Bush's America asks: Why us?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:49
VIEWED: 18384
PAGE 8 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:Quote:
Originally posted by Kirikoli:
But when looked at isolated from the BushMonkeyMan factor, Kerry coulda done a lot better.
What exactly do you mean by this?
Um...just that I thought that Kerry's answers, while good compared to Bush's, were not up to his usual standards.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" since Europe depends on imported oil as much or moe than we do, wouldn't they have an interest in seeing Iraq oil exports resume? "
A little less actually if you check this out
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_imp_net/EUR
Russia alone would likely supply these needs, Russia has a ton of resources but is shy on cash for development and high tech. Europe has the high tech, the support industry, and the cash.
Give it twenty years, Russia will be a full EU member, and if Bush keeps going, the replacement for the US in NATO.
" the USA could sweeten it with a LOT of reconstruction contracts"
paid for with Iraqi oil ?
" or promising to do some generic good that really DOES make the world safer "
Assuming credibilty which no longer exists
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, but with China coming on-line the world oil supply is going to be very very tight. China is already in negotiation with Russia.
No, actually paid for by US tax dollars.
US credibility in the world? I know Bush doesn't have any, Kerry might, tho.
Well, maybe I'm just dreaming that the USA can avoid complete disaster. I guess my patriotism is showing! But if Bush gets re-elected, I'm headin' for the border- ANY border! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, actually paid for by US tax dollars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26310-2004Jul3.html
I know its from last July... but it is pretty up to date still
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have been and still am awash in a project. I haven't forgotten about a promise I made to show that Bush (and his administration) deliberately lied to go into Iraq. But it will be weeks before I'm done with this job.
I have been scanning the posts from time to time, and they bring me honest delight. I truly enjoy the perspectives and the wit.
I saw most of the debate. I thought Kerry had a better command of the facts, and that he came across as sincere, but serious. Bush ran between folksy and petulant, visibly hunting for stock talking points to apply to the questions at hand.
But I saw some 'undecideds' being interviewed and I came to the conclusion that for them it's not about issues, they want to be swept off their feet. Neither Kerry's message nor his delivery are about to do any sweeping, while Bush, with his simple rhetoric and frequent smiles comes across as reassuring.
Kerry did a good job giving people reasons to vote for him. But people **want** to believe what they hear on the news (it's all better and better every day in every way). That they don't truly believe and do harbor unease makes them seek reassurance.
In my opinion, Kerry needs to do more than give people reasons to vote for him, he needs to give people reasons to throw Bush out. The issues have been already framed and he's not going to get traction redefining them (Iraq - it's STILL our problem?). So he needs to personally portray Bush as a short-sighted wheeler-dealer and opportunist. And Kerry needs to smile more. Basically, he has to point out whenever Bush ducks a question, or answers with a half-truth, in a casual, friendly way, of course.
Though, one of my co-workers took off his glasses and, looking straight at me said Kerry SHOULD have said : "Bush lied"; but with such a delivery it sent chills down my spine (I ain't kidding.)
So maybe there's room for a strong, plain, condemnation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why I am voting for NEITHER candidate:
I have come to realize that the two party system is NOT what the US is. Unfortunately, that is what everybody is brainwashed into believing. MAYBE if people started voting for the right person for the job instead of the "Only other guy" for Pres, we wouldn't have the problems that we are having. Too bad they fill us with the crap that they do. Anyhow, VOTE FOR SOMEBODY ELSE!!!!! And I don't mean Nader!! Do some research, find the person who will best run this country, then vote for them! Not the morons they have us trying to vote in now! Bush is power hungry, and guess what, Kerry's no better! (Do your own research, don't just take somebody's word on it) I wouldn't trust Kerry with my $700 camera, let alone the country!
and for the seperation of Church and State question, no, the seperation is of State from Church, not Church from State.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That means that they cannot make a law that says that everybody has to be part of a religion to be American. It also says that everyone can FREELY exercise their religion. Basically, if a judge in Alabama wants to put up the Ten Commandments, he's allowed to because he's practicing his religion! BUT, he cannot say that everyone has to follow them! That's the differance. If the people say that they want the Ten Commandments in the yard of a courthouse, they are allowed. The goverment is for the people, of the people, and by the people. Those people that live there have the right to decide what goes in THEIR property. The people own the courthouse, the land around it and the street that runs in front of it. That's what taxes go to. The government owns NOTHING, because it itself belongs to the people.
Anyhow, as I was saying, it seems as though both "parties" are trying to make this country a socialist state, and if you ask me, they are doing a fine job of it. Whatever happened to the "let them govern themselves" attitude that the founding fathers had (hence the reason we broke away from England)? Too bad too many people don't understand their rights enough to where they keep getting taken away from them........
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gino- Yes, I know that is what THIS President is doing. But Kerry very plainly said that we ought to make it CLEAR that we have no long-term economic (or military) designs on Iraq and specifically pointed out that the only building that was saved from looting was the Oil Ministry buidling, asking "what kind of message does THAT send?" He also said that the US should open up rebuilding contracts in Iraq. So tying one point (They all have interests in a stable Iraq) to the other (we should get our greedy mitts of Iraq) I don't think it's too much of an extrapolation to imagine that Kerry plans to sweeten security participation with economic benefit.
He also pointed out somehting I didn't know- that we are building 17 military bases in Iraq. I'm sure NONE of the countries in the region especaily Russia are happy about that. And imagine- Bush is STUPID enough to think that Putin is his friend!!
HAHAHAHA!!!!!
Anyway, I think Kerry actually has a pretty pratical viewpoint of Iraq. We made a pile of manure and then jumped in it, now we need help getting out. How and why that happens has- alas- little to do with right or wrong but more with what others can get out of the situation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BOJESPHOB- Dang! I had to copy/ paste than name! My fingers kept trying to type bob joseph!
------------------------------------------
Quote:
That means that they cannot make a law that says that everybody has to be part of a religion to be American. It also says that everyone can FREELY exercise their religion. Basically, if a judge in Alabama wants to put up the Ten Commandments, he's allowed to because he's practicing his religion! BUT, he cannot say that everyone has to follow them! That's the differance. If the people say that they want the Ten Commandments in the yard of a courthouse, they are allowed. The goverment is for the people, of the people, and by the people. Those people that live there have the right to decide what goes in THEIR property. The people own the courthouse, the land around it and the street that runs in front of it. That's what taxes go to. The government owns NOTHING, because it itself belongs to the people.
The judge can follow HIS religion individually, but he cannot use tax dollars or public property to do it with. What if he wanted to put up a minaret or a statue of Buddah or Moloch! I think you've truly misudnersttood the Consitution, and if you were to read Jeferson and Madison in detail, they go on in GREAT LENGTH about the need to build a WALL OF SEPARATION between church and state, separating not only the State fomr the Church, but the Church from the State.
Jefferson refused to proclaim religious days of fasting and thanksgiving, and explained it this way:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god that he owes account to none other (NOTE: including judges in Alabama) for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Madison also made many references to the separation of church and state:
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While I'll admit Kerry has more credibility than Bush... It's not saying much.
He can say what he says, but I'll believe it when it happens. An American puppet state in Iraq or Afganistan will only be in American interests, a collapse and failure resulting in an American withdraw I think is inevitable. There are the examples of Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia... if they fight long enough... cost you enough lives and treasure... you will give it up and leave. Mind you the longer you stay the more extreme the counter reaction, as in Iran ( after putting up with the Shah for so long ) and Afganistan they will might turn to a religious based government in order to curb foreign influences.
The main European governments excluding Britain have taken a stand against what you are trying to accomplish, the stand wasn't against the violence of war, the French nor the Germans are by no mean delicate to using force in foreign policy, they made the stand because they did not like the post war plan, a few contracts here and there, will not bring them into the fold. They will sit back and deal with whomever comes out on top. Besides which, you'd have to be a moron to go and have your head lopped off... who needs that.
In is in the interest of the world for the US to eat some of that manure for a while longer, I think Kerry while less of an idiot than Bush is either overstating how the rest of the world will respond for election purposes or is very naive.
Mind you, I think I might have said this in another thread, if American forces are fully committed in Iraq, this might keep the war from spreading to Iran, at least until they have their Nuclear deterrent in place.
The election in the US, I feel is a side show. Neither side will disengage from the spoils of war enough to make a reasonable go of it. Upcoming elections in countrys who presently support the US, and may well withdraw that support is much more interesting.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040928/wl_nm/brit
ain_blair_dc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3433087.stm
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1875.cfm
http://www.japantimes.com/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20040907f1.htm
Imagine if Iraq causes a backlash, people around the world voting into office on one issue, who will oppose the US the most. I believe it was a major failing for the Conservative party in Canada during our last election, people ( myself included ) some who traditionally voted for the conservatives did not due to their support of US policys. The Liberals were riding scandal after scandal, but the policy of bumlicking to the US cost the Conservatives the election. Will the rest of the world be any different ??
edit: another point in case
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-group-iraq.html?oref=
login
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BOJESPHOB- Dang! I had to copy/ paste than name! My fingers kept trying to type bob joseph!
Lol, for some reason that makes me think that you are dislexic, because that is where I got my handle from (since I am dislexic as well!).
Anyhow, so where does civil duty and freedom of expression and religion seperate? He does his civil duty to be a judge, why can he not have the freedom to practice his religion? I understand what you mean by not using public property, but I can go to a courthouse and hold a sign with a cross on it on public property, legally and not have any issues other than the occasional idiot that is a bigot. I have done research, and I agree that there should be a seperation so that no specific church can tell the government what to do and vise-versa, but that does not mean that we have to limit religious freedom to counter it. I am allowed having any non-offensive stuff up where I work (I know some people find religion offensive, but that's their problem, not mine), why can he not? It is his right to display his religion. Again, he cannot force someone to believe in those things, as that would be forcing religion on someone, which is what the spirit of the whole seperation thing was about. Basically, if you tell him to stop practicing his religion, you are jumping the divide between the seperation, just as if he told someone they had to believe in the God that gave those commandments. We are guaranteed the right to practice religion AND the right to not have the government tell us to stop, as well as have the religion not tell the goverment what to do. There has to be a balance, or it doesn't work at all!
Quote:
Anyway, as to your general point: "Let them govern themselves" I think that went the way of the dinosaur about the time that the contiguous United States was settled. The Founding Fathers often referred to malcontents being able to move westward, they planned on that safety valve.
Well, that safety valve no longer applies. Not only is the US basically fully settled, we've changed from an agrarian to an urban society, the world is basically impacted by economic and environmental issues that affect many nations at the same time, and the only way to address them is with force and organization large enough to deal. "Let them govern thmeselves" is a nice idea but no longer practical. (Yes, I know, many Libertarians will throw mushy tomatoes and stinky eggs at me, but if they want to debate the issue I'd be happy to. I'm always willing to learn something new.)
So, does that mean that since times have changed that we have to give up the right to govern ourselves? Why have a Constitution then? I agree that we have to have a Federal government, but we have to have MORE of the local stuff. BUT, when you have the power of the masses in the hands of a select few, there are MAJOR abuses, and they will only get worse until people get fed up with it enough and take back control. I think it was Jefferson who said "There needs to be a Revolution every once and a while" or something to that effect. I know these are kind of retarted comparisons, but look at Firefly AND Star Wars (the prequals). Both Joss and Lucas both have a grasp on what too much central power does to a society. That is the main thing that the founding fathers were against. I would bet that Jefferson and Madison wouldn't care if a judge had the ten commandments on a courthouse wall compared to the injustices that the Fed AND the Prez have done recently (and I'm not just talking about Bush).
Anyhow, SignyM, I am not trying to show you up, and I am not trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to point out that there are differant viewpoints of things in this country, and that the ways things are now, we only get one, and that is what the government wants us to see. You cannot tell me what to think, or believe. That is, as Jefferson said, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god that he owes account to none other". But, if
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME