# Vote!



## chewie (Aug 26, 2004)

Mattyb:
Great work - so realistic....it feels like...the past four years....
Wanted to reinforce your thought - go out and vote!!!!
Also, if you can, vote early - it looks like it is going to be a crush on Tuesday.

Find the address and a map of your voting location, hours and voter rights at http://www.mypollingplace.org. And remember to bring your I.D.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

Here's the address to the full video clip. 

http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

Cocky SOB. You would think he would learn about open microphones and active cameras.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Written by Mathew Manweller
Central Washington University political science professor...

"Election determines fate of nation"

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential election,
there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is
too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime
that
will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation
crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. 

Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of.ambivalence. Down
the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the
daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the
consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a
spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House,
the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold:

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once
a
nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the
moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the
Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we
will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to
tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing
the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. 

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future
presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions.
America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history
regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we
turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the
lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists
that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can
defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can
become a defeated America.

Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the
heavy
lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia
times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every
terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is
the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady
stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of
the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin
Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration
without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's WW II generation is its 'greatest
generation'.
But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last
generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened
in the fire of WW II, they may be the last American generation that
understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult
to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment
by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake
'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been
more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy
real estate. You accept a set of values and
responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must
grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the
oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now
historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the
decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will
describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary
nations;
or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters
of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the
City on the Hill."


----------



## esp (Jun 13, 2004)

I did not know that it was OUR task to bring democracy to the middle east.


----------



## waynechorter (Oct 10, 2003)

h2otoxic

I see your a typicall brainwashed republican not able to think for yourself and only quote others. Hopefully you'll be able to step back and see the big picture some day. Our bringing democracy to the middle east is on par with the great crusades bringing christianity to the turks. If we dump that fricken idot Bush our message to the world will be that we're man enough to admit when we made a mistake.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

couldnt even finish it, almost puked a third of the way down.


----------



## badkins (Oct 30, 2003)

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

Go Packers!


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

ahh christ, H2o are you still here! Why have'nt you learned anything? Like most repubs, too thick a skull. 

Might as well throw in some linkage:

http://ww11.e-tractions.com/truemajority/run/oreo?rd=436


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

First off, Badkins that sh!t is funny. It may be the first time I cheer for the Pack with my Wisonsin friends. On a more serious note, h2otoxic, the politics your pressing here are as misguided as your screen name. I don't wan't toxic h2o in our rivers and that is what will, among other things, continue to happen if by some miraculous feat of tyranny W remains in the white house. Chorter is right, you've been brainwashed and the Professor is spouting ideals closer to that of the Nazi's than to that of a free nation. Mathew Manweller is on the white house propoganda payroll, but those who lead through fear will be defeated.
EvanJ


----------



## andy (Oct 13, 2003)

waynechorter said:


> I see your a typicall brainwashed ....


It's you're, not "your" smarty pants.

http://mountainbuzz.com/viewtopic.php?t=3104


Just pulling YOUR chain.  

See you Nov. 2nd.


----------



## waynechorter (Oct 10, 2003)

I love people that our so board they go thru the buzz looking for spelling mistakes of others, Hope u have fun with this'n it should make you're day.


----------



## mattyb (Oct 31, 2003)

*bored*

bored... not board...


----------



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

With all the facts about Duba out there I can't see how any reasonable person could support him - anyway I think the old saying "Giving facts to a conservative is just like giving toliet paper to a dog" sums it up for me. I wish more people had the ablility to open thier eyes - I guess the only thing the rest of us can do is vote.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Damn thats a funny quote RDNEK, I gotta remember that one. I have had several conversations with conservatives. Considering where I live, Colo Spgs, it is hard not to and it seems that most of the people that I have spoken to that are voting for Bush are basing it on a religious decision. There are however some people that actually got some of the tax cut and are doing it for purely financial reasons, their own of course. I gave up trying to change their minds a while back but I will be voting and I won't be voting for Bush.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

_Since so many of these neo-con "references" turn out to be false, I had to check this guy out. He does exist, and regularly makes rounds on AM conservative talk radio (surprise!), where the news is unfalteringly truthful.

I could spend my morning breaking down Professor Manweller's arguments, but it's already been done in fine fashion. I'm going to pull a page from the h2oxtc handbook and let someone else crush this jackass:_


Dear Professor Manweller:

Your radio commentary on the upcoming election was recently forwarded to me by a friend who asked for my opinion.

Since you teach at a university in my state, I was especially interested in the kind of thinking you are sharing with the young people of Washington. Your views were sufficiently provocative to cause me to reply at some length. It is not hard to play on people's patriotism; it's much more difficult to live up to one's own words.

In fairness, I thought I should include you in my response, and thereby enable you to respond. 

The text of your message is set forth below, along with my replies. 

Diaries :: doginfollow's diary :: 




> MATHEW MANWELLER'S COMMENTARY ON THIS ELECTION
> In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.



This is an extremely important election. But if you really think it is the "only election during our lifetime that will matter," the University of Oregon should think again about that PhD they gave you. I'd like to see you get that claim by your dissertation panel. To cite just one example (which should not tax your memory too much), the 2000 election mattered quite a bit. The popular will was thwarted, minority voters were systematically disenfranchised, partisan election officials manipulated results, rented mobs blocked lawful recounts, and the president was appointed by a conservative bloc on the Supreme Court using its most vacuous and tortured logic in a hundred years.

All that before Inauguration Day! Since then, the appointed president has abused this narrowest of mandates by pursuing a radical right-wing agenda: massive tax cuts for the rich, an unsustainable wave of deficits, a corporate lobbyist takeover of regulatory agencies, massive giveaways to campaign contributors and favored industries (invariably one and the same), the gutting of environmental regulations, the curtailment of civil liberties, and the complete disregard of reason, evidence and science in favor of ideology, political calculation, sectarian faith and a vague sense of "instinct". President Bush promised that his economic program would revive the economy and create jobs; it has done neither. He has succeeded only in saddling future generations with trillions in debt, endangered the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs. These consequences will be with us for more than your 50-year time horizon. So I guess the 2000 election was pretty important.

That's Bush's record, but I don't hear you talk about it in your message. No, you'd rather talk about the "big things" that George Bush has been up to in the Middle East.

OK. Bring it on. 




> First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.


Well, that's a pretty scary thought... has America become a 'girlie' country? Have we lost that frontier-conquering, Nazi-kicking, moon-landing gusto? Are we failing in Iraq because we're not tough enough?
Tell it to the families of the 1102 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq. Tell it to the many thousands of wounded. No, we're plenty tough. We're losing ground because our president isn't smart enough. He wasn't smart enough to devise a strategy that combines military force with diplomacy and alliances. He wasn't patient enough to let U.N. inspectors confirm or refute our phony intelligence on WMD. He wasn't realistic enough to admit the serious backlash against the U.S. in world and regional opinion from a unilateral invasion. He wasn't curious enough to find out why military planners thought we needed a larger force to stabilize Iraq. He wasn't determined enough to prepare for a long struggle, preferring to declare the "mission accomplished" on the deck of an aircraft carrier. He wasn't conscientious enough to recognize when things were going wrong. He wasn't tough enough to hold his underlings accountable for failure, from the lack of post-war planning to the horrific Abu Ghraib torture scandal. And he still isn't honest enough to level with the American people and admit his mistakes on Iraq. The scary thing is he might not even be thoughtful enough to know what they are.

This is the record you think we should endorse. Otherwise, you're worried about the message we will send to future presidents. So what would future presidents take away from George W. Bush's defeat in 2004? Here are a few: Don't be stupid. Don't be lazy. Don't be arrogant. Don't be dishonest. Don't take America to war for bogus reasons. Not a bad set of lessons for future presidents to learn, I'd say.

Yes, America is a great country that can do great things. It's important that we believe in ourselves as a nation, just like we need to believe in ourselves as individuals. But just because you keep telling myself, "I think I can, I think I can..." doesn't mean that you can accomplish your goals if you do not prepare a realistic plan and then actually implement it. 

Is "bringing democracy to the Middle East" too big a task for us? I'd feel more confident about the answer if we could first bring democracy to Florida. But we have to ask ourselves another question: how did "bringing democracy to the Middle East" become our great national goal, to which we will devote so much of our blood and treasure over the next several decades? "Bringing democracy to the Middle East" certainly can't be found anywhere in President Bush's 2000 campaign platform. It wasn't cited by Congress as a reason for threatening Iraq with force (that was supposedly about WMD). It wasn't even mentioned by George Bush until every other reason he had advanced for the invasion had collapsed under the weight of contrary evidence. Who decided that this vast project was the only, or even the best, way to protect our nation from terrorism? And if success in this scheme is the only way for America to "rise to the demands of history," just what are those demands? How many of the dozens of nations in the Middle East will we need to invade, occupy, rebuild, pacify, and support until their governments resemble our own? What kind of military force and financial sacrifices will this goal require? Will we need a draft? A massive tax increase? More trillions in debt? You (and President Bush) should answer these questions before asking us to ratify the strange new national purpose you have selected for us. Only then can we judge whether it should be placed ahead of other strategies to combat terrorism, ahead of our pressing domestic needs, and worthy of the young men and women whose lives must be sacrificed to achieve it. 

Mr. Bush can't answer these questions, I suspect, because he hasn't really thought about them. A professor of political science does not have that excuse. 




> Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.


You show such great insight into the terrorist mind, it's a pity you don't put it to greater use. If the election of John Kerry would encourage terrorists, why not claim the converse: that electing George Bush would cause them to simply give up? Because both claims are equally absurd. Let's look at what al-Qaeda say they want to achieve: a revolution overthrowing the existing regimes in the Middle East and installing an Islamic fundamentalist caliphate. By invading and occupying Iraq, George Bush has fueled resentment of the U.S. throughout the entire region and seriously undermined the long-term stability of governments friendly to us. It's too simple to say that Bush is creating terrorists. Hatred of the U.S. existed in some segments of the population for many years preceding his presidency. But throughout the world, Bush's policies have turned our friends into neutrals, neutrals into hostiles, and hostiles into violent terrorists. It doesn't sound like a winning strategy, does it? Unlike you, I don't profess to look into the mind of Bin Laden, but there are plenty of objective reasons to believe his interests would be served by a continuation of Bush's blundering. Should we vote based on what Bin Laden thinks? No. But we should vote for the best strategy to beat him. Bush has said (repeatedly) that "he's not that concerned" about Bin Laden and doesn't think about him very much. John Kerry would think about him every hour of every day until he's dead or captured. Who's more determined to win? 



> It is said that America's WWII generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake "living in America" as "being an American." But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."


OK, Professor, let's talk about "values and responsibilities." Let's talk about "duty, honor and sacrifice". With all this talk about the greatest generation, I thought maybe you might be one of the brave men who stormed the beach at D-Day. Surprise! You're actually a rather young guy. 
I'll take your word for it that you've been "hardened" by enough "bleakness" to truly understand what your generation owes America and the world. But could it be that you still have something more to give?

Judging from your photo, you look truly fit for service in this great cause you and President Bush have assigned to America. I've heard we're having trouble staffing this project. Since the President tells us a draft is unthinkable, perhaps it's time for you step forward. No, I don't mean another e-mail (as heroic as they may seem). I'm talking about signing up. With your insights into the minds of terrorists and the task of democratizing the Middle East, there's no doubt you'd be an excellent platoon leader in Iraq. So please, without delay, get thee to a recruiting station. 

Or could it be that you're just talking about these values with "hollow detachment"?


----------



## matobs (Nov 26, 2003)

Here's an endorsment for Kerry from The Economist who can hardly be accused of being pro-Kerry (last time around it endorsed Bush) liberal mouthpiece. 

As the editorial states - and any reasonable person that pays attention should be able to see - Bush is totally incompetent. Moreover, irregardless of what you think of his policies the professed "great uniter" from 2000 has proven to be a great divider which is extremely unhealthy for our country and the world. Time for accountability Mr. Bush and time to hopefully start some healing.

THE INCOMPETENT OR THE INCOHERENT?
Oct 28th 2004

With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John
Kerry on November 2nd

YOU might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist
attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical
political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the
biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency
would be an especially elevated and notable affair. If so, you would be
wrong. This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men:
George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has
never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it;
and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively
about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November
2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must THE ECONOMIST. It is far
from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent,
dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather
than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush.

Whenever we express a view of that sort, some readers are bound to
protest that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking
our noses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means
that protesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect
a lack of awareness about our readership. THE ECONOMIST's weekly sales
in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our
British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total. All those American
readers will now be pondering how to vote, or indeed whether to. Thus,
as at every presidential election since 1980, we hope it may be useful
for us to say how we would think about our vote--if we had one.

THE CASE AGAINST GEORGE BUSH
That decision cannot be separated from the terrible memory of September
11th, nor can it fail to begin as an evaluation of the way in which Mr
Bush and his administration responded to that day. For Mr Bush's record
during the past three years has been both inspiring and disturbing.

Mr Bush was inspiring in the way he reacted to the new world in which
he, and America, found itself. He grasped the magnitude of the
challenge well. His military response in Afghanistan was not the sort
of poorly directed lashing out that Bill Clinton had used in 1998 after
al-Qaeda destroyed two American embassies in east Africa: it was a
resolute, measured effort, which was reassuringly sober about the
likely length of the campaign against Osama bin Laden and the
elusiveness of anything worth the name of victory. Mistakes were made,
notably when at Tora Bora Mr bin Laden and other leaders probably
escaped, and when following the war both America and its allies devoted
insufficient military and financial resources to helping Afghanistan
rebuild itself. But overall, the mission has achieved a lot: the
Taliban were removed, al-Qaeda lost its training camps and its base,
and Afghanistan has just held elections that bring cautious hope for
the central government's future ability to bring stability and
prosperity.

The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years
to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of
them to the American base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a
legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own
legal system. That act reflected a genuinely difficult problem: that of
having captured people of unknown status but many of whom probably did
want to kill Americans, at a time when to set them free would have been
politically controversial, to say the least. That difficulty cannot
neutralise the damage caused by this decision, however. Today,
Guantanamo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy,
evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it,
cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which
claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is
incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without
trial or access to legal representation. The White House's proposed
remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds the problem.

When Mr Bush decided to frame his foreign policy in the sort of
language and objectives previously associated with Woodrow Wilson, John
Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, he was bound to be greeted with cynicism. Yet
he was right to do so. To paraphrase a formula invented by his ally,
Tony Blair, Mr Bush was promising to be "tough on terrorism, tough on
the causes of terrorism", and the latter he attributed to the lack of
democracy, human rights and opportunity in much of the world,
especially the Arab countries. To call for an effort to change that
lamentable state of affairs was inspiring and surely correct. The
credibility of the call was enhanced by this month's Afghan election,
and may in future be enhanced by successful and free elections in Iraq.
But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been
considerably undermined not just by Guantanamo but also by two big
things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the
way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam
Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment
or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.

Invading Iraq was not a mistake. Although the intelligence about
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy
and, with hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12
years since the first Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him
the benefit of the doubt. The containment scheme deployed around him
was unsustainable and politically damaging: military bases in holy
Saudi Arabia, sanctions that impoverished and even killed Iraqis and
would have collapsed. But changing the regime so incompetently was a
huge mistake. By having far too few soldiers to provide security and by
failing to pay Saddam's remnant army, a task that was always going to
be long and hard has been made much, much harder. Such incompetence is
no mere detail: thousands of Iraqis have died as a result and hundreds
of American soldiers. The eventual success of the mission, while still
possible, has been put in unnecessary jeopardy. So has America's
reputation in the Islamic world, both for effectiveness and for moral
probity.

If Mr Bush had meanwhile been making progress elsewhere in the Middle
East, such mistakes might have been neutralised. But he hasn't. Israel
and Palestine remain in their bitter conflict, with America readily
accusable of bias. In Iran the conservatives have become stronger and
the country has moved closer to making nuclear weapons. Egypt, Syria
and Saudi Arabia have not turned hostile, but neither have they been
terribly supportive nor reform-minded. Libya's renunciation of WMD is
the sole clear piece of progress.

This only makes the longer-term project more important, not less. To
succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to
mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to
admit to anything: even after Abu Ghraib, when he had a perfect
opportunity to dismiss Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and
declare a new start, he chose not to. Instead, he treated the abuses as
if they were a low-level, disciplinary issue. Can he learn from
mistakes? The current approach in Iraq, of training Iraqi security
forces and preparing for elections to establish an Iraqi government
with popular support, certainly represents an improvement, although
America still has too few troops. And no one knows, for example,
whether Mr Rumsfeld will stay in his job, or go. In the end, one can do
no more than guess about whether in a second term Mr Bush would prove
more competent.

MAKING SENSE OF JOHN KERRY
That does at least place him on equal terms with his rival, Mr Kerry.
With any challenger, voters have to make a leap of faith about what the
new man might be like in office. What he says during the campaign is a
poor guide: Mr Bush said in 2000 that America should be "a humble
nation, but strong" and should eschew nation-building; Mr Clinton
claimed in 1992 to want to confront "the butchers of Beijing" and to
reflate the economy through public spending.

Like those two previous challengers, Mr Kerry has shaped many of his
positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the
course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions
have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same. In
the American system, given Congress's substantial role, presidents
should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of
leadership, for how they might be expected to deal with the crises that
may confront them, abroad or at home. Oscillation, even during an
election campaign, is a worrying sign.

If the test is a domestic one, especially an economic crisis, Mr Kerry
looks acceptable, however. His record and instincts are as a fiscal
conservative, suggesting that he would rightly see future federal
budget deficits as a threat. His circle of advisers includes the
admirable Robert Rubin, formerly Mr Clinton's treasury secretary. His
only big spending plan, on health care, would probably be killed by a
Republican Congress. On trade, his position is more debatable: while an
avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he
has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank
protectionist as his running-mate. He has not yet shown Mr Clinton's
talent for advocacy on this issue, or any willingness to confront his
rather protectionist party. Still, on social policy, Mr Kerry has a
clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian
right. That will make him a more tolerant, less divisive figure on
issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research.

The biggest questions, though, must be about foreign policy, especially
in the Middle East. That is where his oscillations are most unsettling.
A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to
support, he now describes as "a mistake". On some occasions he claims
to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined
to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on
others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of
terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to
offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though
perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human
rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different
process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies.

So what is Mr Kerry's character? His voting record implies he is a
vacillator, but that may be unfair, given the technical nature of many
Senate votes. His oscillations this year imply that he is more of a
ruthless opportunist. His military record suggests he can certainly be
decisive when he has to be and his post-Vietnam campaign showed
determination. His reputation for political comebacks and as a strong
finisher in elections also indicates a degree of willpower that his
flip-flopping otherwise belies.

THE TASK AHEAD, AND THE MAN TO FIT IT
In the end, the choice relies on a judgment about who will be better
suited to meet the challenges America is likely to face during the next
four years. Those challenges must include the probability of another
big terrorist attack, in America or western Europe. They must include
the need for a period of discipline in economic policy and for
compromise on social policy, lest the nation become weak or divided in
the face of danger. Above all, though, they include the need to make a
success of the rebuilding of Iraq, as the key part of a broader effort
to stabilise, modernise and, yes, democratise the Middle East.

Many readers, feeling that Mr Bush has the right vision in foreign
policy even if he has made many mistakes, will conclude that the safest
option is to leave him in office to finish the job he has started. If
Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to
achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority,
the religious right, then THE ECONOMIST will wish him well. But our
confidence in him has been shattered. We agree that his broad vision is
the right one but we doubt whether Mr Bush is able to change or has
sufficient credibility to succeed, especially in the Islamic world.
Iraq's fledgling democracy, if it gets the chance to be born at all,
will need support from its neighbours--or at least non-interference--if
it is to survive. So will other efforts in the Middle East,
particularly concerning Israel and Iran.

John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to
be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it. But his
plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush's, which speaks
well of his judgment. He has been forthright about the need to win in
Iraq, rather than simply to get out, and will stand a chance of making
a fresh start in the Israel-Palestine conflict and (though with even
greater difficulty) with Iran. After three necessarily tumultuous and
transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline
and for repairing America's moral and practical authority. Furthermore,
as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability.
He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view,
impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the
doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with
America's great tasks.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

Here's an letter sent to Bush signed by over 169 MBA professors (which I'll take over a Poli Sci prof from BFE Washington any day). 



*Open Letter to President George W. Bush* 


October 4, 2004 
Dear Mr. President: 

As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown. 

The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes  primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution  has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse  well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term  from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent  only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base.

These sorts of deficits crowd out private investment and are politically addictive. They also place a heavy burden on monetary policy  and create additional pressure for higher interest rates  by stoking inflationary expectations. If your economic advisers are telling you that these deficits can be defeated through further reductions in tax rates, then you need new advisers. More robust economic growth could certainly help, but nearly every one of your administrations economic forecasts  both before and after 9-11  has proved overly optimistic. Expenditure cuts could be part of the answer, but your record so far has been one of increasing expenditures, not reducing them. 

What is called for, we believe, is a dramatic reorientation of fiscal policy, including substantial reversals of your tax policy. Running a budget deficit in response to a short bout of recession is one thing. But running large structural deficits over a long period is something else entirely. We therefore urge you to consider the fiscal realities we now face and the substantial burden they are placing on our economy. 

We also urge you to consider the distributional consequences of your policies. Under your administration, the income gap between the most affluent Americans and everyone else has widened. Although the latest data reveal that real household incomes have dropped across the board since you took office, low and middle income households have experienced steeper declines than upper income households. To be sure, the general phenomenon of mounting inequality preceded your administration, but it has continued (and, by some accounts, intensified) over the past three and a half years. 

Some degree of inequality is inherent in any free market economy, creating positive incentives for economic and technological advancement. But when inequality becomes extreme, it can be socially corrosive and economically dysfunctional. Problems of this sort are visible throughout much of the developing world. At the moment, the most commonly accepted measure of inequality  the so-called Gini coefficient  is far higher in the United States than in any other developed country and is continuing to move upward. We dont know where the breakpoint is for the U.S., but we would rather not find out. With all due respect, we believe your tax policy has exacerbated the problem of inequality in the United States, which has worrisome implications for the economy as a whole. We very much hope you will take this threat to our nation into account as you consider new fiscal approaches to address the nations most pressing economic problems.

Sensible and farsighted economic management requires true discipline, compassion, and courage  not just slogans. Given the tenuous state of the American economy, we believe that the time for an honest assessment of the problem and for genuine corrective action is now. Ignoring the fiscal crisis that has taken hold during your presidency may seem politically appealing in the short run, but we fear it could ultimately prove disastrous. From a policy standpoint, the clear message is that more of the same wont work. The warning signs are already visible, and it is incumbent upon all of us to pay attention. 



Respectfully submitted,

_-issued by 169 professors of business 
and economics at U.S. business schools. The letter began 
circulating at Harvard Business School, where the president 
received his Masters of Business Administration degree (MBA) 
in 1975. 

Fifty-six current or emeritus faculty 
from the Harvard Business School signed the letter 
before it was sent to professors at other 
business schools. Within 72 hours, 113 more 
professors, from such renowned schools as 
Stanford Business School, Wharton (University of 
Pennsylvania), Sloan (MIT), Darden (University of 
Virginia), Fuqua (Duke University), Kellogg 
(Northwestern University), McCombs (University of 
Texas-Austin), and Stern (NYU), had added their 
signatures. The list includes two Nobel laureates 
in economics -- Professor Robert C. Merton of 
Harvard University and Professor Emeritus William 
F. Sharpe of Stanford. 

All of the signatories are tenured or emeritus 
professors who have signed in their individual 
capacities. The letter represents the signers' 
own views, not those of the institutions with 
which they are affiliated. Organizers of the 
letter allowed only tenured and emeritus 
professors to sign to avoid any suggestion of 
pressure on non-tenured faculty. _



http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/


----------



## routter (Mar 10, 2004)

As boaters we spend our lives trying to go with the flow, but in this instance I'll have to say congrats to h2o for getting off-line. This board, and not to mention this sport, is a bastion for leftists. And to take the time to write a post that will most definitlely fall on deaf ears and busy fingers is commendable.

I don't think at this stage of the race anyone in this forum will be changing his mind after another drawn-out diatribe. However, I will just make one quick point as a seven-year Economist subscriber. While it remains a trusted news source covering both business and world affairs, the magazine is still published in a SOCIALIST country. Hawkish it is not.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Oh my God (sorry cant say that) you have convinced me. I think I will cast my vote for the communist party. Since Kerry is regarded as a communist hero in Vietnam, I guess that is the direction that the democratic party is headed or has already arrived. From all of the suppression tactics that the Dem's have resorted to along with using information that is later proved to be false by people that were actually there, I think this is the only direction that they could be going. Its a shame that you have such global views of everything that you cant see the largest danger happening right at home. If you cant see right through the lies and misrepresentation you are no better than they are. 

It really doesn't matter, when Bush wins the Dem's will start all of their law suites to get into office so go and cast your worthless vote for our Vietnam vet and Vietnam hero. Just depends on what side your on. Good or Evil. You have made your choice and I will make mine. I really don't care what you have to say and if I had to choose between Kerry and Saddam himself, I would choose Saddam, at least you know what you are getting.


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Help educate dubya:

http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf

....and he's our President! Whats that say about us, or at least the ones who vote for him? :?


----------



## andy (Oct 13, 2003)

*Re: bored*



mattyb said:


> bored... not board...


hahahaha
Now that's funny!

Read the OT post Mr. Chorter. It was done in jest.

As a good brit said on NPR "Kerry is a mamby pamby".

Currently Vegas puts the odds on Bush at 6-5.

Should be interesting how this one plays out.

Now to chime in with a point:

(Read gh post.) What you base your vote on is personal decision. There is nothing wrong with believing in God and voting that way. There is nothing wrong with voting for financial reasons. There is nothing wrong with voting based on environmental issues. Saying someone elses reason to make their voting decision is "invalid" because is not the same as your own is short sighted and close minded.

[Edited to add] These are what people value in themselves and others. "Values" has become a sort of dirty word i the liberal mind, because it links you with the religious right. I have "values" (and I'm not the religious right), and I vote accordingly. I hope you do too, or are you a walking zombie, programmed by the media. I hope you find some values in your candidate of choice, if you can't, then maybe you should rethink your vote.

Here's a challenge:

Instead of listing things you hate about the opponent, list three things you value in your candidate.


Just go Vote!


----------



## lagoonia (Oct 21, 2004)

Good Idea Andy

1) I like that John Kerry will help to protect wilderness and the rivers we as boaters love to paddle.

2) I like that when his swift boat was shot at on the river he made a split second decision to turn the boat around and save his crew, which I feel is a defining moment.

3) I like that he wants to protect a women's right to choose.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

I plan to sit this debate out and sit on the hidden fence. But I did want to mention an amazing book I just recently finished. 

Samuel P. Huntington's 
"The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of New World Order"

The book, which was published in 1996, practically predicts the 9/11 attacks (with theory not 'intelligence'), as well as a lot of future trends Huntington expects to see in the future. Some have already appeared to be true, and others false. Regardless of the exact accuracy though, the views Huntington expreses are extremely eye opening in world politics and economics. Regardless of your current political views it is an extremely worthwhile read. [/u]


----------



## mike a (Dec 16, 2003)

*I'll bite...*

Good idea Andy. 

Let me do one for the Pres.

1) I admire the fact that the Pres has a set of values that he lives and governs by. In interviews he gives straight answers and does not hide his beliefs. No complex issue type of responselove him or hate him, you know where he stands.

2) I like the fact that Bush had the stones to go into Iraq. I think he did so at great political risk, as this tight election proves. Although Ill admit I wasnt thrilled with this decision (I have reservations, but back his move), I think that he made it because he thought it was the right thing to do, and stood to gain nothing and lose very much with this gamble. Regarding Iraq, I think well know if he was correct in 10-15 yrs. If it becomes a S Korea, W Germany, or a Japan than Bush will be written into history as a forward thinking and incredibly successful pres. If Iraq is lost to democracy, than it will be a Vietnam and he will be remembered and known for this failure. Further, the US will be dealt a severe blow in the world theater.

3) I like that Bush comes off as a trustworthy and honest guy. I would have him over to my house any day and would trust him to watch my dog. Every notable personal account I have heard of him is favorable. I guess I just like the guy (and his family).

I could easily list three things I dont like about him as well, but Ill leave it alone...seems like plenty of people to bash him around here.
:?


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

GEORGE W. BUSH RESUME
The White House, USA

* ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
* I attacked and took over two countries.
* I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the Treasury.
* I shattered the record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.
* I set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock 
market.
* I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* I am the first president in US history to enter office with a 
criminal
record.
* In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided 
over
the worst security failure in US history.
* I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips by any 
president in
US history.
* In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their 
job.
* I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any 
other
president in US history.
* I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
* I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than 
any
president in US history.
* I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any president 
since
the advent of TV.
* I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution 
than any
other president in US history.
* I presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused 
to
intervene when corruption was revealed.
* I presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused 
to
use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
* I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously 
take
to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record 
for
protest against any person in the history of mankind.
* I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US 
history.
* I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any 
in US
history.
* Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US 
history.
(The 'poorest' multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil 
tanker
named after her).
* I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the 
Union
simultaneously go bankrupt.
* I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any 
market in
any country in the history of the world.
* I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and 
military
occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the
United Nations and the world community.
* I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the
history of the United States.
* I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending 
increases,
more than any other president in US history.
* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations 
remove
the US from the Human Rights Commission.
* I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations 
remove
the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
* I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of
congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US 
history.
* I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
* I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
* I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by 
default
no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
* I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations 
election
inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
* I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate 
campaign
donations.
* The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of 
my
best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy 
frauds
in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
* I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US
history.
* I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under 
attack
(and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
* I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
* I took the world's sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a 
year
made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the 
biggest
diplomatic failure in US and world history).
* I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the 
people of
Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace 
and
stability.
* I am the first US president in history to have the people of South 
Korea
more threatened by the US than by their immediate neighbor, North 
Korea.
* I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded 
government
contracts.
* I set the all-time record for number of administration appointees who
violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations
bidding for gov't contracts.
* I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than 
any
other president in US history. In a little over two years I have 
created the
most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US 
has
been since the civil war.
* I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less 
than
two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.


* RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
* I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas 
driving
record has been erased and is not available).
* I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during a 
time
of war.
* I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug 
use.
* All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away 
to
my father1s library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or 
bankrupt
companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served 
on
the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
* Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding
public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
review.

* PERSONAL REFERENCES:
* For personal references, please speak to my dad or uncle James Baker 
(They
can be reached in their offices at the Carlyle Group where they are 
helping
to divide up the spoils of the US-Iraq war and plan for the next one.)

.....gosh, I can't think of any good reasons to bash Bush


----------



## boreal (Oct 29, 2004)

No matter who wins, it will never prevent me from surfing those waves and rippin' turns all winter long...

Go Kerry!


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

......even if it is damn release and in toxic water.


----------



## boreal (Oct 29, 2004)

...then I move to Canada :wink:


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Andy if you will read what I was responding to it was a question as to why anyone would vote for Bush. I didn't say they were wrong for believing that way. Was just pointing out the reasons I had heard concerning why someone would vote for Bush. There was no blame in my note about voting for religion. I did place blame on someone who is already making a ton of money and gets a 1k tax refund and then sells their vote for a tax rebate that is not sustainable. I will however address the religion issue since you press me. The religion that I grew up with was a healer, a bringer together of people. It wasn't perfect but the intent always seemed to come from a good place. Maybe it is that I have aged and become cynical but I see nothing of that in the Bush campaign. I see someone that uses hot topics to drive a nation apart just for political and personal gain and I am tired of it. What happened to the separation of church and state? I am a moderate in most of my beliefs but either because of the town I live in or because of being a moderate I have begun to feel persecuted for my beliefs during the Bush era. I voted my conscious this morning as I hope everyone else has and hopefully after this election the nation will be less divided than it is today..


----------



## esp (Jun 13, 2004)

i too am concerned with the deep divisions that the mingling of religion and politics has created in this great nation. gh, i think i may share some simillar experiencies with the religion that i was brought up in. and suprisingly enough, i have said a few small prayers lately. my prayer has been simple, and it has been that i pray the correct man reaches office. some how this election has become a vote for good vs evil, right and wrong. it is not that clear. i worry that blind faith has replaced intelectual annalysis. what is the consertive, evangelical, extreme right going to do when there man looses? and that question goes to the left as well. if kerry gets elected will there be a religious backlash? will there be be a lot of christians wondering the streets with their beliefs shattered? if bush wins, will the folks from the left start making some true noise? just thinking out loud. i just got back from voting, i feel good, optimistic. blame me, i voted bush in 2000, but decided not to make the same mistake twice!!!

just a few random thoughts.


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2003)

As if there were any doubt about how important this election is, here's an ugly potential twist if we end up in another debacle like Florida 2000. From a great electoral college poll site: http://www.electoral-vote7.com/


> SCOTUS news: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist announced last week that he was going to return to the Supreme Court yesterday. He did not return. According to the New York Times his office released a terse statement saying that the Chief Justice spent 7 days at Bethesda Naval Hospital where he was treated for thyroid cancer. He underwent a tracheotomy so he could breathe and he is now being given both chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Medical experts say this evidence suggests that the cancer was not successfully removed and that even with heroic treatment, patients with this type of cancer usually die within a year. Should the election end up in the Supreme Court, it is not known whether Rehnquist will particpate in the case and vote on the outcome. Should he decline to participate due to ill health, the deadlock in the country might end up in a Court itself deadlocked 4-4. In such an event, the lower court ruling stands but no legal precedent is set. An alternative scenario is that Chief Justice Rehnquist resigns and that President Bush makes a recess appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation. If Bush were to appoint a new justice without Senate confirmation who then cast the deciding vote to make Bush president I fear for the future of the country. Let us hope somebody wins big today with no litigation. Do your part and vote.


DON'T NOT VOTE!


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

Something for Christian voters to ponder:

When it comes to the issues, I agree 70% of the time with Kerry and 30% of the time with Bush. Therefore, I should place my vote for Kerry.

However, I see where some of the Christian voters are coming from, but I think they are mislead. As a Christian for many years, I want a president who prays for guidance and has an active relationship with God. I think many Christians may not agree with Bush, but may vote for him because they think he is a "man of God" or at least more so than Kerry. I have actually said a few prayers myself seeking guidance for this election.

My conclusion is that Bush seems like a phony. He puts up a front as if he is a Godly man, but we don't know anything about his relationship with God. He realizes if he can protray himself a certain way, he can win more votes from Christians. Actions aren't everything, but since we can't see into his heart, we have to make decisions based on his actions. Look at his actions outside of public office (don't seem very Christian to me). Even some of his policy as president isn't very Christian. Do we really know this guy? Or is he just creating a character that will appeal to Christians and moral conservatives to gather votes.

Who would Jesus REALLY vote for?...good question
Let's just all hope and pray the right man wins.


----------



## mike a (Dec 16, 2003)

I usually hate off topic posts on MB (isn't that more of a BT thing?), but have been sucked into this one!

I'm glad to see more respectful dialoge and actual insight--it is very easy to name-call for both sides. 

I'm also glad to see people who care about the country we live in, even if I don't agree with you all.

It's funny to me to see so many concerned about Bush's religion. It is a non-issue to me. He is religious, and gleans values from his religion. Is that so strange? I have heard Kerry speak many times about his religion, but no one here notices. I saw a stat somewhere (that's helpful, isn't it?) that Clinton made some 150 visits to churches in his time in office, with Bush only making some 4 appearances in churches other than his own. A week or so ago Kerry was making a stump speach from within a church with Jackson and Sharpton next to him. I'm surpised that no one here is alarmed by this--does the left give Kerry a pass?

Actually, I believe the church and state issue has been blown way out of proportion. I am not a religious person, but I am aware that the founding fathers of our nation were. They began meetings with prayers, and congressional sessions today are still started with a prayer. This is very old news. In fact, our presidents through time have been religious. However, to have the state sponser one religion over another would, as our founding fathers wrote into law, be a travesty. But having a religious leader is not the same thing.

Anyhow, as I said I'm happy to see so many people participating. Many have died for our right to vote, and it is an insult for us not to go through the trouble to complete our individual civic duties of becoming aware of the issues and then acting. 

For our country's sake, I hope there is a clear winner from this election. As a Bush supporter, I have decided that if Kerry wins this election, I will support his presidency, even if I don't celebrate it. It is not up to Kerry or Bush to bring us together (although an early concession speach from the looser would not hurt), it us up to all Americans to accept the winner of the election as our rightful leader. Like it or not, most of us have a hell of a lot more in common with one another than we have differences.


----------



## mattyb (Oct 31, 2003)

*Incompetent " Christians"*

uhhhhh? No we don't have that much in common. I am a religious person and I am more afraid of the current administration and its self-righteousness then ever. Bush is so vocal about being born again that I don't believe it. Religion is personal matter. It is about self-discovery and making changes to better the lives of others. It's not about talking about how religious you are and vocally justifying your decisions thusly.

Christianity is about forgiveness, about trying to understand the other point of view. Above all, it is about tolerance. Please show me one instance where this administration has preached about or acted with tolerance. There is nothing Christian about this administration, and the sad thing is, that's how they won the vote, by appealing to the evangelical vote. 

Like the Economist said, "the Incompetent or the Incoherent?" Looks like we picked incompetence.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I guess it depends on how you want to spin it. I have read articles that believe that Bush believes he is in a holy war with Muslims. Bush sat up the faith based initiative that funnels billions in aid to churches. Those types of things worry me. Probably a good portion of it is that I do not like Bush's policy's, etc and I find anything marginal to support my beliefs.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

I thought this article was an interesting perspective on the election. 

OP-ED COLUMNIST 
Living Poor, Voting Rich
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland.

I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly against their own interests - for Republican candidates.

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values.

"On values, they are really noncompetitive in the heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist, Eastern approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial, Congressional and even local candidates to survive."

In the summer, I was home - too briefly - in Yamhill, Ore., a rural, working-class area where most people would benefit from Democratic policies on taxes and health care. But many of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize with spotted owls rather than loggers.

One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party. Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the year, "What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," says that Democratic leaders have been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they have lost touch with blue-collar America.

"There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism, and that's just bound to rub average people the wrong way," Mr. Frank said. He notes that Republicans have used "culturally powerful but content-free issues" to connect to ordinary voters.

To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns, gays and grizzlies.

One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.

Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that Idaho's Democratic candidate for the Senate two years ago, Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns "and I use them all." He still lost.

As for gays, that's a rare wedge issue that Democrats have managed to neutralize in part, along with abortion. Most Americans disapprove of gay marriage but do support some kind of civil unions (just as they oppose "partial birth" abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from coat-hanger abortions). 

Finally, grizzlies - a metaphor for the way environmentalism is often perceived in the West as high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were still enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly bears into the wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of Idaho over 25 bears.

"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them economically."

"What we once thought - that people would vote in their economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats haven't figured out how to deal with that."

Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.

To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups.

Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Or maybe, it is because the people in the heartland know when a person is being genuine and has a good set of core values that the Dem's are missing. If you go into every election trying to be something you aren't just to get elected, the people will know. The Democratic party really needs to look at itself and decide what their values are. I am not saying that you don't have values, I am saying that the party is becoming a combination of too many things and people aren't clear anymore on what the party believes or stands for. Maybe it is time for someone that is in the middle (other than Nader) to take on the leadership of the Independent party. I think a lot of people would take to a person who truly is in the middle and not a kook. Just a thought.


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

I agree that the Democrats need to figure something out. But I don't agree with the heartland people know who is genuine. I don't think you can either mr toxic man. GW is about as genuine and authentic as a boob job.


----------



## cosurfgod (Oct 10, 2003)

Wait just a minute there, I like boob jobs.


----------



## matobs (Nov 26, 2003)

To say voters are good at judging the genuiness of one candidate over another assumes that voters - on the whole - are intelligent and pay attention. They are not. The fact is this: the average american voter is an idiot. Many people decided who to vote for based on 30 second comercials. That is unfortunate. This is not a partisan rant - it is the cold hard truth. 

consider this tid-bit from the Times-Mirror prior to Bush invading Iraq:

"GEORGE Bush is on the brink of invading Iraq - but most Americans have no idea where the country is.
A survey revealed that only one in seven aged between 18 and 24 could identify Saddam Hussein's land.
And while more than half knew that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were based in Afghanistan, only one in six could find the country on a map.
TRAFFIC POLICEMAN JOHN RILEY: 'I must get this right. It's around here somewhere
Even more worrying - one in 10 couldn't pick out America.
When the Daily Mirror carried out a poll of 100 people on the streets of New York yesterday, we found that 80 per cent didn't have a clue where Iraq was. . . ."

Ever watch JayWalking with Jay Leno . . . . 

The Republicans are smart enough to exploit this fact and Democrats have taken a view that many consider elitist - they we know what's best for you approach. This leads to some absurb inconsistincies such as folks voting against their own economic self-interest. E.g. most people think that wealth disparity in this country is a problem, but most people are in favor of repealing the what is labeled as the "death tax." The so-called death tax only applies to a small fraction of people with significant assets. The recent tax cuts clearly favored the wealthy and people are o.k with that while our country spirals into a deficit and goverment spending continues to grow. It makes absolutely no sense. These are just some of the totally inconsistent viewpoints of many in this country. This is most easily explained by the fact that most people are clueless and both parties like it that way. 

I could go on, but I wish Mr. Bush well and hope he learns from the mistakes he's made but never admitted. A good start will be Rumsfeld's resignation.


----------



## JCKeck1 (Oct 28, 2003)

The same applies to Bush's capital gains tax. He cut the capital gains tax huge and it was supported by many who hardly own any stock. Even middle class america hardly owns any stock and some how poor people ended up voting for Bush. 
A conservative co-worker keeps pushing the abortion issue at me as a reason to vote for Bush - "you like them carving up babies?" I guess that worked in southern Ohio, but my question for the state that has lost thousands of jobs since Bush's election is, "who cares what people in California do to babies if your kids are starving because you haven't worked in months." Regardless of where you stand on abortion, I believe there are much more pressing issues.
My other thought for the evening is on the fear of terrorism. Are people driving down 6th Ave really expecting a bomb to blow at any moment and take their life? Do they really think that Bush is doing something great that prevents this from happening? Two 16 yr old boys took over Columbine High - does anyone really think that Bush is keeping organized adult terrorists from doing the same?
Quite frankly, I'm much more scared that any police officer could pull me over, call me a terrorist because I sympathize with Afghan and Iraqi people, and then hold me indeffintely without trial. I'm more scared as to why grocery stores jacked up their prices and then offered cards that track all of your purchases for life and in return you get the original price. In my opinion, the most dangerous people in the entire world are not Osama or Saddam, but Ashcroft and Rumsfeld. Call me extreme all you want, but first look up the estimated Afghan and Iraqi civilian casualties and compare them to 9/11.

My congrads go out to the Bush team.
"You keep handing us the Bible while you're walking off with all the gold" - Spearhead

Stay Wet - At least kayaking keeps you honest


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

That is why you people lost. Keep it up, it makes it easy for us.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Your stepping off the edge there H20. Despite the fact that the Democratic candidate did not do a good job of driving his point home the Repub's won by the slightest of margins. The only way I can see that Bush won was the old choose the evil you know as apposed to the evil you dont. I am sorry that Kerry was unable to win but given the close decision Repub's have no room to gloat. The only consolation is that Bush is stuck trying to fix the mess he created in Iraq. I would say the facts will bear out how well he will handle it but then again it did not seem like facts really mattered in this past election anyway, cant see where they will matter in the future. And please dont talk about character, Bush skipped military service by joining the guard and then not showing up. Kerry at least went to Vietnam.


----------



## mattyb (Oct 31, 2003)

*?*

Your arguments are very well though-out and convincing H2OBoy. Come with some facts or at least some content that's not second-hand and I might listen. 

Look forward to a self-righteous administration doing what it deems "morally" right damn the consequences. Do you even know who Karl Rove is?


----------



## goatboater (Oct 18, 2003)

Man I love the democracy we call home: Every four years, the country is split in two so that we can all argue with eachother about which candidate is more full of bullshit. It doesn't really come down to who's a better politician, it comes down to who's better at getting the people to believe their lies. This time, Bush won. I think he is incapable of running our country, but I must commend him on a fine job of pumping Americans so full of bullshit that he could write anything off- in this case it was a freekin war. As long as the government keeps everyone afraid, they can get away with anything. 

I'm quite optimistic though because now that we have given Bush four more years to mess things up, I'm sure he'll do something dumb enough so that everyone can see his true character shine. I have a feeling he won't let me down.

Ben


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

I really dont feel the need to counter your kook conspiracy theories. Just keep thinking the way you are and we will be just fine.


----------



## mattyb (Oct 31, 2003)

*?*

Who's the kook here? And where's the conspiracy? What's your daddy been telling you? Get your own opinions kid.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Mattyb is heading where I was going. H2o you must be very young and it sounds like very smug knowing that you are right and the rest of us are wrong. It's not quite that easy.


----------



## PhillyBoop (Oct 30, 2003)

Hey H2otxt, 

"It really doesn't matter, when Bush wins the Dem's will start all of their law suites to get into office so go and cast your worthless vote for our Vietnam vet and Vietnam hero. Just depends on what side your on. Good or Evil. You have made your choice and I will make mine. I really don't care what you have to say and if I had to choose between Kerry and Saddam himself, I would choose Saddam, at least you know what you are getting."

I don't see any law suites, do you?


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

*Mr. toxic man you summed up the problem*

[/quote]h2oxtc Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:26 am Post subject: 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is why you people lost. Keep it up, it makes it easy for us. 


Mr.toxic-you have summed up perfectly as to why humans just can't learn from the past. You think you are different and better than the other person. I have some news for you...Your shit stinks just as bad as everybody elses. You say "us" like you are so righteous. It actually sounds exactly like what something Bush would say. Are you better than me or the next person? How big can your ego be? Your attitude is the problem!!!! I am not blaming you...you don't know any better. You were born into this attitude from the help of your family and social heredity. But lose this attitude of, "I'm better than you" 

Start looking past this attitude of "It's a Me or You world." This attitude is what is and has been destroying this planet and humans since the beginning. This was what the caveman once thought..."You have food, I don't! I will kill you and eat your food." Its you or me, right? 

Do you think if we shifted our reality to a "Its a You AND Me" world that maybe we could actually get past the 2nd grade in the game of life. Just a thought !! I find the more I live this attitude the more good things seem to come my way. It's not about me anymore...it's about us, our community, our place to live, our planet!!!


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Just keep watchin everybody, h2o's about to say something stupid...just like his President.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Well lets see, where to start. You people are so easy to predict. It sounds as if you were running the Kerry campaign so keep it up and help the next Dem candidate. 

Blowtorch: Despite what you think, he is your president too. With him in office for a 2nd term, things will change. You may get some of what you want policy wise, like he has already given you, but he is going to make the changes to make this a better country fiscally. Social Security is going to change. Hopefully the tax system is going to get revamped like it needs too, instead of just raising your taxes to take care of it. Despite what you think, it is bad to have a surplus, but it is also bad to have a huge deficit (you already have stated that). 9/11 is a big chunk of the deficit along with the Iraq war. There is a price for war but I am willing to have a deficit to be free and safe. When more people feel comfortable starting business there will be new jobs created by the people who were afraid of starting a business since Kerry was telling them that they are going to get taxed even more. Now they have a little piece of mind and they will go forward. Hence, more taxes paid, more jobs available and less poverty. Your next comment will be: but they are low paying jobs. Its better than nothing isn't it, or is welfare better. I know, you cant watch Oprah if you get a job.

Marco: I have never once claimed to be better than anyone else, I simply stated you are in charge of your own life and which ever way you choose to go is your choice. Don't blame your failures on someone else, take a little responsibility for your actions. For you to say that I am an elitist is ridiculous since you supported one of the biggest elitist to ever seek office. Unbelievable. I am offended that you think you know me, you have no idea what I stand for or what I believe. I have expressed an opinion and you bash me for it. Typical. Just so you know, I donate a lot of my time to help underprivileged kids learn to participate in sports. I help them to get scholarships for continued education and I continue to mentor them even after they go to college. What have you done. I have respect for the environment and I would never do anything that would hurt said environment. On the other hand I don't go and hug a tree daily so I guess I just don't get it. I do on occasions wear Birks with socks though. I just think people need to take a little responsibility for themselves.

PhillyBoop: I couldn't have been more surprised when I woke up on Wednesday. I commend the Kerry camp for doing the right thing.

gh and mattyb: I would guess that I am older than you are. I have not talked with my parents about politics since I lived at home. They are one of you and I don't feel the need to discuss something that they refuse to listen, not unlike yourselves. Maybe you would like to go and play some bingo sometime, pops, then I can share my opinions with you and maybe we can even share a bingo card while you enlighten me. jj
Pretty much everything that you babble about Bush is some kook theory spawned by the left.

Bush skipped out on his military service, right. Look at the facts, he was a pilot, the war was in the ending stages and there wasn't a demand for pilots to be sent over there. He took the early out just as many other officers who were pilots did. You are right, Kerry did go to Vietnam but what he did while he was there is still in question. Bush released all of his military records, why wouldn't Kerry do the same. I think we both know why. It was simply a political move and he deserves nothing more than to be the hero that he is (see Communist museum in Vietnam). To come back and to do the things he did to his fellow countrymen and fellow soldiers is disgusting. Have a little respect for the people that put their lives on the line so that he could do his little protests. I am not saying that he or anyone should not be allowed to protest but to come home and out and out lie is a different story.


----------



## goatboater (Oct 18, 2003)

Flowtorch- excellent prediction, how'd you know?


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Goatboater, I am guessing this isnt the only place you guys stroke each other. Just an observation.


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

TOXIC----What part of your first quote*..."That is why you people lost. Keep it up, it makes it easy for us"* ...have anything to do with what you just wrote me. *"I simply stated you are in charge of your own life and which ever way you choose to go is your choice. Don't blame your failures on someone else, take a little responsibility for your actions."*

I am sorry but I guess i just didn't interpret the first quote with the way you have rewritten it now. If you would have simply written what you wrote the second time on your first quote I probably wouldn't have replied the way I did. The written and spoken words are very powerful...maybe next time you should write them with a little more thoughtfulness. I simply replied to your first quote because it came off as very self righteous. Maybe you didn't intend for me and others to interpret them that way buy I did as others might have as well.

I don't pretend to know who you are. I quite honestly don't really care if I ever know you. It's nothing personal...I just don't care if I ever cross your path. I expressed my opinion of your written words and yes...I did bash you. I picked your quote to express my personal view of what is wrong with humans.

I am glad you stand up for your beliefs. I respect somebody who stands up for their beliefs even if I don't agree with them. I think that it is awesome that you help underpriviledged kids to find other possibilities. That is a very commendable thing to do. You seem like you have a lot of faith in the Republicans and the GW way. I am happy for you. Just don't make the mistake in thinking your way is the RIGHT way...and I am not saying that your are. Faith is an amazing thing. Everybody needs to have faith in something. I think where faith gets a bad name is when people think their faith is the RIGHT faith. It's why the Jehovahs Witness knocks at your door. He assumes his faith is the right way and tries to push it onto you. I know I get frustrated when a Jehovahs tries to tell me I am going to hell because I won't agree with THEIR WAY!! 

*NOW*, Imagine the way the Middle East people feel. Is our way of Demcracy, the Right way? That should be THEIR ANSWER! It should not be Bush's. Bush is essentially the pesky Jehovah pushing his way onto them....THE SCARY THING IS HE IS DOING IT WITH GUNS AND BOMBS!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a no wonder they hate us and run planes into our buildings. I am not taking sides...I am simply trying to show an example of both sides. This idea of, We are Right...They are not, does not work!! The ironic thing here is...they think the same way!!!!!!!!!

I am sorry that I used you, TOXIC, as an example of what displeases me about humans. I was simply using your quote to express my opinion of what is wrong. What I wrote applies to the majority of the human race, not just you.

I stand behind the idea of until we can shift our way of thinking from a *"You OR me"* world into a *"You AND Me" *world we are doomed to repeat this same crap over and over. The you or me attitude is old and worn out...it's like listening to a broken record. If you really think about this it will start to make sense. This stuff I write isn't original, its not some hippie tree hugging crap. Many great teachers have tried to get it into our thick skulls. We just don't seem to listen. 

There is a possibility of humans living on this earth without killing and hurting each other. America is not leading by example. The possibility is out there...in my humble opinion GW will not leads us there. He is to busy stuffing his pockets with Saudi gold and pushing HIS WAY onto the world. maybe you see it differently...toxic/GW lovers...but this is the way I see it. I hope you can respect that as I respect your view. Hell, I don't think Kerry would have lead us to this possibility either!

Politics isn't the answer to the deep reality of what is happening to all of humanity. That answer lies within ourselves.

All right...enough said from me. I gotta find a way to go boating...this computer shit just doesn't cut it!


I


----------



## goatboater (Oct 18, 2003)

Mr. Toxic, I really don't see why you find the need to make this a personal matter. We're not out to get you, we're simply talking about our political beliefs. Grow up a little man. For your information, I don't have a clue in hell as to who Flowtorch is in real life, and no, I've never stroked him and he's never stroked me. You, however, should really get out sometime and get a girlfriend so that you can stop spending so much time sitting in front of your computer stroking yourself while you bash on people because they can see that Bush is LYING. Go kayking dude, seriously.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Marco, I don't think my first quote was directed at specifically you just at Dem's in general. It wasn't meant to be a jab or anything. I should have rephrased I guess. I agree that their are 2 sides to every story and somewhere in the middle lies the truth. It is just a little odd to me that all of you think my point of view is the wrong one and your views are the right ones, and you are saying that I think that way. You are just on the side of the majority on this forum but obviously not in the nation. But then again who knows what the people think that didn't vote. Maybe next election more will participate and we can have a true leader of the people. 

I don't see what GW is doing, as a bad thing. The people there want to be free, right? Don't they deserve to be free? Can they be free under a dictator? Can they be free if they get to vote but are directed to vote for specific candidate and the only candidate? If they want to be free, and they do, who is going to help them, France, Germany, Canada. I don't think so. The only country that has the ability and the compassion to help these countries end the tyrannical control that their leaders have over them, is the US. Don't they deserve that. The ones that don't want freedom are the terrorists. It isn't in their best interest to have a democracy because that would put an end to the gravy train. They hate everyone that isn't with them and they don't care what you think, they just want to kill you and anyone that stands in their way. You may say that is what we are doing but I don't see it that way. The terrorists want control over them and we just want to give them control over themselves. We don't want their country, their oil, or anything that they have, we just want a world were we don't have to worry about terrorist blowing up schools and reigning terror over everyone that doesn't stand up for themselves. To think that our leader is simply in it for the oil is naive and way off base. If that was the case don't you think that we would have all of the oil we want by now or even a 51st state. What is in it for him? Do you think they are just going to give us oil or are we going to steel it? Now that we are there the terrorists are going THERE to help their friends, other terrorists, and they are like shooting fish in a barrel. I would rather do it there than in LODO. Yes we are loosing troops but the amount of men and women that have lost their lives (God Bless them) in Iraqi is just barely more the amount of people murdered in any major city in the same amount of time. It is unfortunate that anyone has to die but the people that are in our military knew what they were getting into when they signed up and that there was a chance that they would have to go to war and possibly loose their lives. They made a noble choice and they felt that it was their calling. That is commendable and I give them the utmost respect for that. I will be forever indebted to them and I pray for them every day. 

We have an obligation to help everyone that needs it and an obligation to stand up for what is right. FREEDOM

I received an email that really made me think about what is going on in Iraqi and why we are there. You may not like it or may think it is an exaggeration but it is pretty good.


The other day, my nine year old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were in the Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He told him: "Son, stand there and tell me what you see?"

"I see trees and cars and our neighbor's houses." he replied.

"OK, now I want you to pretend that our house and our yard is the United States of America and you are President Bush." 

Our son giggled and said "OK."

"Now son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country" my husband said. 

"OK Dad, I'm pretending." 

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and see that man come out of his house with his wife and he has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, he throws her on the ground, then he starts to kick her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him, they are crying, they are watching this but do nothing because they are kids and afraid of their father. You see all of this son.... what do you do?"

"Dad?"

"What do you do son?"

"I call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations and they take your call, listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then son?"

"Dad, but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine. 

"They don't want to son, because they say that it is not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.

"But Dad...he killed her!!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did...but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."

"Daddy...he kills them?"

"Yes son, he does. What do you do?"

"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him." our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!" 

"WHAT DO YOU DO SON?" Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you, the man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next son?" "What Daddy?" 

"He walks across the street to the old ladies house and breaks down the door and drags her out, steals all her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in he window and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

"Daddy..."

"WHAT DO YOU DO?"

Our son is crying and he looks down and he whispers, "I close the blinds, Daddy."

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him... "Why?"

"Because Daddy.....the police are supposed to help...people who needs it....and they won't help....You always say that neighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either...they won't help me stop him...I'm afraid....I can't do it by myself ...Daddy.....I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and...and.....do nothing...so....I'm just going to close the blinds....so I can't see what he's doing........and I'm going to pretend that it is not happening."

I start to cry.

My husband looks at our nine year old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to my husbands questions and he tells him...."Son"

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds because that man.... he's at your front door..."WHAT DO YOU DO?"

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eyes. He balls up his tiny fists and looks his father square in the eyes, without hesitation he says: "I DEFEND MY FAMILY DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD, I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!!"

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek and he grabs my son to his chest and hugs him tight, and cries..."It's too late to fight him, he's too strong and he's already at YOUR front door son.....you should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife. You have to do what's right, even if you have to do it alone, before......it's too late." my husband whispers. 

THAT scenario I just gave you is WHY we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen is the greatest EVIL of all. Our President is doing what is right. We, as a free nation, must understand that this war is a war of humanity. WE must remove evil men from power so that we can continue to live in a free world where we are not afraid to look out our window. So that my nine year old son won't grow up in a world where he feels that if he just "closes" that blinds the atrocities in the world won't affect him. "YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT! EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"

BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!
BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!!
BE PROUD OF OUR PRESIDENT
SUPPORT THEM!!!
SUPPORT AMERICA!!
SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS...."

"One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes...and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."

-Eleanor Roosevelt


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

goatblower, its not personal, just firing back a bit and I am certainly not afraid that you would come after me, you can if you want though. I have plenty of time to get out while you are at work. My wife gets a kick out of reading some of the ridiculous things that have been said on this forum just like I do. This is entertainment for me since there isnt any hockey on TV. Bastards, sorry different subject. I would go out and boat but I spend about the same amount of time in my boat as swimming. Not a good time of year for that. I just learned a year ago and dont have a ton of time to get better during the summer. Sure is fun though. Sorry if I offended but I thought it was funny.


----------



## l-dot (Dec 20, 2003)

h20 I don't generally chime in so late in a thread but I read your email quote and I think it makes a really good point. Bush thinks like a 9 year old. Unfortunately it is not as simple as the neighborhood analogy.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Since this is the most viewed thread by far right now, and clearly folks need to boat...Bailey is runnable again -- anyone wanna go creekin' Friday after lunch?


----------



## esp (Jun 13, 2004)

*100,000 dead. HOW MANY MORE???*

TOXIC,

you are one of those people i just dont get. you have that right, and vise versa. but come on man. this is an example of a person who only sees things in black and white, right and wrong. the world is a crazy messy place. it is not cut and dry nor is it static. and when there is movement things are not so simple. and if you position yourself assuming that you are always on the right side of the line, and adopt the attitude, that you are either with us or against us, you will always find your side has far fewer folks on it. 

you need to get out, make a connection with the other members of this global community. travel. i dont mean on a tour or from the window of the hilton. by yourself, navigate downtown cairo, ask for help, get lost, experience your smallness, and experience their willingness to help you out. get out of the little box you have erected around yourself. 

be careful about how you throw the word compassion around. those coming from a stance of superiority have no idea what it means. compassion and pity mean two very different things. 

i read you story, BTY, all i could picture was this father shouting at his little boy. that conjures up a real heart warming image. and dont give me a line about toughening him up. so read the one below, take time and digest those numbers.

here is my final thought(especially for all the christians in the house):
TURN THE OTHER CHEEK
If we are indeed the most powerful nation on this planet, shouldnt we LOVE THINE ENEMY. this does not mean turn and walk away as a coward, nor does it mean lash out because we lack the discipline for intellect and persistence to show true love. jesus did not pass judgment on any one, he only loved them. if christians thought and acted this way, there would be more christians out there. 

how little of us. we get punched in the nose, and start swinging at anything that moves.

this is NOT about partisanship, ill bet most people on this forum are independents. 

set your emotions aside for just one minute. critically analyze the situation. that means question everything, for you know nothing.

and back to your tear jerking story, that was a prime example of divert and deny. REMEMBER why we were told we were going into iraq? tell me, or has your feeble mind been so brainwashed to have erased that minor detail? tell me. how does daddy explain that to little jimmy? how does daddy justify killing 100,000 iraqis because they wanted to be free?

successful revolutions come from within.
by the logic of your little story, we should have killed 100,000 people in every developing nation in this world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all 

More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage? 

Scott Ritter
Monday November 1, 2004
The Guardian 

The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties. 

Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence. 

Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path. 

It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history. 

But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world war. 

The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months. 

Meanwhile, the latest scandal over missing nuclear-related high explosives in Iraq (traced and controlled under the UN inspections regime) only underscores the utter deceitfulness of the Bush-Blair argument for the war. Having claimed the uncertainty surrounding Iraq's WMD capability constituted a threat that could not go unchallenged in a post-9/11 world, one would have expected the two leaders to insist on a military course of action that brought under immediate coalition control any aspect of potential WMD capability, especially relating to any possible nuclear threat. That the US military did not have a dedicated force to locate and neutralise these explosives underscores the fact that both Bush and Blair knew that there was no threat from Iraq, nuclear or otherwise. 

Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions. 

There are many culpable individuals and organisations history will hold to account for the war - from deceitful politicians and journalists to acquiescent military professionals and silent citizens of the world's democracies. As the evidence has piled up confirming what I and others had reported - that Iraq was already disarmed by the late 1990s - my personal vote for one of the most culpable individuals would go to Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to war. He had the power if not to prevent, at least to forestall a war with Iraq. Blix knew that Iraq was disarmed, but in his mealy-mouthed testimony to the UN security council helped provide fodder for war. His failure to stand up to the lies used by Bush and Blair to sell the Iraq war must brand him a moral and intellectual coward. 

But we all are moral cowards when it comes to Iraq. Our collective inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an illegal and unjust war not only condemns us, but adds credibility to those who oppose us. The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden can broadcast a videotape on the eve of the US presidential election in which his message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument in support of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the US and Britain to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11. The death of 3,000 civilians on that horrible day represented a tragedy of huge proportions. Our continued indifference to a war that has slaughtered so many Iraqi civilians, and will continue to kill more, is in many ways an even greater tragedy: not only in terms of scale, but also because these deaths were inflicted by our own hand in the course of an action that has no defence. 

· Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America 

[email protected]


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

So you are basically saying that the meek will enherit the earth. Good, we can just push them down and take it from them. Just a little joke. I hear what you are saying but the people that we fighting against dont play by the rules and they dont really care if we turn the other cheek. Just ask Spain.


----------



## mattyb (Oct 31, 2003)

*zoinks that's kooky...*

Your "consistency" is unwavering. The very blind faith and "kook" mentality you accuse the dem-leaning folks on this board of, is oozing out of every one of your posts. If you don't see the ridiculousness of your story, please read it a few more times. That story might have been applicable to the Nazis but not Saddam. To make it applicable have the father and son recieve a threatening phone call from the neighbor and then decide to go hop his fence and look through the back windows to see him abusing his family. In no way do I sympathize with Sadaam, condone any of his actions or wish they were continuing. BUT, you need to be ready to back your rhetoric up and go "defend" our nation in a lot of other locations if you follow your logic to it's natural conclusion. How does the Sudan sound? 

I am not pushing any conspiracy theories. I haven't done that once if you look back through my posts. My point has been that Bush has not practiced any of the Christian rhetoric he is so fond of pushing. It was a brilliant marketing scheme and probably helped him work through his past dependencies but it isn't real. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!


----------



## mattyb (Oct 31, 2003)

*PS*

the above was for the benefit of H2OBoy. I have voted for the Republican party in every election I was able to vote in until Little George was on the ticket. I lived in Dallas for a while and I know the respect the educated folks there have for him. It doesn't extend much past their state-pride.


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Sorry it took so long to reply H2"blow"(original huh?) but your wife wouldn't get her lips off my balls last night, god, she can suck the chrome off a trailor hitch. I dont have much time either to repeat what everyone else has already said to your slow ass, I'm on my way up to buffalo pass to do some sleddin and riding so have fun rubbin one out while I'm passin your girl round the hot tub tonight. cheers, ladies.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Hey Flowtorch - 

Why don't you take that crap out into the woods with you with you and leave it there. We don't need high school-mentality personal attacks like that here and its a bummer to see you spouting it. 

Frenchy - it you don't mind, please delete Flowtorch's post and this one too.

Disgusted,

--Andy


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Its OK Andy, I know where she was and she has morals anyways. Even if it was true I doubt there is enough Viagra for him to even perform up to the standards she has become accustom to. I would guess she would leave laughing hysterically. 

Frenchy, leave it up, it displays the tactics that he would resort too when he has nothing intelligent to say. This is exactly what I have been talking about.

Just one request for flowtorch, put your name to your comments so if I do end up meeting you I will know and I will deal with your comments then. I wont be doing anything but I bet she will whoop your ass and if she doesn't I certainly will. Call me if you want to get together. 

Bryon Tracy
720-205-0364


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

Toxic wrote:

*I don't see what GW is doing, as a bad thing. The people there want to be free, right? Don't they deserve to be free? Can they be free under a dictator? Can they be free if they get to vote but are directed to vote for specific candidate and the only candidate? If they want to be free, and they do, who is going to help them, France, Germany, Canada.*


Toxic---First off, thanks for listening to what I said to you. 
Secondly--let's try to answer these questions you have listed.

Of course the people of Iraq want to be free. Yes, they deserve to be free. They probably don't have true freedom under dictatorship. *(BTW-Do Americans have true freedom?? if so I am still confused as to why Tommy Chong is in jail!!) * 

*Who will help them?* Shouldn't they help themselves. Didn't we, the Americans, stand up and fight against the British during the American revolution? Or did the French come and start it first because they felt we needed to be free?? I am not a history buff but I think the American people stood up and fought for themselves and then received some help from others...please correct me if my lack of solid history isn't correct. *THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION!! *

As ESP put it so well. *Successful revolutions come from within!* 

Toxic,(When I ask you this question at no point am I all up in your face)*How do you know what the Iraqi people want?? * They might not of liked Saddam but at least they didn't have U.S. bombs killing them everyday!

*How do you know what the terrorists stand for?* You talk about them like you have seen a personal interview with one of them. I don't even try to understand what it is they are thinking. Oh what the hell...I'll give it a try. I do have this sneaking suspicion that it has something to do with THEIR religion??? HMMMMMMM! Jihad, maybe???

So if what the terrorists are doing is in the name of THEIR God then that must mean that they think they are right. But wait a minute...THE U.S. is the RIGHT way!! No they are right, we are wrong....no we are right, they are wrong. DO YOU SEE WHAT I AM GETTING AT? Its a never ending cycle! Until we let go of this attitude we will repeat what we have been doing since the beginning of human civilization. This is what I keep going back to, toxic. THIS ATTITUDE OF I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG DOES NOT WORK! Look back at the history of humans and you will see this is a common reason as to why most conflicts start. When will we learn???? 

I never said you were wrong Toxic, I never said I am right...I simply have made a suggestion as to what might be the better solution. 
Letting go of this attitude might also help humans in their personal relationships. It could perhaps mend long time feuds by letting go of the feeling of "I AM RIGHT! DAMMIT I AM RIGHT, I DON"T NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO THEM, THEY NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO ME...I AM RIGHT!" Just think about it, just let it sit there for awhile and you might see that there is truth to this. 

Is war ever the answer??? I don't need to answer this question. But I do want to add that one of the most powerful men ever on this earth defeated and freed his people without using a lick of violence. His name is Gandhi!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read about or see the movie about how he defeated the British without using violence...It's quite the amazing story. It's an example of what humans are capable of doing. To your story about the little boy asking why were are at war: That is just a prime example of .."WE ARE OUR FATHERS SINS!!!!!!"I hope someday that the answer all children get is more like what Gandhi taught. 

If America spent 1/8 of what they are spending on military and put it back into protecting our borders we would probably be a lot safer from future terrorist attacks. I agree we need to stop terrorism, but I don't think what Bush is doing is the right way to go about it. With those 100,000 Iraqi people that have been killed you should mulitply that by 2 and that is probably how many terrorists are being breed right NOW to hate America! That is merely an assumption. I assume this because if a U.S. bomb killed my brother and father I would probably hate the U.S. and join Osama in his Jihad fight against the infadels! 

Toxic, Like I said before in my previous post. I really do respect you for your ability to stand up for what you believe in. At no point do I think I am right and you are wrong. Just ponder the idea that maybe Bush isn't the right way. That just maybe we aren't going about this terrorism thing in the right way. Just ponder it. Look past what your social and family heredity have taught you. Look past what your religion has taught you, look past what your parents taught you, look past what your community taught you, look past what you saw on T.V. Think about trying to look past it all...it might be refreshing! There is a bigger picture out there. BTW- I am not trying to convert you into a Democrat, I am just trying to get you to ponder the other possibilities. 

Toxic, this conversation is a good one. I appreciate you engaging in it. i appreciate where you stand and I hope you appreciate where i come from.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Marco. I agree, it is nice to just banter back and forth without resorting to things like FLOWTORCH does. It is Friday and I am tired of sitting in front of this computer. Lets resume on Monday. Have a good weekend.


----------



## waynechorter (Oct 10, 2003)

Here's a great summary of our country

http://americanassembler.com/features/iq_state_averages.htm

Unfortunatly the majority of the U.S. are idiots like my man h2oxtc. What we need is a mandate that only allows people with an I.Q. score of 100 or higher to vote. Kerry would have taken 90% of the vote and shmucks like xtc and their "Idiots guide to using republican quotes" books would be left out in the cold.
h20 don't be brazen enough to think you can preach your crap on the buzz and not get a couple low blows thrown your way.
If you want to come down and deal with my comments
My name is Jared Johnson, I live in Durango,
and I'd love to show you a good hiding spot for my for my peace and nature loving paddle.


----------



## KnesisKnosis (Mar 21, 2004)

Okay, I admit it, 

I have been lurking on this thread, since it started.

Normally I watch the MB to see where you guys are boating. So was surprised by this and another thread. Reminds me of kayaking whitewater. A little rough, sometimes turned upside down, but a whole lot of fun, you just need to learn to roll with it!

So, know that I would be willing to shake any of your hands, and go out and paddle together. At least you care enough to get involved in the conversation. So many don't even hear the rumble of the WW!

If in this thread, or the other, I put my paddle where it doesn't belong, I apologize, and I hope none of you go off to Canada. Though I understand that they have a lot of good water up there. 

The strength of the Democratic Republic, is the Constitutionally protected, willing and informed protest of the minority, that is heeded by the majority. If the majority fails to hear the protest, they risk becoming the minority! It has happened many times, and recently with the Dems losing the Congress, and the Presidency. The Republicans should be careful though, and not think they will not be held accountable for the stewardship that has been entrusted to them by the majority of citizens of our great country.

In the meantime we get to learn to work together for four more years! We have the privilege of living in a great country, of great opportunity. Many people from around the world would love to come here and live the American Dream. I hope that we can joyfully embrace it as well, and keep on paddling.

Peace, Tinkerntom, aka KnesisKnosis, Life, Live it!


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

waynechorter: Blah blah blah. Oh I'm sorry were you speaking, I couldn't hear you, it sounds like you have a bitter apple stuck in your mouth. 

Marco: Tommy Chong, I was not familiar with that until I looked it up a little bit ago. If what I saw was the case I would agree that there was no reason for him to be in jail. I am all for legalizing marijuana as I would guess most of the people are on this forum. As you have guessed by now, I am not staunch conservative as I believe there is no reason to have pot be illegal. I also believe in a woman's choice to have an abortion. I just don't want it to be used as birth control like it is in way too many cases. I am not a religious person and have not been to a "church" since I was a kid. I don't believe in organized religion, I believe that you can have faith in "A GOD" from anywhere not just in a church. However, I don't see that our president is pushing his god on anyone. I think he is guided by his God and he believes what he is doing is right. Of course people will disagree but that is OK. This country was founded with Christian values, just look at some of the founding documents. 

Who will help them? No, we didn't need help from anyone but we were also not held under a dictators thumb for decades. From what i have heard if you were to stand up to Saddam or his sons (how are those virgins) you would be killed or tortured until they were bored with it. With that being the case there are still a lot of Iraqi's that are joining us to fight for their freedom not that they are gone. Soon they will be fighting for themselves with just little help from us and after that they can handle it on their own. That is the only way they can have the freedom they deserve. If it was up to France they would just go there and plant trees along the streets just so the terrorists don't have to walk in the sun just like they did for Hitler.

How do I know what the Iraqi people want? 

I don't, but I am willing to bet that they don't want to be held in terror by a dictator. Really man, look at the Iraqi soccer team. They had to worry about being tortured or killed if they lost. These were people that were representing their country and if they didn't preform they had that to look forward too. How do you think the regular people were treated. Saddam and his henchmen terrorized that country for long enough and now it is time for them to take the freedom they deserve. 

How do you know what the terrorists stand for? 

I don't know what they stand for other than the people we are fighting are barbarians and don't have any intentions of letting any infidel live. That is you and that is me. They don't care that you are a Dem and I am a Rep, we just need to die. They don't care who they kill, little children, women, clergy or themselves. For God's sakes, they hide behind those very people. Not only are they barbarians, they are cowards as well. Go ahead and defend them if you want but I never will. Why are you so quick to take sides with them and not us? We are right back to the way of the wild, fight or flight. We know that they wont stop so it is up to us to stop them before more innocent people have to die. Yes there are innocent people dieing in Iraqi. It is kind of hard to avoid since they hide themselves amongst schools, hospitals and mosques.. What I want to know is when are you going to start blaming the people who deserve the blame. The terrorists. I know what you are saying about who is right. terrorists taking the lives of innocent people and their own people vs. US fighting the people who make these atrocities happen, is RIGHT. We are not always right, but in this case we are justified in taking actions against those that are committing crimes against humanity. That is what the Dem's support here in the US but only when they are the ones in charge.

Is war ever the answer??? Yes it is. War is a necessary evil to uphold law and order in the world. To think otherwise is a very short sighted. Go over there an start preaching tolerance and I would guess that you would be shot on sight or taken back to a room where they tape your beheading to send out as another threat. There are way too many people who would try to take over the world in a heart beat. If that was to happen would you think the same way. No, you wouldn't because you wouldn't have that choice to make. This just brings us back to preemption and its necessity.

To your story about the little boy asking why were are at war:That is just a prime example of .."WE ARE OUR FATHERS SINS!!!!!!"

How is this his father sins? What did he do that was a sin? I just don't understand this statement. If you are referring to Bush Sr., what did he do? Saddam was ordered to stop and he didn't. Start putting the blame in the proper places. A bank robber robs a bank and kills everyone in the bank. He then escapes and comes to your house and forces his way inside. He then starts a shootout with the police in which your house is filled with holes and your family is killed. Who is to blame for the loss of your family? Is it the cops or is it the terrorist that had invaded your house in an effort to escape? I personally would blame the criminal. 

With regards to Gandhi, you could put what I know about him in thimble so I wont comment on that one. I will read about it since you peaked my interest.

Too be brutally honest, protecting our borders isn't the answer, closing our borders is the answer. Until people aren't able to swim across the river or just drive in from Canada we will never be safe. We need to get all of the people who are here ILLEGALLY out and limit who gets to come here and work or go to school. I shutter to think about how many people have come to this country to do nothing other than harm us.


----------



## mattyb (Oct 31, 2003)

*walk around in circles... walk around in circles...*

oh lord.... close our borders but make ourselves at home to spread freedom elsewhere. Where the continuity? I bet you believe in the death penalty and loathe a woman's right to chose. 

oh and your interest gets "piqued" and you "shudder" to think... sorry. I had to. :lol:


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Well, I'm back. If you want my name, address, #, anything, you can have it. I'd love to give you the curb stompin you need, assuming thats why you want this info.?? Just let me know ahead of time, my neighbors love to watch a good beat down. 

Dont bitch to me about low blows when you say goatboater and myself can give each other reach arounds and then say I'm talkin shit or resorting to blahhhblahh (goes for you too Andy H you sensitive little sally, oh no, I've resorted to name calling). Some people think cause a country thats already full of enough idiots voted for your dunce president (yeah, yours) their word goes now and everyone else is just a bitter sore loser. I'm just tired and over it, I've pretty much lost all hope in the majority of America. If you want my arguments you dont have to look any further than whats already been said a hundred times on here. I dont give a shit who thinks they're right and who doesn't think they're wrong, we all know this country and this planet needed a severe change and we shot ourselves in the foot, again. So go ahead and cry to Frenchy to delete this post . I could give less of a shit what you or any other ladies in an internet chatroom think of my language. I know theres plenty of other people that share my thoughts, and personally I'd rather just associate myself with them. Aint America great. Keep responding if you want, I'm moving on to the next topic, we aint gonna solve the worlds problems on this forum. How bout something related to the snow. 

PS.-whoever was gonna say something like "man, sounds like someone needs to go boating" or "the lack of water must be getting to you". Save it!! I just really f-ing hate Bush.


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Holy crap, somebody call a whaaambulance. Still no name, pussy, when and where is all I need to know. Just keep on associating with yourself, you might want to get a bib you got some on your chin last time.


----------



## FLOWTORCH (Mar 5, 2004)

Whaambulance, wow, you are a Bush backer for sure. check your messages. Bring along tht mountaindyke wife of yours.


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

*Is your little box comfortable?*

Toxic
You have a severe listening or reading problem! You obviously have no way of looking outside of your little box that you live in. You just don't get it, DO YOU???

Your comment...


> "Go ahead and defend them if you want but I never will. Why are you so quick to take sides with them and not us? "


...proves that you don't know how to listen. 

BTW--FUCK YOU for thinking I am defending them. What I wrote in no point says that I have taken the sides of terroists. I was simply trying to get you to take a peak outside this little box you are stuck in. I was simply trying to get you to understand my point. The same point that I have been trying to get into your thick little REpublican [email protected]!!! But you don't seem to have the capability to do this. Then you have the nerve to say that I am have taken the side of the terrorists. I am starting to think you really are a fucking dumbass. A no point have I taken the side of the terrorists...I have simply taken the time to look at all sides of this fucking mess.

About your little tear jerker of a story!



> "How is this his father sins? What did he do that was a sin? I just don't understand this statement. If you are referring to Bush Sr., what did he do? Saddam was ordered to stop and he didn't. Start putting the blame in the proper places. A bank robber robs a bank and kills everyone in the bank. He then escapes and comes to your house and forces his way inside. He then starts a shootout with the police in which your house is filled with holes and your family is killed. Who is to blame for the loss of your family? Is it the cops or is it the terrorist that had invaded your house in an effort to escape? I personally would blame the criminal"


This is my whole point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You just don't get it!!! In no way was this comment made about Bush Sr. It goes back to you just not getting what I am trying to say. LOOK PAST YOUR LITTLE BOX!!! My guess is that you learned a lot about life from your daddy and mommy, and other people around you(your community)! Am I right? Do you think your parents and your community know everything there is to know about the way life is? Do you ever wonder if what they taught you might not actually be the correct way? Do you ever wonder if they might have been wrong a time or two? I doubt your parents have the handbook for a "PERFECT WAY TO LIVE!" and if you think they did then I am scared for the world. I know that your parents did the best they did to teach you the values of life as did mine...BUT maybe just maybe SOME (not all) of the stuff they taught you is bullshit!! It's not that they are bad people...it's that they probably didn't know any better. You see, your parents were taught by their parents, their parents taught them and so forth.


Heres a little story for you! This little kid that is told to hate all black people by his father. So this little kid grows up hating black people all of his life because his daddy told him so. He lives in this reality that all black people are horrible people and different than him. Who do you blame, TOXIC? Is it the kids fault or the dads fault? WE ARE OUR FATHERS SINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This story works for all of the Christian's as well. To think that their way is "THE WAY" is a crock of shit. Maybe rephrasing it to say, "their way is just another way" would be a little less righteous...but that's another topic for discussion.

This isn't an extreme story...it is still happening every single day we live. Now, maybe your story is a little more peachy clean than the above but the fact of the matter is you are doing what YOUR parents taught you. This goes back to my main point that you just can't grasp. Let go TOXIC, just let go for once in your life. Let go of your little fluffy box! Let go of your comfort zone and challenge yourself to THINK beyond what you are used to thinking!!


Flowtorch said it well. I am glad somebody just says it like it is!! Any other way isn't living in reality! 


> "I dont give a shit who thinks they're right and who doesn't think they're wrong, we all know this country and this planet needed a severe change and we shot ourselves in the foot, again"



I'm out!! It's pointless to keep having this conversation with you, toxic, you don't listen!!


----------



## h2oxtc (Sep 16, 2004)

Flowtorch, nice try, no messages on my phone, if you really want to give me that beat down, give me a call. Maybe if you went out and bought a set of balls that would make it easier to call. Pussy

Marco, maybe I am not buying the shit you are spewing. Just keep thinking that we are dumbasses and you are superior in every way, it makes it easier for us to keep winning. Or maybe, I like it in my little box and I dont care what is in your box. Dont try to blame this on my parents, they are on your side and they were racist to boot. I dont really care what color soneone is, they can be just as good or bad as the next guy. I judge people by their actions and nothing else. I had to listen to all of the crap you are spewing all of my life. I realize that there is a realm of thought out there that isnt mainstream. I believe what I believe and you cant change that. 

I'm out


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

Call it shit, call it what you want. I really don't care! Some day you might get it! I am not superior...I just had the balls to question myself and what I thought I knew! I had the balls to call bullshit on what I had been taught and seek out other possibilities. It takes courage to look outside of yourself and see that you can improve on areas in your life you thought were perfect. I understand that you just don't have what it takes !!

The fact of the matter is...YOU DON"T LISTEN!!!! Every rebutal you have come back with has nothing to do with what I actual said. Are you dislexic? Maybe this has something to do with why you have no originality! Did I say that I blame your parents? *NO*, did I say I support the terrorists? *NO* Why do you feel it is necessary to twist the words that have been written? 



Almost forgot:

Toxic wrote


> "If it was up to France they would just go there and plant trees along the streets just so the terrorists don't have to walk in the sun just like they did for Hitler."


WHAT????

If it was up to France they wouldn't be planting trees in Iraq. They would still be getting REALLY good deals on Iraqi oil. Let's not forget that Iraq(Saddam) wasn't involved with terrorism. Yeah sure Saddam was a horrible dictator but *HE WASN'T INVOLVED WITH OSAMA!* 

BTW- If I'm not mistaken...HITLER WAS RE-ELECTED!!! ...correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry to bash you, toxic, but you had it coming. I tried hard to be the nice guy but I can't hold back anymore.

Later


----------



## waynechorter (Oct 10, 2003)

h2otoxic - Brian Tracy

I'm glad you put your real name down cause I can't wait to beat the shit out of you.


----------



## mattyb (Oct 31, 2003)

*calm the f down*

You jackasses need to calm down. This was an attempt to have an open, albeit slightly personal and occasionally rude, debate. Why would you possibly want to make it a plumage-puffing cock fest? I am actually on no one's side here. You're such ladies that you're going to let someone's words goad you into openly threatening someone on the record. Adults don't do that. Go for a jog or utilize all the porn at your fingertips and work out your frustrations. 

And lay off the guy's wife. Anyone over the age of 13 understands she is not fair game.

And it's not Toxic. It's H2Oxtc. Read children, read!


----------



## Livingston (Jan 8, 2004)

I agree with MattyB, it is getting a bit out of control on this post. No one should get hurt over this. Although it might be a good idea to have a set of boxing gloves handy at the next Mountainbuzz party.

I think we all prefer our beatdowns in a nice recirculating hole.

-d


----------



## KnesisKnosis (Mar 21, 2004)

Well said and decent, MattyB, and Livingston, keep on paddling!


----------

