think that comes down to a matter of opinion based one what W. has or hasn't done, vs. what you believe Kerry will do (which is entirely speculative). The pre-9/11 world is passed, and comparing Kerry to Clinton's or for that matter Bush's failures in intelligence does not strike me as a reasonable comparison. 

As for the Iraq argument: Ok, a bad guy in the region is out of power. But I don't think you can say that our security situation has improved. Aside for debates surrounding the plight of the Iraqi people (and careful with that one, 'Survival of the Fit', we had that country contained. Had Saddam developed WMD - which apparently he had not post Gulf War I- he would have immediately suffered immediately retaliation from the US and Israel. Instead of containing 1 man while he subjugated an entire country, we now have thousands of jihadists, operating in automonous cells, that have more control over that country than we do- with more pouring in every day. If that's not enough, we put thousands of soldiers and civilian contractors in country for them to target. Which situation presents a more clear and present danger to the US? And why are we spending 4x the amount of money in Iraq than we are in Afghanistan? 10W-30, my friends. 

Point of fact-


> The mobile chemical weapons labs found in Tikrit and Mosel


Those were found not to have been used to create WMD; in fact, they were shown to have been used to creat hydrogen for weather balloons. There has still been no proven evidence of WMD in Iraq. I'll admit they had me fooled. 

Here's my final thought- vote for aggresive campaign finance reform and we'll finally get true representation of the people.

Don't have a ton of time today for a lengthy debate- but I appreciate MVHYDE's candor and engaging arguments. I don't agree with all of them (except the part of all politicians being scumbags) but I think he makes some well-thought out points. I do agree that we should have driven all the way into Baghdad after Gulf War I. I am, however, thoroughly pissed that he's getting the action on the Animas while I'm stuck in my cubicle. :x:


----------



## andy (Oct 13, 2003)

Who can resist this topic?

Some good debate so far, and only one person (on page one) quoting something from Michael Moore. The "I call you my base..." quote. Actually taken from the Alfred Smith charity fund raiser, where candidates joke about each other and themselves. Which, by the way, neither candidate were invited this year. Which is very unusual. Clinton and Dole were not invited, and I think only one other set of candidates in it's long history. Anyway...

Stiff's post caught my eye. I think he nailed it on the head.



stiff said:


> The issue seems to come down to your view of the role of the government.


One thing is true of politicians, they look out for themselves, and in doing that, they keep their major financial contributors happy.

To see who you hang your hat with (as far as who is the financial support for your candidate), visit:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/sectorall.asp?cycle=2004

or

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/indusall.asp?cycle=2004

I think it fair to say, that those who contribute more, think they have more to gain. 

So who do you hang your hat with?

The Financial/Insurance/Real Estate industry PAC (GW's largest PAC contributor)
or
Lawyers and Lobbyists (Kerry's largest PAC contributor)

Another thing Stiff said was interesting.



stiff said:


> I am bothered that the Republicans seem to be run by people who haven't seen all of America....


Is this a man who has "seen all of America"?

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/page2.html

Not that many normal Americans hang with JFK. Face it, both of these candidates came from the social elite.




stiff said:


> I'm amazed that people believe so much of what the Republicans are saying. Why don't people see all the distortions?


I'm amazed people believe so much of what the democrats are saying. I guess it depends on your point of view.

Also, people always seem to hate an incumbent. Don't ask me why. People hated Clinton.

For fun you can see who paid to get into the White House, the famous Clinton sleepovers and Coffee's.

http://www.opensecrets.org/whitehouse/guests.asp

Edited to add:

Don't mean to pick on you Stiff. Your post was very well thought out.


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

> This circular rhetoric you speak of is called Presidential campaign rhetoric, it is what needs to be said to win the election.


This is what I find most disturbing. Just telling the masses to get out and vote when this campaign rhetoric is the single most influential factor affecting their vote is asking for it. Whoever has the most gullible voters wins. I'm glad to see some well thought-out arguments on this thread, although too many seem to be buying and regurgitating the rhetoric. 

Each election I get more and more despondent as November gets closer as both of the candidates and the media talk to me like I'm some kind of moron. I'm glad you were able to explain why I haven't heard a single word from Kerry that would make me vote for him. Politicians running for office cant be open and honest about their opinions. There often isnt only one right answer to every issue, but politicians have to pretend like there is. I truly believe that the people who would make great presidents are, unfortunately, also smart enough to not run for president. 

Just a few other thoughts:

On the Economy: How can anyone blame the economy on Bush? I'm surprised the economy did as well as it did after terrorists leveled two of our tallest buildings, the stock market tanked after greedy investors drove the stock market up to unsustainable levels by buying up tech stocks whose profit to earnings ratios were laughable, and several huge corporations went under due to accounting scandals all in a relatively short period of time. At the same time I don't give credit to Bush for the rebound were seeing either. The economy is bigger than one man.

On Iraq: It must be nice to be able to sit back now with 20/20 hindsight and say See, no WMD we never should have gone into Iraq. At the time, most people, including the UN, congress, and previously even Clinton were not so sure. The point is, Saddam defied the UN for over a decade, wasnt abiding by the conditions of his surrender after Kuwait, and was being secretive about his weapons program. Since the UN obviously wasnt going to do anything about it, it fell into our lap Team America  World Police. Maybe had 9/11 not happened we wouldnt have been so worried about a little shit dictator messing around with chemicals and atoms on the other side of the globe. I dont think there was a connection between Al-Queda and Iraq, but after 9/11 Im not about to look the other way and hope that were not in the crosshairs of some psychopath. If the UN and the rest of the civilized world is just going to sit there and pass more ineffectual resolutions for another decade, pre-emptive war is the only solution as I see it. Post-emptive war in the case of a rouge nation with nuclear weapons is what you would be doing _after _you clean up a million dead and fill in the crater. Call it pandering to fear but Ill admit, after 9/11, Im afraid. 

And of _course _its about oil to some extent. Unless youre ready to start walking to work, heating your house with firewood and boating in a balsa wood kayak oil is always going to be part of the equation. Put as much energy onto supporting alternative fuels as you put into bashing Bush and Cheney. Is it JUST about oil? Please. Go listen to some more rhetoric.



> As for the Iraq argument: Ok, a bad guy in the region is out of power. But I don't think you can say that our security situation has improved. Aside for debates surrounding the plight of the Iraqi people (and careful with that one, 'Survival of the Fit', we had that country contained. Had Saddam developed WMD - which apparently he had not post Gulf War I- he would have immediately suffered immediately retaliation from the US and Israel. Instead of containing 1 man while he subjugated an entire country, we now have thousands of jihadists, operating in automonous cells, that have more control over that country than we do- with more pouring in every day.


I consider this the strongest argument against what is going on in Iraq, although it is sad that we as a nation would look the other way while genocide was being committed, but its not our problem, right? It goes on all the time in other countries that dont have oil, right? Its a tough one. Should we consider ourselves safe and hope our intelligence is so great that well know about any WMD before they are in a shipping container in one of our ports and thereby avoid aggravating radical militants that already hate us? Or do we hold rogue nations accountable and back up resolutions not with more resolutions but with credible threats of force even if that creates more problems in the short term but hopefully pays off in the long term in the form of a much more stabilized region? Id need a crystal ball to answer that one. But seeing as I dont have one, Ill stake our future on the later. 



> France already learned the hard way that you can't beat terrorists with violence alone. Ever hear of two countries called Vietnam and Algeria? If you are perceived as an oppressor no matter if that perception is true or false no amount of preemptive war will bring you peace.


Agreed. However, the converse is just as true. Terrorists and thug dictators could care less about diplomacy unless they see that there are consequences in the form of military force. Ever hear of a guy named Qadhafi?

Is anyone (beside Kerry) suggesting that we pull out of Iraq now? That will only embolden terrorists everywhere and leave the Iraqi people in limbo like we did after the Gulf war. The main criticism I have of Bush (beside environmental policy) is he is a cowboy. I really wish he could be more diplomatic and enlist the aid of the rest of the civilized world in ridding the middleast of the cancer that has been and continues to grow over there. You would think that the civilized nations of the world could form an organization that could police these situations so we wouldnt have to be the world police. Oh yeah, they have. Its called the United Nations. Nevermind.

On the flat tax Mr. Hummer analogy: The difference is Mr. Hummer buys a Subzero, not a Kenmore and drives it back to his Cherry Hills mansion in his Hummer, not back to his double-wide in his Datsun pickup. Unless the rich suddenly stop displaying their wealth, they will end up paying the bulk of the taxes as usual. Not that Im necessarily for the flat tax.



> As I've said before, it wasn't God, guts, and guns that made the USA a great nation. In the early days it was the boundless resources that allowed us to build our infrastructure and provide mass education to the citizenry. Things were going strong in the early 20th Century, and through collective bargaining, millions of lives were improved as workers gained a just share, in wages and benefits, of corporate profits, while gaining the biggest pro-family measure in history - the 40 hour workweek. In the last century we built the world's greatest transportation, and communication infrastructures and created extensive and safe food, water, and power distribution systems; we made enormous strides in widespread public health and academic research which all vastly improved the quality of life for a historically unprecedented portion of our society.


It wasnt the government and unions that created all those things. It was greedy CEOs and entrepreneurs looking to make a buck that created those things. Money is the motivating factor in most great achievements. You pointed out correctly, that government and unions were instrumental in ensuring that the masses got a fare share of the rewards but you seem to gloss over the fact that there would be nothing to share if it werent for the capitalist swine. Give the masses an undue share and you take away the capitalists incentive to create wealth and the masses' incentive to strive beyond just receiving a share of someone elses wealth but creating wealth of their own. 



> If we increase our total spending on schools from 1.5% of our economy to 3%, the investment will more than pay off with a stronger economy in 20 years and a more knowledgeable society. It seems like a no brainer to me. I don't get it.


Your no brainer automatically assumes increased spending produces increased results. Thats not even close to a no brainer when the federal government is involved. Ill concede that we should increase spending on schools, but only if they are held accountable and produce results. 

And Josh, can I lick your... I mean buy you a beer too? Seriously though, nice well thought out points. I appreciate reading thoughtful viewpoints that dont consist of the typical war is bad, violence=violence, the economy sucks, must be bushs fault, no war for oil and my favorite: anyone but Bush. Keep em coming. Its a nice break from listening to the candidates.


----------



## ToddG (Nov 29, 2003)

RE:


> [On Iraq: It must be nice to be able to sit back now with 20/20 hindsight and say See, no WMD we never should have gone into Iraq.]


While it may seem like a lot of people take this stance, I think you may be oversimplifying. Take yourself back to the time of the UN resolution that authorized Hans Blix & his team to make the call on the WMD situation in Iraq, and whether Saddam was in material breach. At that time the process was actually working the way it was supposed to. Under international pressure & US (Bush) threat of unilateral action, Saddam was actually cooperating & turning over the evidence -- albeit reluctantly & slowly -- but nonetheless, he was abiding by the resolution. Unhappy with the lack of evidence supporting a predetermined war, the Bush Admin. hastily rushed into Iraq, when perhaps we should have been focused on Al Qaeda. 

I think a lot of people that you now accuse of reactionary/revisionist 10th-inning commentary are actually people who, at the time of Mr. Bush's premature war decalaration, fully supported giving the UN weapons inspectors the time they needed to complete their tasks. I know that's what I was thinking at the time ... But then I seem to remember being told that the Iraqi "nucular" threat was "imminent" ...

Now, thanks to our invasion, our super arrogant, super risky foreign policy since then, & the administration's continued mismanagement of the war in Iraq, we have INCREASED THREATS in N. Korea, Iran, & globally via the Al Qaeda terror network. I know a couple narrow minded "gun totin'" conservatives that would say something to the effect of "F*ck it, we'll go in there & clean that mess up too". But since we can't seem to get a handle on the first mess we've created, & since both the civilian Iraqi death toll & the US military & civilian contractor death toll continue to rise, along with the growth of Iraqi insurgency, I suspect we've gotten ourselves into one hell of a long term mess with this -- no matter who gets elected to run our corporation, i mean country ...


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

For accurate facts, try:
http://www.factcheck.org/

A good synopsis is 
http://www.factcheck.org/archive.aspx


----------



## Aztec (Dec 12, 2003)

*pure democracy*

Someone way back in the beginning of this thread posted a suggestion to do away with the electoral college, along with some other simple conservative = bad / liberal = good stuff that I hear all the time - while most of these points have been argued extensively I didnt see anyone point out that we are not a true democracy for a reason and that the electoral college, while not perfect, is far less dangerous than a pure democracy (mob rule). 
I would think that those with liberal slants would be even more concerned than conservatives about letting the majority rule - though I suppose as our country moves from a rural aggrarian, to an urban society, the scale is tipping fast -


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*this is a nice lively debate... a good thing too*

it's good to see people passionate (however misguided) about the outcome of this election.

Some points I find intersting are:

*ENVIRONMENT*
Bush: sucks on the environmental policy
Kerry: hasn't made a clear statement on what he'd actually do



*IRAQ*

Bush: John Wayne'ing to the hilt
Kerry: He's for it, then against it, then for it, then.....

*DOMESTIC SECURITY*

Bush: Appointed John Ashcroft (who scares the bejeezus out of me)
Kerry: Would like to take away ALL firearms from us

*ECONNOMY*

Bush: Gave a few aspirins in the form of tax cuts, breaks, etc.. but really, that's just a bandaid on a more endemic problem
Kerry: He will raise taxes on everyone but the rich (even he's not so stupid as to piss off the money brokers)

*SOCIAL SECURITY*

Bush: (has too much money in the bank to need it or worry about it)
Kerry: He'll pay lip service, but his wife has too much money for him to worry about it either (Who said sugar mommas were fun in bed?)

*HEALTHCARE/INSURANCE*

Bush: Guv'ment pays my doctor bills, y'all
Kerry: His wife pays the bills

*EDUCATION*

Bush: Daddy paid his
Kerry: GI Bill paid his

*CAJONES FACTOR*

Bush: has'em
Kerry: his wife has'em

*MANAGEMENT STYLE*

Bush: Delegatory
Kerry: Committee of Monkeys Theorum


[/b]


----------



## matobs (Nov 26, 2003)

The unfortunate state of our democracy is eloquently explained in this column entitled, "The Average Voter is an Idiot." 
This is one reason that W stands a good chance of winning, people simply do not think or do not know how to think rationally and/or critically.

In my opinion GW Bush has done an absolutely terrible job of governing this country showing incredibly poor judgement in the most serious issue any President will ever face: going to war. At the beginning of all the hype surrounding the war, I supported going into Iraq and getting Sadaam out of power. Not b/c of the threat he posed, but b/c as mvhyde said it was simply the right thing to do. My support was conditioned on getting a coalition together, supported ideally by the UN, and if not the UN at least strongly supported by other many countries, especially prominent Muslim countries. Despite all the B.S. surrounding weapons of mass destruction, this was, at base, a war of choice and it was a nation building excercise. As crappy of an organization as the UN is, it is only one that can confer internationaly legimiticay on such a risky enterprise. 

Nation building routinely fails, there are very few examples of going in somewhere and saying hey you guys will be better off if your democracry and they say willingy "gee Uncle Sam you know you're right, here's my AK-47." In order, to undertake nation building you need legitimacy and you need financial and political staying power. The US has none of those required elements in Iraq. Many times, as is happening in Iraq the situation spirals into a civil war and the occupying power leaves with a little whoops . . . sorry. 

The flowering of democracy crap in the mideast is a great idea (one most prominently put forth by the neocons - a group of JEwish intellectuals - yea they're not biased) A great ideal perhaps, but the reality of pulling that off is very very dicey. WE failed miserably at this not long ago, it was called Vietnam, and we are a few more years away from failure in Iraq. There was a right way to do this and wrong way. Bush chose the cowboy way and it is proving to be very wrong. The country is less secure now than when W arrogantly declared "Mission Accomplished" and every day the situation worsens. To turn that around will require more firepower, and more money. Think that is going to happen. . .. .think again - the American military is stretched to the limit and the budget well that's another rant. The time for all of this and the only way to do this rigth was before this fucking disaster happened not after. 

Wars of choice cannot be fought in the manner we did. Iraq will require many years of sustained financial and political clout. How long do you think the American people are going to tolerate their sons and daughters being killed? Wars of choice and nation building cannot be done alone. Iraq is on the verge of civil war and no one is going help now. 

And I don't want to hear about this shit that there are other countries. Bullshit man don't be so fucking naive!!! A bridigade of 10 troops from fucking Guatemala, and another 6 from that country and 8 from this country is not a fucking coalition. It is tokenism contributed by other countries b/c they fear retaliation by the US (which Bush has also proved quite good at). Morevover, none of the "coalition of the willing" countries are even in combat, they are doing candy-ass low risk shit. Whose getting killed man??? 1000 Americans to date, with more to come. 

Bush is surrounded by arrogant war mongers (with exception of Powell), and this was largely DICK'S WAR. Bod Woodward detailed this well in his book. It war to make up for his failure there in 91. 9/11 provided a conveniant excuse. 

Bush exercised extremely poor judgment and is a utter failure as a diplomat and he needs go. If he was a CEO of private company he would have been sacked long ago. He got us into another fucking Vietnam that we will never be able to win. And I fully expect that if Bush is re-elected he'll drag us into IRan too. IF that happens, I hope he's learned at least a few lessons from Iraq.

After the rant, here's another rant on our the morons who select our Moron in Chief: http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3197088,00.html

God Bless America


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

Power to the Peaceful

All bombing is terrorism

The best support you can provide our troops is to bring them home


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

matobs, I agree with you in essence. It appears to be poorly managed mess over there. Here are my three questions though:

1) If you agreed that it was the right thing to do to invade Iraq but no nations were willing to step up and help out regardless of our diplomatic efforts, would you say, ok, I guess we'll just not go in? This appears to be the case considering the measly contributions received from the international community for humanitarian aide for Iraq and the lack of progress from the UN over a period of 12 years. What did you think was going to change from what happened in the previous 12 years? Or are you saying a better president would have been able to convince countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China to our way of thinking.

2) Bush has said he will stay in Iraq until the job is done. Kerry has said he will bring the troops home. Regardless of whether you think Bush is a moron and created this mess, do think it is acceptable for us to leave Iraq now? If not, are you still going to vote for Kerry?



> Power to the Peaceful
> 
> All bombing is terrorism
> 
> The best support you can provide our troops is to bring them home


3) Is this what the title of the article was refering to? Wouldn't that imply that Kerry will get elected?


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*War, money, oil, and bad politics......*

You know the thing I am seeing here reminds me of the state of the nation when I went into the military in 1974. I'll call it the Viet Nam malaise for lack of a better term. There is a fixed mindset in a lot of Americans that every time we go into a nation with military forces that we are automatically going to become embroiled in another Viet Nam situation. Well darlings, I got some news for you, every damn war is the same way. You lose people, equipment, and find everyone pointing fingers at each other trying to affix blame somewhere. The same shit has been happening in this country since the War for Independence. 

The first thing you need to remember is that the battlefield is a fluid situation. Any number of simple factors can come into play to turn the tide of the battle or the war. The biggest factor (as was exploited during WWII) is the homefront. The lack of total and complete support by those on the homefront is one which horribly demoralizes those in the line of fire, and especially in this day and age of instant media gratification. You have azzholes like Michael Moore who are nothing more than a B-grade wannabe Oliver Stone touting idiotic conspiracy theories to dipshit Hollywood stars running their mouths about issues they have no freaking clue about when they should be preparing their lines for their next crappy film.

Monday morning quarterbacking foreign policy and other issues is something on the order of overstating the obvious like a bunch of whining Rainmen.

What kills me are the things I see spouted on here, off here and in print. People who never served in any functional capacity in the military or the intelligence arenas speaking about things they really haven't a clue about.

War is an ugly and sometimes necessary business. Iraq is not about oil (if you haven't noticed the price of gas lately). It's not about going in there to find NBC-WMD (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical weapons of mass destruction). It's about stablizing (although I would personally commit 2.5 million more troops to the process). We have a large problem in that part of the world. In fact, the whole non-Islamic world has a major problem in that part of the world. 

We are at a point in history where terrible decision must be made in order to preserve our existance in this world, both muslim and non-muslim. I would liken it to the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, only on a much larger and more dire scale. The fact that none of these groups has yet to achieve the capability to acquire, build, and deliver a WMD is phenominally lucky for us. The statement our President once put forth is as follows: It is not a question of how, so much as when. That is something each and every one of you needs to think about when sitting blissfully like a sheep come to slaughter in your kayak on that peaceful and serene river. That might be considered a fatalistic viewpoint by some, but then the world is a very fatal place.

Those people over there hate us, they hate everything in this world that is non-muslim. It is their God-given duty to convert the world by peaceful means or by means of might to Islam. If you don't believe it, then you need sit down and read the Quran and the Sharia. Really read it well. The BS you hear from these westernized Imams is exactly that, a bunch of politically correct BS, tailored to soothe the fearful unaware western soul. I have lived in that part of the world, I have operated in that part of the world, I know those people intimately. They mean us no good. They're still rooted in the medieval world of barbarism blanketed by religion. Bush may be a cowboy, but at least he's not afraid of the task, even if it costs him an election. Kerry may get us out of there, but so we get out. what next? complete isolationist policies? The Europeans are cowardly, the might of Russia has sunken in corruption and chaos. China is still trying to figure out how to stop people from having babies over there and using up precious resources. The nations that have sent token forces should be praised for what they have done, be it only a little, they don't have the manpower or capabilities that we have.

And lastly to all you anti-war types out there, your freedom, the freedom of your forefathers was bought in precious blood. To not support the military and their Commander in Chief, to protest against this awful war, is to bring dishonor upon those that made the ultimate sacrifice. That is shameful. Without honor, there is nothing.


----------



## Clark (Apr 24, 2004)

Wow mvhyde, its awesome for you to set us straight. Obviously while the rest of us have no clue you offer a bastion of hope for us here. 


Monday morning quarterbacking foreign policy and other issues is something on the order of overstating the obvious like a bunch of whining Rainmen.


> Nobodys monday morning quarterbacking here hombre, people from in and out of this country were against the reasoning for the war long before we went in. Not just the long haired hippies out there, but people in the CIA, in the pentagon, and yes from those wusses over in europe. They must be jealous right?
> 
> 
> War is an ugly and sometimes necessary business. Iraq is not about oil (if you haven't noticed the price of gas lately).


Are you serious? You think we are going to see a sudden shift in gas prices that would explain the link between the war and gas. Interesting view, simple, but... OK you are right it isn't all about oil, but it is all about money and oil is the main interest. Paul Bremmer set up the most industry and copororate-freindly economy in the world in Iraq. The tax system is now the most radical in the world, its well documented go read. 

Those people over there hate us, they hate everything in this world that is non-muslim. It is their God-given duty to convert the world by peaceful means or by means of might to Islam. If you don't believe it, then you need sit down and read the Quran and the Sharia. Really read it well. The BS you hear from these westernized Imams is exactly that, a bunch of politically correct BS, tailored to soothe the fearful unaware western soul. I have lived in that part of the world, I have operated in that part of the world, I know those people intimately. They mean us no good. They're still rooted in the medieval world of barbarism blanketed by religion.


> And lastly to all you anti-war types out there, your freedom, the freedom of your forefathers was bought in precious blood. To not support the military and their Commander in Chief, to protest against this awful war, is to bring dishonor upon those that made the ultimate sacrifice. That is shameful. Without honor, there is nothing.


I think both of these statements are utterly rediculous, and shameful themselves. "Those people" you speak of, so they hate us? All of them damn muslims eh? Well its clear that you understand them well enough to spell the name of thier holy text wrong.

Finally, those men you speak of, that died for this country did not do so for the values of blind faith, but for the values of freedom. If you call me shamefull for being against this war then you have stepped farther from the values that make this country great than i ever will. I mean you every disrespect, you have no right to tell others that they are shameful for the positionthey take in this war or for not supporting the comander and chief, the system you speak of sounds more like a dictatorship than a democracy and I say you shame our fallen forefathers more than those who oppose this war or the president because you trod on the values and ideals that those men died for. 
clark


----------



## Clark (Apr 24, 2004)

Damn it everything got quoted wrong!


----------



## ToddG (Nov 29, 2003)

Hyde -- 

We're gonna call up some help from the bullpen to relieve you. 

You're way outta the strikezone with every pitch. Your ego is swelling & affecting your delivery on the mound. You have no control & pretty much resorted to throwing junk. 

Your ethnocentric-religious-zealotry-ball is in the dirt every time. And your signature _ad-hominem_-attack-ball is beaning batters right and left. 

Your credibility as a pitcher has really suffered in the last couple innings, so we're gonna have to sit you down & maybe even send you back to the farm club ... And believe me, if we don't see some marked improvement in your performance, you'll be on your way back home to take care of your grandkids! 


XOXO


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

I'm not anti-war, and I don't think the majority of the informed folks on this site are either. I'm anti-"bottomless pit" war. 

The fact is, we (more specifically decades of American foreign policy), have cultivated the problems and hatred that is coming back to bite us in the ass. If that makes me a liberal apologist, then so be it. But the immutable facts are that we have fostered of sense of dominion over this region every since we intervened in the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine (not that I necessarily disagreed with that), and we've demonstrated that we are willing to kill & subjugate the Islamic population for the singular pursuit of oil. Muslims are steeped in their history, and many see this as nothing short of yet another Crusade.



> What kills me are the things I see spouted on here, off here and in print. People who never served in any functional capacity in the military or the intelligence arenas speaking about things they really haven't a clue about.


That is certainly true in my case and probably of most of the folks on this site & the general American public. Conversely, by your statements, you clearly have no concept about Foreign Policy, Diplomacy or especially the lessons of history. Respected people like Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Gen. Wesley Clark, and a slew of other highly qualified former military leader believe that this war, and escecially in the manner in which it's being prosecuted, will lead to disaster.

*James Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Ronald Reagan, 
Decorated Marine Veteran - Navy Cross, Silver Star, and Purple Heart.* 
"Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? ...In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 
friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.... Nations such as China can only view the prospect 
of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall." 


*Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command for U.S. *
"It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to 
war, see it another,...We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started." 




> To not support the military and their Commander in Chief, to protest against this awful war, is to bring dishonor upon those that made the ultimate sacrifice. That is shameful. Without honor, there is nothing.


Got it. Heard it before. To which I reply:




> It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.



Sound familiar? 


That quote is from Herman Goering, a widely recognized military strategist. Also a Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief, and the executor of one of the largest genocides in history. http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

You've served in the military- I thank you. But you have no right to question my patriotism or anyone else who has an educated opinion about this war. _How dare you_- it more than our right to question our government (and read that carefully: it says government, not military); it's our *obligation* as citizens. Men died to protect my fight to dissent, and someone like George W. Bush doesn't get a free pass to lead my country down a dead-end just because he's Commander in Chief. 
I'm speaking out against the policy, not against the military. I have friends in Iraq, South Korea and Germany in the military & I feel that I owe it to them. I owe it to future generations, and I have the right granted to me in my constitution to do that- as you have the right to disagree with me. Just because you served doesn't give you status over anyone else. 

I don't doubt that you were hated when you were over in the Middle East. No matter how pleasant you were in your daily interactions with Muslims, you were still a US soldier with an M16 slung over your shoulder. I can't see myself feeling any different if a Chinese soldier was waving to me as he drove his tank down the 16th Steet Mall, either. They see it as American Imperialism. 

Not all of this history is Bush's fault, although W and his family have played a large role is gettting to where we are today. Not that Clinton was any great help either. In 1970, our dependence on foreign oil was around 40%, about the same time at the 'gas crisis' of the mid 1970's nearly crippled the economy & drove the nation's automakers to switch to higher mileage vehicle production. The problem is, we didn't learn that lesson. Our dependence on foreign oil is now over 60%, and we're pushing the needle in the worng direction. This, my friends, is our greatest security issue and anyone who disagrees is a traitor (wow, that was easy, huh?). To get a good synopsis of American oil interests in the region, check out this article from admittedly left-skewed Mother Jones.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html


----------



## matobs (Nov 26, 2003)

hmm my quotes seem to have come out backwards - not sure how that works.

[/quote]If you agreed that it was the right thing to do to invade Iraq but no nations were willing to step up and help out regardless of our diplomatic efforts, would you say, ok, I guess we'll just not go in?


> We should not have went in at all if not done properly b/c it Iraq was not a imminent threat to us. I think it could have been done diplomatically, it may have taken another 6 months or so, but a good president would have been up to the task. Wars of this nature simply cannot be won alone. More on this in the next answer.


2) Bush has said he will stay in Iraq until the job is done. Kerry has said he will bring the troops home. Regardless of whether you think Bush is a moron and created this mess, do think it is acceptable for us to leave Iraq now? If not, are you still going to vote for Kerry? 


> My vote is against Bush, not for Kerry. The simple fact of the matter is that Bush created this disaster and neither Kerry nor Bush can do anything different at this point - but Bush deserves to be fired. Nation building requires tremedous political and financial capital. Being there alone makes this task incrediby difficult b/c we are bearing the entire cost. I think we'll be over there as long as the American people can tolerate it, without unqualified support of other countries it will be alot shorter. At some point the American people will be fed up; not willing to see thier sons and daughters killed and Congress will simply not appropriate any more funds. If we have not "won" by then politics will force us to leave, which is the exact same thing that happened in, yes mvhyde, Vietnam. At this point we are not there, and I still hope that peace can be won over there, but every day it gets bleaker and bleaker


Wouldn't that imply that Kerry will get elected?


> One can only hope.


Monday morning quarterbacking foreign policy and other issues is something on the order of overstating the obvious


> Are you kidding?? Nothing that I wrote or anyone else for that matter was not stated before this fiasco and told directly to Bush. Before the war: Bush had Powell telling him to work it at the UN - his effort there was pathethic and half-hearted. Bush had Top Army Generals telling him he needed more troops on the ground to win the peace. Bush had people telling him that there were no WMDs over there, that the intelligence was iffy.
> 
> Admittedly Bush had a difficult choice in all these areas. But he chose wrong, not once but everytime. From failing to secure the peace to abu graib - by any reasonable measure this war has been incredibly poorly managed. Who gets fired in private business when things are not well managed? The boss man.


War is an ugly and sometimes necessary business. Iraq is not about oil


> This war was not necessary by any stretch of the imigination. Did you feel threatened by Sadaam, I certainly didn't. If this was a war about imminent danger and threats then N.Korea should have been first and and should next. (even prior to testing a nuclear weapon last week). It won't be for a number of reasons. 1) they are relatively contained, just like Irag was before we went in there and started a freaking civil war; and 2) it holds zero strategic relevance, i.e. no oil.
> 
> This war may not be about oil, but it is one of the reasons we are there. Oil is the primary driver of our, indeed the world's economy, and much of lies in Iraq and mideast. Thus that region has incredible strategic importance to our nation. We would never be where we are in the mideast if it were not for oil. We would not have cut deals w/ Saudia Arabia, which does more to propogate terrorism than Iraq ever did through Waahabism. FOr God's sake that government teaches its kids that we are evil in school - and that is our ally?? Yeah that's not about oil. That is a deal with the devil my friend and yes it is about oil. If it oil were not in the mideast that region would be another Africa - we would simply allow them to fight civil wars to their hearts content and ignore it when they kill each other. If it were not for oil they would not have the wealth to have propogated 9/11 or other terrorist acts, they be too busy trying to feed themselves - like Africa. While this war may not be solely "about oil" - it has a hell of a lot to do with it. To deny that it has any involvement - well you might as well go work for Halliburton and deny that oil has anything to do with your paycheck.
> 
> ...


----------



## Craig Crippen (Sep 6, 2004)

I'm not only voting against W. I am voting for Kerry. I heard the man speak in Aurora last Friday and he does have a good plan for putting this country back together again. I would encourage anyone to check out his website for themselves and not to take the media's slant on his positions.


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*some of you amaze me*

mostly with your insular naivety, something Americans specialize in. Did you not learn anything from 9/11? Did you not learn that the 'island' of North America is no longer that safe zone in the wide world? 

Pre-emptive strikes against enemies, who have the potential, and who have shown their proclivity from past events to utilize whatever means they have and deem necessary to wreck havok upon innocents and otherwise, need to be removed, eradicated, exterminated, pick the term. They should be hunted down like the animals they are and killed, no questions, no miranda rights, nada zip zilch.

To those of you that would presume to live with the notion that Ali Mohammad would be your friend. He might be your friend, all the while he plots to cut the throats of you, your loved ones and probably your dog too.

The point you missed in its entirety is the concept of global polarization. There will always be a persisting polarization in this world, so long as we exist on it. If you would care to look through history, you will find its repetitive nature throughout the course of it. Either on a political or religious footing, and like it or not, it is what we do and do so well. The constant strife between those who have power and those who seek it. Like it or not, non-muslim are the avowed enemies of muslims. Detente only lasts as long as it takes them to figure out a way to get at us, and it most definitely is an "US vs THEM". We dug our grave on that one when the state of Israel was created, just the same way we committed ourselves to WWII when we, along with our allies, sat down with the Germans at the treaty of Versailles.

One point I might concede in part on the Oil issue of the Iraqi conflict is that the Iraqi Oil reserves ARE of strategic interest to the USA. Taking them by force, siphoning off the oil, and other such nonsensical tripe it just that, a load of bollacks. The only time this country would outright take the oil only is during a global-wide conflict, which I seriously doubt would happen at this juncture.

Warfare has become an asymetrical affair. The types of conflicts we once experienced in WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam are no more. We're very good at winning the ground conflict in the initial onset whereby the order of battle is known and it is still essentially a fixed piece battle. The lessons we apparently did not learn well enough come with the aftermath of insurgent action. This is a failing not upon which the President's head should hang, but rather his Generals. The SecDOD is a complete idiot. The General staff he should have listened to about man-power (and the lack of) told him he needed more troops. they still do, if they truly want to pacify the region.

To pull out now shows a complete lack of resolve and is a slap in the face of those who are there, and those who paid the price. Worse yet, it will embolden the region. Want to watch oil prices go up? They will if we pull out. So start your whining now when gas hits $5 a gallon.

Regardless of whom you seek to blame, remember the pieces were set on the chessboard long ago, but we are getting close to the endgame.

The Muslims have one good saying I do like... Inshallah (tis the will of God)


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

Just so I'm clear on this:



> Pre-emptive strikes against enemies, who have the potential, and who have shown their proclivity from past events to utilize whatever means they have and deem necessary to wreck havok upon innocents and otherwise, need to be removed, eradicated, exterminated, pick the term. They should be hunted down like the animals they are and killed, no questions, no miranda rights, nada zip zilch.
> 
> To those of you that would presume to live with the notion that Ali Mohammad would be your friend. He might be your friend, all the while he plots to cut the throats of you, your loved ones and probably your dog too.


So the world population is now running about 22% Muslim and growing faster than any other religious population (Christians consist of about 33%). Under your plan of "extermination", we should steel ourselves for the subjugation of about 800 million people spread all over the the Middle East, Asia, Indonesia, and of course the 2.5 million Muslims living inside our borders (Hmm, where are we going put those interment camps?). If you think that we're anywhere close to the "endgame" along the parameters of current policy, you're dangerously mistaken. Common sense will tell you that we can't sustain (economically, politically, culturally) that kind of religious crusade. For reference, there were 80 million Germans at the onset of WWII and that didn't cost too much in time, capital, and human sacrifice to conquer those people, did it? Not that we had much help, either.




> One point I might concede in part on the Oil issue of the Iraqi conflict is that the Iraqi Oil reserves ARE of strategic interest to the USA. Taking them by force, siphoning off the oil, and other such nonsensical tripe it just that, a load of bollacks. The only time this country would outright take the oil only is during a global-wide conflict, which I seriously doubt would happen at this juncture.


This IS happening. This conflict isn't about Iraqi freedom. If it's about "stabilizing the region", that's only a function of how much our energy policies have made our country so beholden to these "evil people". By your anti-Islam statements, you're proposing that we spearhead this global conflict. We've done nothing to ween ourselves off of Middle East oil- something that will admittedly take decades to accomplish - but our leaders in the last 30 years have failed to show the political will to move towards greater energy independence. Moreover, W. and his father have pushed the needle in the wrong direction. 

Tell me again who's being naive?


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

Have you guys noticed that there is an ignore button at the bottom of each post? All current and future posts by the person will be hidden. Nice feature if you really don't want to bother with some of these guys and don't trust their future opinions. Saves screen real estate. 

This topic is useful for identifying appropriate people to ignore. 

Thought out opposing views are fine, but some of these rants do indicate a funny view of life. 

Like the baseball analogy!


----------



## MBK (Apr 6, 2004)

Hi everyone, 

It has been a while since I was in the mix but the ignorance and racist/ ethnocentric crap coming from mvhyde has compelled me back on the site again. So, has anyone read this article yet. I find it very interesting considering all the "I know more than you do" crap that I have been reading. 
Oh, by the way mvhyde, this country was founded on the idea that the colonies were questioning and willing to challenge their leader and the authority by which they were controlled. It is what us American Historians call the American Revolution! So genius, our nation was born under the idea that we, as citizens, have the God given, as well as constitutionally given right to question the authority of the government. With that said, here is the article:



> www.suntimes.com
> Back to regular view
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html
> Print this page
> ...


Lastly, Kerry has recently stated that he would not immediately pull out from Iraq. If you actually listened, as well as read various news sites you might know that. 

One last question for the genius on the site. Do you know how Saddam actually acquired his power in Iraq? I thought since you were such a know-it-all about the region, which you earlier refereed to as "Indian country" ( do you remember what country you were actually in?), you might know the history of Iraq and of the Baathist Party. 

-MBK


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Thanks for the tip STIFF, I'm getting tired of someone in particular telling us how naive and stupid we are while he is sooo enlightened.


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

*MVhyde?!?!?!*

I have been boating this week so I had to do some catching up on this topic. Mvhyde...I was in your neck of the woods last week. You have some good whitewater down there. Vallecito is the SHIZNIT!!!

Back to your insult towards me....CLUELESS, you think I am. So what you are saying is I need to go and risk getting my head chopped off to understand what is going on in this region. I would be clueless to go and visit Iraq in my opinion. 

Here is what is clueless. Why you (MVhyde) and other people can't just for one minute admit they just might be wrong. 

I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!! This seems to be the main problem with the situation in the Mid East as with any conflict. Our religion is the right religion and yours is lame. Our way is RIGHT...Yours is WRONG! Until people can just for once realize this "I am right and you are wrong attitude" is a waste of precious life we will always have stupid shit like Iraq going on. This attitude has been destroying human life as we know it since the beginning of humans. 


But hey, what do I know...I am clueless. I do know one thing and that is I am not always right.

So good luck with your gun toting ass...MVhyde...I don't care to listen to your ego based garbage anymore. I hope you and your ego have a great life in that cubicle of yours.

Later


----------



## Livingston (Jan 8, 2004)

Huh, so my Muslim neighbors are ALL plotting to cut my throat? Their book says they have to convert the world to their religeon? Hmmm, that sounds so familiar.

Does anyone recall a couple of dumb Texas girls prostletizing in Afganistan right before we invaded? The Taliban declared they would put to death anyone caught teaching anything but their religeon, yet these girls went anyway to sell Jesus. They had bibles and videos that they would make people watch who were in need of food and basic medical.

They were turned in and caught of course. I saw their interview once they were found unharmed after we invaded. This is not a quote but what they said was something like this-- they knew they would be alright and if they died they weren't upset because they were doing God's work. They were ready to die for their God, sound familiar? 

I've never seen a Jahova's Witness (sp?) cutting off any heads, but take away a bit of education, jobs, car, house, and some luxuries, in other words, take away everything but hope for a better life once they die and what do you get...

My neighbors are not plotting to cut off my head you moron! You are fear mongoring just like your boy W!

So all of us on this forum (and in this country) who were not in the military are ignorant of the issues? I guess we should leave the voting up to only the men and women who have served? That sounds like a great idea, let people trained to take orders without question elect the leaders of our country. No disrespect to the folks in the military, I respect them as much as doctors, lawyers, astronauts, janitors, and engineers, truck drivers, etc.


----------



## Mike Harvey (Oct 10, 2003)

dude...holy shit this is good stuff. Mountainbuzz needs some spice when the water is down. Here is my 2cent contribution:

9/11 was horrible. I shed tears on that day for people I did not know and one that I did. 3000 people died. Mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, people that mattered. I have two kids and I am effected in deeper ways than I ever was before when terrible things happen to people. That said, a terrible, fear inducing, event should not be the definition of our country today. If we are in fact better than the rest of the world then make sure kids have health care, that people have the ability to pursue happiness not corporate indenture, that the air my son and daughter breathe gets cleaner not worse, and mostly that democracy and all the ideals that come with it continues to evolve and truly become the greatest form of government in the world. On all these fronts GDub has failed miserably.

Am I worried about terrorism? Sure. I am also worried about earthquakes and hurricanes. I don't live in fear of terrorism I live in fear of the condition of the world that my children will live in. Controlling the country with fear is closer to 1984 then the ideal this country was founded on. 

And to all my homies out there like Cory (sorry dude but you singled yourself out) who don't vote. You are getting punked by the system. You have a voice but many people would just as soon see you not exercise it so that they can maintain the status quo.


----------



## Livingston (Jan 8, 2004)

I've kind of lost track, has anyone brought up W's rediculous idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages?

I am not gay (but I am single ladies) but is there anything so wrong with gayness that we need to amend our constitution? Are homosexuals a threat to homeland security? I don't know, perhaps polls show they are more likely to buy a hybrid vehicle. To put this issue up at the level of free speech, states rights, trial by jury, women's right to vote, right to vote regardless of race, etc., things I associate with trying to ensure our freedom, W uses it to take away. I would think that even the W supporters would agree, no matter how they felt about homosexuality, that the constitution is not the appropriate forum for this issue.

I was in Syracuse last week for work, I was amazed at the number of W stickers on cars. All the news talk shows sounded like that mhyde guy, scary stuff. I've also been in Cali, Iowa, and NJ recently. Don't think the rest of the world is like this forum, I travel a lot for work and I am freaking out at the number of people not paying attention!

My prediction is that W is going to win this thing.


----------



## happy (Mar 19, 2004)

this'll piss people off

Not a pleasant thought, but we got what we deserved IE 9/11. With all the covert weapons deals, training and money we have given to countries we have no business in, that "We the people" have no say in, we got what we deserved. Hell, we trained Bin Ladin. This has been going on prior even to Clintons' wonderful "I did not have sexual relations" foreign policy. Safety? Sure, bring our military home, guard our airports, guard our boarders and stop people coming to our country for our education just so they can go to their home and F$$$ us again. Change? Hell yes, but none of you Demicans or Republicrats are offering the kind of change appropriate for this country. They say "vote for the lesser of two evils", I say"F$$$ you" I don't vote evil. I think I'll vote Ventura. Then we can all boat safely.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

Whoever (Andy?) mentioned the website http://www.factcheck.org, it's great. It's non-partisan fact checking of ads. 

Checkout http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269 . 

It's depressing that this deception works. Democracy needs educated voters.


----------



## MBK (Apr 6, 2004)

*PLEASE LOOK AT THIS ARTICLE*

Hello, 

I wanted to share this article with everyone on the site. I feel that it is important for people to be aware of the scare tactics that the Republican Party is obviously willing to use to win this election. Most of us like to believe that we have moved out of the Jim Crow mindset, but obviously that sort of ignorance is still up and running in the Republican Party. 

By the way, factcheck is a great website. If you would like to compare, here are two others:

www.drudgereport.com (leans to the right, posted by Matt Drudge who is a Republican)

www.truthout.com (leans to the left- awesome site!)



> *NYTimes.com*
> OP-ED COLUMNIST
> 
> *Protect the Vote*
> ...


-MBK


----------



## esp (Jun 13, 2004)

*Take the quiz*

I found a little quiz that may help align you with the candidate who most closely reflects your own values.

Take the Quiz at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/decision2004/quiz/

Peace


----------

