f13.net

I'm not an American and I don't live in America.

But as most of you are, I thought it worth posting this.

The media over here is suggesting that Kerry's announcement that 'iraq was a mistake' is intended to make the campaign about iraq.

What? Is he nuts or something? People vote on the basis of a decision that got made years ago and can't be changed now? And in a situation where opposing it tells you nothing about what you want to do from here? Only way I could imagine it being useful is if Kerry is about to advocate cut and run as a strategy, but I can't seriously imagine the American electorate would go for that, would they? And surely anything other than cut and run is going to look indistinguishable from Bush policy going forward? The rest of the world seems to be anticipating that Kerry would provide exactly the same policies, but coming from someone that the French don't have to disagree with on a reflex simply due to 'chattering class' snobbery. Is there even a detectable difference in policy from your perspective?

Is there even anything remotely interesting left to say about iraq that is going even slightly influence anyone not already dedicated to voting anti-bush?

Am I missing something?

Given the current options I don't really care much who wins the US presidency, and frankly if it were my country I'd hope they both lose. But does this look just as suicidal from your side of the atlantic?

Funny how pathetic this outdated system looks to the rest of the world.

The reason I don't vote: It signs me up for jury duty (great, like being forced to sit in on a court hearing and being paid crap to do it will improve my position in life - "You're the bastard in the jury that said 'Guilty!'").

Besides, the futility of how useless we, the "middle-to-low-class" people's, votes really are was made painfully obvious to us when Dubbya had his oil buddies get him into office (despite losing the "popularity contest" to Gore - which I'd also want out of the White House).

Voting in the states feels like walking up to a booth that has two buttons: "Poke in the eye" or "Kick in the groin."

Politics = Marketing for people instead of products (lie to someone long enough to make them buy your product).  Welcome to the land of illusion...would you like "freedom fries" with that?

Rounded down, in your defense, could you tell me how many times you stopped to rub your sore vagina while typing that?

You can count them in dozens if it's less embarassing.

As for your "lower to middle class vote not counting", on the contrary. It was a relative handful of lower to middle class votes that GOT Bush the election. If a few thousand more [which might as well be a handful in a country of 300 million] how gotten out in a few key states, you wouldn't have Bush.

Of course stupid people like you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, and find it easier to bemoan the state of the world and how corrupt everything is rather than, you know, try anything that could be productive.

I should be clear, as a representative of 'the rest of the world'. The US system looks no worse than anyone elses.

Inventing viable political systems is hard.

As another representative of "the rest of the world" I disagree with your opinion. The US election system is dated and doesn't differentiate enough. It has the drawbacks of every bipolar system and adds problems of its own due to that Electoral College. Its a republican system, no true democracy.

That is no attack on the US either, just an observation. Just wanted to make clear you are not the sole opinion of all "restworlders".

Contrary to what I've previously said in the past, I'm seeing myself becoming very Anti-Bush (not really Pro-Kerry though) lately. All because of Iraq. We need to leave that shithole, one way or another. It could very well become a single-issue for me come election day.

Should be noted that 'that Electoral Colledge' allows states to write their own rules (democratically selected) for the distribution of their votes.

It's a system with far more genuine federal subsidiarity built in than, say, the EU.

I'm not saying it's perfect, just no worse than the alternatives.

It would be helpful to know where you do live.  I'm from the US.



Yes, they do.  You see, since no one can tell the future they're often forced to look at the past in order draw conclusions about what the future may hold.  Since I don't know where you are from I can't provide any relevant examples in your own country.



Umm, how about not fabricating any more evidence to justify invading countries which pose no immediate threat to US national security?  Sometimes what you don't do is even more important than what you do, and this is the type of behavior that incited the Second World War (both in Europe and in Asia).  We may all be better off if the US stops doing this kind of thing.



I'm not quite sure how you're coming to these conclusions.  How does saying that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq imply any course for future action?  (Btw-  "going forward" means physically moving in the direction you are facing.  The phrase you were looking for is, "in the days to come."  Just because corporations insist on bastardizing English doesn't mean you have to.)



You sure do sound like you're from the US.  Canadian maybe...  I would just add to this that France is not the only country in the world that will reflexively oppose anything with the Bush stamp on it.  I don't see how removing a President who incites such a reaction in the rest of the world would be a bad thing or an insignificant change.



Just the degree to which the White House knowingly fabricated the evidence to go to war, whether or not they advocated the policies which led to Abu-Ghareb, why they aren't spending the resources which have been allocated to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, what's happening to the oil money placed in trust for the Iraqi people, and to what degree have Halliburton and other corporate interests colluded with the Bush administration to profit off this fiasco (to name a few).



I'm leaning towards a yes on this one.



Both lose, eh?  From the last line I'll take one more guess and say you're English.  Frankly that scares me and I hope I'm wrong about that.  Since I don't know I'll just assume that you are English.  You say you don't care who wins the US presidency, but I'd like to remind you that quite a large number of British soldiers are in Iraq right now because of who won the 2000 US Presidential election.  Reflect on that and perhaps you'll give this issue the thought it deserves.

Kerry would be far better off talking about the future than the past.  It's all well and good to say that Iraq was a mistake, but now that we're there I think people are more concerned with how we're going to deal with that mistake.

Boog is Ross Perot. That is all.

The lack of directed strategy is my current gripe with Kerry right now. Granted, I can understand why he wouldn't want to share policies which Bush might have time to use or block, but for god's sake man take a stand on something. If he wants to combat the political leverage Bush has being in current power, he's going to need some good policies to stand on.

While I find GWB to be a moronic, lobby pandering, money monger, I can't bring myself to vote for someone that has said nothing at all about what they plan to do in office. Until that changes, my vote will be for Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party. I'd rather put my vote towards stregnthening a 3rd party (5% vote means funding next year for the party) than hopping on the advertising bandwagon and choosing a President like I'd choose a light beer.

As long as you realize that this is the logic (re: Ralph Nader) which allowed Bush to win the 2000 election then do as you will.  It's your nickel.

If you want to invade Iran, and let the DPRK get nukes, don't vote for Kerry.

I'm curious how your country's news was portraying the election before Kerry's latest speech, because the election has been "about Iraq" for over a year now.  Initially Bush's opponents last year were reluctant to say anything bad about our Iraq policy because they felt, even though some things were starting to look bad, that Americans would not tolerate such criticism because it would be viewed as unpatriotic.  It took Howard Dean to be one of the first to criticize Iraq that enabled other Democrat Party challengers to do so as well, and ultimately John Kerry getting nominated.

You may wonder, then, why is Kerry's speech such a big deal?  Beats the hell out of most of us here.  This is Kerry's latest "Iraq policy/position" speech and he's had over a dozen different ones so far.  Each one is subtly different from the last in order to try to find just the right words that would appeal to the most voters.  Like many politicians, Kerry has no REAL opinion of right and wrong on the issue; he simply says what he thinks is most politically expedient at the time.

Kerry isn't nuts, but he is misguided.  While a lot of Americans were unhappy with how things in Iraq turned out, most of them are already going to vote for Kerry.  He is being "forced" to talk more about Iraq, because the administration had made him look wishy-washy on the issue, and he was taking a lot of heat from his Vietnam-era politics, and his own campaign had literally become "de-energized"... he was losing support among Democrats, not so much because they were going to vote for Bush, but because they were no longer enthusiastic about Kerry.

Many of Kerry's proposed Iraq policies are not that different from Bush's at all.  Rather, he's trying to say, "The other guy screwed up, and I can do better." without anyone being able to challenge him on that because, frankly, none of us can know whether he'd do better or not in the future.  You marvel at the idea Americans would throw out one guy for making mistakes without knowing that the other guy would do any better.   One thing to remember is that in the US system, you rarely have the same guy running for President more than once (unless he won, in which case he runs twice).  So it's not like European countries where you have the left-party leader who wins, and then the right-party leader wins, and then he's running against the same left-party leader the next time and everyone can say, "Yeah, remember how it was when he was PM last time?"  So it is much more of a contest of the Devil you know vs. the Devil you don't know.  Also, the American electorate is traditionally pretty eager to punish someone for their short-term failures over their long-term accomplishments.  They tried to do it with Nixon and Clinton, and they succeeded in doing it against Ford, Carter, and Bush 41.  It's entirely possible they'd do it to Bush 43.

If Kerry really wants to make some progress on swing voters, he should be talking more about domestic policy, economics, taxes, jobs, gay marriage, etc.  But instead the Republicans have forced him to play the game on "their turf", and that is a losing battle.  As it stands now, both sides have pretty much given up on the swing voters.  Both are concentrating heavily on getting their base out to vote, and focusing on only a few key states which will decide this election.

Oh, and the electoral college really isn't as big a deal as you might think it is given the last election.  It's still quite important, even this time around, but historically it has only been a big issue a few times.  It's merely a symptom of a larger problem, which is that voters are highly polarized between two parties and they are unwilling to vote for the other guy so long as certain key issues are at stake.

Bruce

Don't forget Pat Buchanan.  His votes in 2000 made 3 other states extremely close for Gore (and might have gone for Bush had there been a recount in those states).

Bruce

If Kerry wants to turn the election into a referendum on Iraq, he could very well be his own worst enemy on the matter (http://kerryoniraq.com).




But it gets better....he has been every bit as self-contradictory on funding the war....not just through the infamous vote either.



Oh, and on troop levels....in the span of less than one year:




But what about John Kerry's plan for the future in Iraq? Let's check his website:


Let's compare to Bush:


I have to admit, both plans sound pretty good (and pretty similar)...but Kerry came to his near-identical plan nearly 3 months after Bush laid out his own strategy on Iraq.

The difference-maker Kerry runs into here is that Americans know what Bush's plan will be 6 months from now.....but with Kerry, it seems that sort of a prediction is a crapshoot, even for Kerry himself.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

As a foriegn national living in the States I'd say the biggest problem with the US political system is the Presidency itself. I can't think of another nation that directly elects a head of state that is has as many powers as that of the US presidency.

While I have no idea whether it wouldve made things better or worse, how interesting would history have been if the founding fathers had gone with a Westminister style parliament with a largely ceromonial officer of the President?

problem is that when you single out one issue you basicly say fuck the world on everything else.

The President actually has very few powers.  In what you are talking about, he is more like a Prime Minister.  Now, it's true, the PM is generally elected by the ruling party, not the electorate... but in the US, it's always someone the parties nominate, so it's not like the party would pick someone else to lead them.  The only difference is we can have a President/PM of a different party than the one currently controlling Congress, which many people see as a good thing.

As head of the executive branch, the President's powers are mostly those that Congress has delegated to him in executing their laws.  In terms of actual decision-making authority, only the President can nominate Supreme Court judges, and he controls the armed forces, but that's about it.  He can negotiate treatires but they are meaningless unless the Senate ratifies them.

His major power is the threat to veto any legilation, which means it can't become law unless an even larger majority in Congress revotes on it, and in these days of a very close Congress that's very unlikely.  The basic result of this isn't that what the President wants always gets through, but that what the opposition wants rarely gets through, and we get legislation that is usually somewhere in the middle.

Bruce

I'm not anti-Bush. I'm pro common sense. Neither candidate seems to possess that quality at this point. It's like asking me to vote for the Best Movie Ever and giving me Alien vs. Predator and Anaconda as the choices. Hype does not a good candidate make.

I refuse to place my vote based on peer pressure or some mystical assertion that my one vote will turn the tides of our political system. As a resident of NY state it's actually exponentially more likely that my vote will make no difference.

I'm placing my vote for the future of our political system. An analysis of the candidates would indicate we're already screwed, so I figure it's time to put my effort towards something I can actually believe in. Some of us actually vote for those with policies that align the most with their own set of values.. go figure.

If more people would be willing to make sacrifices in their life for civic duty, the country'd be a lot nicer place.

I'm ABB. I want the fringe Republican hawks out of the administration. In four years I'll go back to voting Libertarian, right now I feel there's a threat to our nation's integrity that I can do something about. ABB.

I just wish Sharpton had gotten the nomination.

Yes, Bush will repeal more environmental laws, resurrect more ancient statutes and loopholes for corporate concerns, invade at least one more nation that is not a direct threat to our nation, create global animosity against our nation, and balloon the deficit to unimagined proportions.

At least Kerry won't do most of that. Better to have 4 years of treading water than 4 more years of sinking with concrete shoes.

Control of the armed forces, power to nominate supreme court justices and veto legislation are pretty big powers. Its also his office, albiet with congressional approval, who appoints cabinet members etc.

The president has a lot of 'power' whether it is written in law or not, he is very much the visible representation of the US to the rest of the world, his office dictates to a large extent foriegn and domestic policy. He is , as we've been often told, the one controlling national security through the armed forces and intelligence services.

And whats concerning is that this office is decided by seperate election, which , in parts has devolved into a popularity contest. He then appoints his own cabinet and is, in some regards, a lot less accountable than a Prime Minister ever has to be.

A Prime Minister he ain't. PM's for one are not the head of state, there is a President, Governor General or Monarch above them. They have their own electorate and they must be elected by their own party and he chooses his cabinet from other elected members of parliement. And Im sure that at times that doesnt make it any better than the US system. But the fact that he must keep his party elected to keep his own job makes for much more differences in the execution of his job.

Small example to think about: How different wouldve WWII been if FDR had been the PM of a democrat controlled congress?

Sheesh, and Edwards is saying that Bush is the campaign of "fear-mongers"?? Yet Kerry/Edwards supporters are so quick to shout "OMG BUSH WANTS TO INVADE YOUR HOME LIKE BIG BROTHER! HE WANTS TO SELL YOU INTO SLAVE LABOR TO HIS CORPORATE BUDDIES! BUSH WANTS TO DOUSE BABY SEALS IN CRUDE OIL WHILE STARTING FOREST FIRES!!! BUSH WANTS TO MORTGAGE OUR FUTURE TO INVADE COUNTRIES CUZ HE THINKS WAR IS SUPER FUN!".....go figure.

If most of those points were even worth refuting in the context of this discussion, I'll eschew a rebuttal in favor of pointing out that YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THE ORIGINAL POSTER'S POINT, AND MY POINT.

That point being that Kerry is stupid to make Iraq the focal point of his campaign. Discussing the environment, the economy, corporate tax laws, deficit spending, healthcare, social security, stem cell research, US Intel reforms, or the finer details of the Patriot Act.....any combination of those would be a better platform for Kerry.



Hyperbole for teh win. Given the challenges of the past 4 years, I think it is remarkable that we are doing as well as a country as we are today. Could we have done better? Sure......no matter what you do it could always have been done better.

Perhaps if Kerry would stop emulating those Brett Favre MasterCard commercials by simply second-guessing what Bush has done, he could try and put forth a clear coherent detailed plan on what he is going to do over the next 4 years, and present it in a way that makes it palatable to the democratic base, as well as swing voters and disgruntled conservatives.

But no, let's keep trying to bring up questions about the President's stint in the National Guard, let's keep up the "I would have double bagged it" routine about Iraq, and tossing accusations about collusion with 527 groups.

Yeah, that sure is smart of Kerry. He should continue to try and attack the President by using a tack that exposes his own greatest weakness. If he keeps it up, his only hope will be to absolutely irrefutably dominate Bush in the debates.....otherwise, he could easily become Dukakis Part 2.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Get an education. This achieves the following:

- gets you a decent job that pays you for your jury duty service time
- said job will raise you up from the lower class
- will also help keep you from looking like an unthinking ignoramus

Your "I'm too cool to care" attitude is exactly what the Powers That Be want to keep you submissive.



Talk about "hyperbole for teh win", good Christ.

Talk about, "out of context for teh win."

Ummm ... whaaa??

He was criticizing someone for hyperbole, while in the same post being quite hyperbolic himself. I was just making the connection. That's out of context because ... ?

I really dont think the Democrats can raise a candle to the Bush teams fear mongering.

I mean there was that whole invading a whole other nation because they have WMDs they are about to use against us thing....whoops!

Sorry couldnt resist.:)

Well actually, as much as we like the Queen and all, Paul Martin is in fact the head of state in Canada.  Otherwise, I agree with your description.

And I do think its a better system, personally.

I love how belligerent some people become when others express views that don't 100% align with their own.

First off, I have an education.  Secondly, like Health Care, education is too expensive and hard to access to those of us not born with a silver spoon in our asses.  You'd figure that two of the more important aspects to making a country's people more productive would be a little more accessible to them.

Currently, I work for a newspaper and get a chance to see a variety of AP articles not deemed for public knowledge.  The FCC claims this is to "avoid printing material that has not been 100% authenticated."   In actuality, it's a major truth-filter so that people with money can control what is printed in reputable media (Orwell was right but off by 20 years).  

Fortunately, the internet is an equalizer in some respects but many find it daunting to dig through all the crap to find "truth."

As for the dissenchantment: After seeing thousands of "Jessica Lynch's tale was a Hoax" stories (and millions more just like it) released by the BBC six months before it finally reached american news or the cloak and dagger crap I read about our presidential candidates, it reinforces the "poke in the eye or kick in the nuts" options.   Voting third party is only a wasted vote - not enough cash to buy the elections or media coverage.

I'm not submissive.  I'm realistic.  Democracy has become just an illusion.  The "haves" are ruling the world while the "have nots" are kept subordinate with illusions.

Spend a few years working in the world media and things start looking a little different from what we've been spoon fed.  Ignorance is bliss.

Who do you think CONTROLS the reputable media? People with money.



If you had said "Information wants to be free," you could not have looked more like the clueless optimism of the 90's dot bomb fiascos. See above.

The sad truth is that DV's exaggerated portrayal of the anti-bush crowd is barely exaggerated, or at least it seems so to me.

Oh, and out of context was not including the first part, that part being,

The remaining section loses it's initial tone without that first part.

You sure about that? Afaik Canada is like Australia in that the PM is the head of the government, the Governor General is the queens representative and therefore the defacto Head of State and the monarch is the true head of state.

Correct me if Im wrong?

No protection in Texas - you have a driver's license, you're registered as a viable jury member.

Of course in Texas voting has become a largely symbolic activity.



I'd like to see the GOP put a Republican on the ballot.

Just a question but does that apply to non citizens? Must admit Ive always assumed that as a non citizen I cant vote, thats right yes?

Correct though there are some initiatives to change that, particularly for illegal immigrants.  (Why someone should enjoy the privileges of citizenship without the responsibilities is beyond me.)

From reading your response, I would say that we probably agree on a lot.

I just don't think adopting a defeatist attitude is the answer, is all.

WTF why do illegal immigrants get the vote. As a legal immigrant to the US whos had to endure hideously long waits at INS offices, reams of confusing paperwork, hassles at immigration etc nothing PISSES me off more than the way this country bends over backwards for illegals. In Oz we just stick em in detention camps...*cackle*

Because politicians on BOTH sides of the political fence bend over backwards to appease illegals, especially here in California. For two reasons:

1. The nebuluous "Latino vote". But more important:
2. Big business wants a steady influx of illegals for cheap labor, and are willing to sacrifice our national security to do it.

Neither party is addressing the horrendous problem of illegal immigration, including the al Queda members posing as Mexican immigrants streaming into California, Arizona and Texas.

Business benefits, and the taxpayers get ass-raped. What was that Talking Heads song again?

Holy crap, don't get me started on California and the illegal immigrant problem.

My best guess on the al-Qaeda-posing-as-migrant-worker thing would be that the CA gov't wants to make them feel at home and give them all kinds of benefits without bothersome responsibilities so that they'll decide to stay here, behave, and not blow up any more of our buildings.

While I haven't directed the accusation of fear-mongering against the Bush administration, Cheney makes it hard not to. Making predictions of doom if Kerry is elected is fear-mongering, based on pure speculation.

But I'm not fear-mongering, I'm stating what the sitting president's administration has /already done/, and done with a mind toward being re-elected. Those are chilling facts on their own, I don't have to monger them.

I'll fear monger a bit and say it can only get much more insidious when he doesn't have to worry about a re-election.

Since Bush has been elected, authorities DO have more ability to invade your privacy; people continue to slide further into 'slave labor' with the low minimum wage, and he very much is surrounded by corporate buddies; he HAS continued to exploit the environment in favor of corporate interests; and he HAS gone to war for no rational reason; and he HAS mortgaged our future to do so. It'd be funnier if it wasn't true, in this case.

I'm not some frothing anti-bushite. I don't watch or read mass-media, my mind is not filled with someone else's positions. What I have done, though, is read a lot of the accounts of what has actually happened over the last four years in particular, and in our government in general, and I make my opinion based on those facts. I don't expect you to agree, but do not dismiss me as some clueless political ranter without solid reasons for my position.

Well, no shit.  It's not a "true democracy" because frankly true democracies stink on ice.  Oh, and if you think parliamentary systems are "true democracies", well you're wrong there too.  They're representative democracies also.

Just because the rest of the world runs on a parliamentary system where the head of government isn't even elected (gee, that doesn't sound very democratic, does it?) doesn't mean that we should go scrapping what is the oldest functional modern "democracy" in the world, and a model that must have served us pretty well, seeing how we went from a provincial backwater to global superpower in 150 years time.

Welll possibly an arguement could be made that the US would be ever greater if it was under a parliementary system. Im not engaging in a 'my political system is better than your political system' dick waving contest, Im just saying there are advantages to both.

And dont automatically assume that because the President is directly elected that its a good thing. Theres nothing as stupid as the masses.:)

Here's basically how American elections work:

The first candidate to come up with a solid slogan and method of attack on the other candidate wins, as long as they NEVER stop beating the public over the head with it.

You have noticed that regardless of the subject at hand the Bush campaign calls Kerry a "flip flopper" right?

That's how you win. Seriously.

Take a little tour around the internet, and read some of the truly laughable theories being tossed about. Let's also establish that not every "Kerry supporter" is a Democratic elected official or even affiliated with the party.....this is how tripe like Michael Moore and 527 groups can seemingly make any baseless accusations they wish with almost total impunity....and they're relatively mild compared to some of the shit that's out there.

But just consider for a second what calling the Bush campaign "fear mongers" does....isn't the intended effect to make people afraid of the Bush campaign? Isn't it just a step or two removed from trying to call the administration terrorists themselves?

Oh wait...that's right...anti-Bush activists have already taken to calling him a terrorist (http://www.detnews.com/2003/schools/0310/02/b01-286595.htm).
(http://www.internationalterrorist.com/shirt.gif)

And lest we think this is merely crude humor, with no serious intent:
(http://www.nogw.com/images/nye1.jpg)
Which of course leads us into a realm of all sorts of batfuck (http://www.nogw.com/)  crazy (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/) conspiracy theorists....enough for me to safely conclude that some of the rabid ABB crowd are nothing shy of FUCKING INSANE.



History lesson....and for this one I will do my imitation of the late Chris Farley, from the Chris Farley Show skits:

[chrisfarley]

Ya remember how the UN put all those sanctions in place against Saddam after the Gulf War, including the part about WMDs? That was awesome, man.

Remember how Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq under the Clinton administration (which even Kerry criticized)? It was pretty cool.

Remember how the UN kept passing resolution after resolution about this issue? Yeah, me too.

Did you see Die Hard?

Remember how UN resolution 1441 threatened "serious consequences" for non-compliance and/or material breach? Yeah I liked that one too, it was cool.

Remember how various sources of intelligence from around the world believed that Saddam had WMDs or at least WMD programs? AWESOME, man.

And do you remember how the Russians warned us that they had reason to believe Iraq was plotting an unconventional attack against the US or their interests abroad, thus painting them as an imminent threat? That was cool too.

Do you remember Beatlemania?

Remember when we found Saddam to be in material breach of 1441, and the French said that they would not approve the use of force under any circumstances, thus acting as a veto against any UN-approved use of force? Yeah, that was awesome.

Do you remember when we discovered the widespread corruption in the oil-for-food program (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html), including UN officials, and how it clearly constituted a direct conflict of interest for France (http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/em879.cfm)???

Ya remember how David Kay (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)  made multiple statements (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/) before members of Congress about our actual findings? That was cool.

[/chrisfarley]

In summary, nearly every government on the entire goddamn planet believed he had WMDs, including the countries that vehemently opposed the war. We had reason to believe he was a threat, and we acted proactively, based on the information that was available at the time, to protect our national security and interests abroad.

Kerry has since been quoted as saying that EVEN GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war.

But yeah, look at it with the benefit of hindsight, and refer to it as "fear mongering", and insist that it can only get worse.....yknow, because that's the strategy to help Kerry win, right?

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

This might be a compelling argument if those same Every Governments were equally enthusiastic about the war effort.

Which begs the question....why in the living hell should we expect the rest of the world to care about US national security and interests abroad anywhere near as much as we do?

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

They were, except the ones getting massive kickbacks from Iraq and/or selling them weapons. Or half a world way that really don't give a shit what happens in the Middle East.

This isn't even contested. It's not like the governments involved are saying weapons weren't sold, or that some of their people weren't getting oil kickbacks. They just pretend it doesn't matter. Because people are stupid, and act based on emotion.

And if people don't like Bush, who cares what's actually happening around them?

Been there done that, and if you believe one side is any worse than the other then believe me I feel sorry for you.

Was that possibly because of the intelligence that even Bush's own Secretary of State admitted was faulty?

When'd he say that? Seriously give me a link and I'll despair even more for the future of this country.


<snip> not going to bother I know its not going to make a difference.

Well, CNN is a fairly credible news source...will their story do? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/)

I'll even use a pretty graphic, lifted from a pro-Kerry site that illustrates the quote specifically:

(http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/images/pull4.gif)

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

I think Kerry's main problem with Iraq isn't that we went in, it's that we went with afwul intelligence, false justifications, and once we got there, it seems as if the administration had fuckall idea about what to do there in the event that the Iraqis don't fall down at our feet worshipping our freedom pie.

Except of course there was no threat to our national security.  Except of course while "they" agreed there may have been WMD there was next to zero consensus that it was really time to put bombs on target.

And Boog... "enthusiasm" means they actually get involved.  Sure there's no lack of people willing to egg us on in secret or blow smoke in public.  I'd be content if we had even half the support we enjoyed during GW1.  Hell, even 10%.

I'm glad the sonufabitch is gone.  What we have now though is worse.  The country will be in civil war by this time next year.

Not that that itself is bad.  But it's shame we couldn't have had a coordinated program of statehood instead of another Yugoslavia.



Agreed.  My needling DV's latest repetition of Karl's talking points aside, this is my real issue and it's why I'll take Kerry over Bush.  That as well as the destructive rollbacks of the progressive accomplishments of Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton.

I already know how badly Bush can screw things up.  I'm not impressed that he moderated himself in time for the election.  Had the GOP put a Republican on the block that individual would probably have my vote.

EDIT: added response to Haemish

Sure, but how many people who aren't already anti-Bush (quite possibly because of iraq) are going to get turned on by that message?

That's probably the fundamental reason I'm amazed to see him want to talk about iraq at all, it looks like a waste of air.

Anti-war arguments have all been said, they have surely influenced everyone they ever will, and new iraq policy just draws attention back to the flip flop thing.



I'm British, I don't care who wins because I don't see a significant policy difference. Perhaps I'm also being influenced by not being able to imagine Kerry winning.

Kerry may or may not have planned a better war, he doesn't yet appear to be suggesting anything I can see as different to the Bush plan. If there was a compelling case to push an alternative strategy then I could see what he's up to, but as it is, there doesn't seem to be any alternative strategy.



Mostly as an election where Kerry has struggled to take control of the agenda, and where he's overcoming all sorts of natural advantages to do his best to lose, by allowing himself to get caught up in issues that don't give any traction, instead of opening up any kind of front on anything he can say more than 'I'm not Bush' on.  The media here (in admittedly limited coverage) has yet to detect a Kerry policy, and as a result spends any airtime it gives to US news on how Bush has a ranch and Kerry has trouble ordering at Wendy's.

The UK media has viewed it as 'about Iraq' but see that as entirely to Bush's advantage, as Kerry has nothing interesting to say on the subject.



Sure, that's exactly the view of the British Conservatives too. It's not doing them any good to bang on about it either.

Anyone smart enough to cope with the idea of thinking both...

1) Saddam was a criminal guilty of killing tens of millions of people and the cost of his continued rule could be measured in thousands of additional dead children.

AND

2) Going in with no obvious plan for the aftermath was fucking stupid.

... has already decided whether this shifts their vote or not.

Anyone not smart enough to cope with the above statements simultaeneously just gets confused and thinks you are changing your mind.

All of which just leaves me wondering which one of these tools gets my vote in November?  I think it's going to come down to how I feel when I walk into the poll.  Do I prefer a known or unknown evil?

All that aside, God how I love the show!

Notice that we're back to talking about past actions in Iraq.  The past is over, talk about the future.  At least Kerry has finally taken a stand (for the moment) on Iraq, and what to do with it.  Now that he has a message, he can focus on communicating it to the target audience.

If he can convince people that what Bush is doing is wrong, as opposed to what Bush did was wrong, he might have a chance.

"Let"? You say that like it's future tense.

Ok, the future. One year or two after Bush gets re-elected before we go after Iran?

As to the previous mention of illegals & California. I'm a pretty socially liberal guy, and even *I* think California needs to just go away for the good for the country. Jebuz, when they passed that whole "don't kick illegals out of school' thing back in the 90s my head about exploded.  Knowing they want to let them vote just makes me ill.

If you spent the time you spend playing video games working towards becoming a "have" instead of a "have not" you might sing a different tune.



We would have just nuked Tokyo and been done with it?

---

I'd say JibJab's "This Land" (http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&preplay=1&ratingBar=off) puts it best.

regarding foreigners and the election, its amazing how much hate there is for Bush outside America.


http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=25392

In European countries if they could vote Kerry would win by 50 points.

And in the same light, I totally disagree with the statement that there would be no difference for the rest of the world whether Kerry or Bush was in, there would be a world of difference.

Iraq wouldnt have even been on the agenda if not for the neo-cons.

If I go to school for a dollar a semester while collecting SSI for my disability, education is not to expensive.  FASFA (http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/) can help too.  Stop complaining and do something, you don't have an excuse

A quick aside to make something perfectly clear ... we, the citizens and taxpayers in California, DO NOT support this illegals bullshit. However, our politicans on BOTH sides are allowing powerful lobbies up their Hershey Highways to let it happen.

Living in California and enduring this crap is kind of like perpetually feeling like you were bent over a chair by Kobe Bryant.

They said that last year too. It'll be in civil war....why? What leads you to believe stability is worse now than it was a year ago?

Kerry keeps up attacking without offering a plan of his own, he's going to lose. Simple as that. The "ABB" crowd isn't good enough to give him a win, and the rest of the nation wants a gameplan. Not "I'm not Bush".

It's worth noting that almost every country in Europe likes to percieve itself as 'to the left of the democrats'. As a result, the democrat candidate would probably win almost every US election evar if Europe could vote.

Admittedly they probably would not win by 50 points every time.

Not entirely true, but I don't want to discuss things which end up being without real meaning because we are a small country anyway. Which, incidently would likely be your answer when I show you a mixed approach between direct and representative democracy.



Which means that Monarchy is the far superiour system because our country was a global super power during its monarchic age and declined once it turned towards democracy. That, our you make connections where there is no direct causality.

Anyway, I don't wan't you to scratch anything, If you are happy with your system, keep at it. I just wanted to point out that the opinion of one British forum poster is not the opinion of the whole "rest of the world". Of course, mine would be neither, and I would never presume to represent anybody but myself.

Yes, it's the knd of information that's only very useful in context.  How many Europeans would have voted for Gore, Clinton, Bush 41, etc.

Bruce

Same here. They recently did this in my home state, so I'm done with elections. Reason: I am living check-to-check, and if I were to be placed on a lengthy jury trial, it would be a financial disaster for me that would take YEARS to recover from. My employer recently decided to no longer pay normal wages to people who serve jury duty - they now pay you nothing. Use your vacation time, I guess.

For your conspiracy theory collection - I see this as a clever way to reserve the right to vote for only the wealthy - the working man who needs every pay of every hard work day, can no longer afford to be on a jury, and thus, can no longer afford to vote.

very clever, Masons. very, very clever.

Carefully avoiding a Godwin invocation, lets just say that this argument holds as much water as a collander - also, nevermind the fact that the United States is presently the Barry Bonds of world superpowers despite its representative democracy, your logic fails to point out that if the measure of a successful governmental system is the scope of its empire, then you lose to every tyranny in history.

Weren't you supposed to be a writer and therefore able to grasp what others write as well?

OF COURSE THAT POINT IS BULLSHIT, it is bullshit regarding the Monarchy of pre-WWI Austria, it is bullshit regarding that thing that would invoke Godwins law, and it is bullshit with the US democracy.


Thats the part you conveniently left out in your quote. Irony too hard for you?

The political system and the relative power versus other countries are not
as closely tied to one another as Big Gulp believes.

Sky, here was Cheny's actual statement about Kerry that has been mutated into the Talking Point you mention above: Notice that he didn't say voting for Kerry is a vote for more blown up buildings.

As to our Federal Elections system, the single biggest problem is the Gerrymandering of House districts making them defacto holdings of one party or the other. House elections are a joke for this reason.

Kerry is defining himself by the incumbant, and has not made it evident he's anything better than a warm body in opposition to the current regime. That doesn't win elections. What's he going to do in office when Bush isn't there to take a stand on something?

For the record, the people of CA passed Prop 187 which denied illegals any benefits paid for by taxpayer dollars. Our former, now recalled, governor Gray Davis managed to kill the prop by failing to appeal a temporary restraining order. There is an active campaign running to get a replacement proposition on the ballot.

Trust me, just because CA state government is wacko it doesn't make the whole state bad.

Kerry has done a lot to make himself look like "Bush Lite."  He's for the War on Terror, but not like Bush has pursued it.  He supports the Patriot Act, but not all the provisions Bush wants/has.  He supported holding Saddam accountable, or maybe going to war with Iraq, or maybe helping rebuild Iraq now, but again, not in the ways Bush did it.  He is opposed to gay marriage, but not to the degree Bush is.  He supports drug perscription benefits for seniors, but not the Bush plan.  He supports tax cuts, but not the Bush tax cuts.  Etc.

Of course, there are real differences between the candidates, such as on abortion, the economy, and so on.  And there's nothing wrong with saying, "Yeah, the other guy has the right idea, but his plan sucks and my plan is better."  But it gets back to the whole "nuanced", "intellectual", and at times "flip-flop" thing that makes explaining these differences in the modern media extremely difficult.  The only person I know who was capable of pulling it off was Clinton, and he only got away with it because of his many advantages: He was a better speaker, he was a better politician, He ran towards the middle, He ran against two very weak Republican candidates, and both times he also had help from Perot.

Clinton, like Carter and Reagan who also defeated unpopular one-term incumbants, also offered a positive, hopeful alternative rather than just criticism of the other guy.

Kerry is no Clinton.

Bruce

Maybe Democrats should get t-shirts made up:

'Least our presidents only invade interns'

It's not like Clinton was involved in Somalia or hitting Milsovics ass or anything.

Oh, wait.

It was a joke Boogs, relax.

Though if you insist I do recall both those situations being fully UN sanctioned.

Actually, Clinton's actions in Serbia had neither UN nor Congressional authorization before he began bombing.

Bush I went into Somalia, not Clinton.

Kosovo was under the auspices first of NATO, then KFOR (the UN).

Um...what about those of us who don't get SSI? NAACP? UNCF? or any other governmental handouts "because we're special?"

I had to steal to survive my college experiences because:
 
- Mommy and daddy didn't pay for my classes or room & board.
- I had to eat somehow and wasn't making enough for the "meal plan" nor sufficient groceries...hence the stealing.
- My "instate college" (which was all I could afford) sucked ass and I ended up learning more from software pirates and my peers than from any professor in the school (save for the extra-ciricular activities).

So, how was I not doing something?  Anyone can survive in this world, but it's a flawed system in which people who aren't handed out things have to break the law to survive.

My bad I was thinking of Bosnia.

If you can't find a way to go to college, you aren't smart enough to get anything out of it.

Simple as that. There are so many programs out there, and so many cheap but fairly good colleges that if you can't find a way to get a useful degree you don't really want to get one.

You have nobody to blame but yourself. Just because other people had it easier doesn't mean you can't do it chief.

So sayeth the man who hasn't done it.

No kidding. :)

My post essentially said: I did make it to/through college...but I had to bypass "the system" to do it.  My gripe is with the system itself (screw the poor, they don't need any healthcare or education).

I was drawing from that experience to explain how I feel about how the government as a whole works around here: more upfront profit, screw the future.

Besides, I know quite a few Doctors and people going for their second masters degrees who are complete morons.  Academics & education are not one in the same.

Because I make more than a college grad now, and I'll be making more than the average college grad up till about.....35 I believe it tappers off and the average successful college grad makes more than me.

And I can still go to Northeastern today fully covered.

It's not my fault you can't deal with life.



It's called a county hospital, and the poor are the ones with access to most of those programs you listed.

Are you just fucking inept? Do you just like wallowing in your own shit?

You have no excuse for having to work so hard except being stupid.

Damn. Someone's got a case of the "No one beat the Hell outta me enough when I was a kid" complex.

First off, There was a serious discussion going on above.  I simply added how I felt and then some irate turd-burglar started flaming the Hell outta me because someone said something that shattered his own microcosmic view of reality.

When you're done tossing your own salad and subsequently talking shit, the rest of us would like to continue the discussion in this thread.

thanks.

Boog, he's right. Stop coming over here to stir up shit. If you need to go #1, do it in your own pool.

Aw, but we ban our idiots. You are the only place to find them.

Anther Crybaby looking for a handout.

I worked 70 hours a week in the summer Running a Jackhammer to pay college tuition.  One of my roommates worked as a Breakfast cook Full time while he purused his Triple Major undergraduate degree, and he now has his PHD.

You, my friend, sold your soul, when you didn't have to, for personal gain.  Congrats!!

I also engaged in some petty larceny (stealing from the student organization cash box) in order to get by in college.  And I ducked my landlord more than once, but eventually he got all his money before I left town.  My biggest regret is getting some guy over the Internet to send me a check for like $800.  I've never been able to pay him back because I no longer have any way to contact him.

Bruce

Ouch!  So that's where my $800.00 went?!  PM me for my contact information ;)

Care to share how you managed to obtain $800 from someone without supplying anything in return?  Teach me, oh sensei.

Well, when you spout a position defending your own apathy toward voting, the current American political system, and civic responsibility in things like jury duty (under the premise of 'what does it do for me?'), why should anything you say in defense of that be construed as "serious discussion"?? That's not a rhetorical question...I honestly would like to know.

Toss in some pseudo-class-warfare tripe, along with a conspiracy theory about why Bush ever got into office, and the admission that you don't like any alternatives.....and in all due respect, you make a fine case for yourself as being a babbling nitwit.

Blame society, blame the system, blame the rich, blame the politicians.....each is just another case of pointing the finger and absolving yourself of any personal responsibility for how your life has turned out.

Boog points out that you were not held at gunpoint and forced to make the choices you did, and presented the alternative path that he used (which did not include college) to reach his current station in life. He also pointed out that healthcare and education are NOT exclusive to the priveleged....making your position that the system says "screw the poor, they don't need any healthcare or education" is nothing more than meaningless hyperbole that is misrepresentative of reality.

Moreover, you point to "a flawed system in which people who aren't handed out things have to break the law to survive" as your justification for stealing.....and while you may enjoy painting yourself as Jean Valjean in this conversation, there are multiple people in this thread alone that worked their way through college, and made the necessary personal sacrifices so they DID NOT "have to break the law to survive". Hell, Boog went an entirely different route....and he still has the option to go, and the means to pay for it himself. Doesn't make his way better or worse, it just points out that your situation is as much a result of your own choices as anything else....and you should take full responsibility for that, instead of trying to use the 'I had no control over the hand I was dealt' excuse as some kind of trump card.

He took your arguments, exposed them for the pure excrement that they are, and you come back not only reacting as if he simply ignored your points, but that he is flaming you out of mere animosity, as opposed to his personal disdain for your own specious arguments.

Explain to me again how, seeing as how you refuse to vote, your opinion on ANYTHING related to our political process and the resulting state of the country is supposed to actually mean something? You have a voice, and that voice is your vote....if you choose to do nothing with that vote, why the fuck is anyone supposed to care that you feel the system is doing you a disservice? To do nothing and expect everyone else to come up with the proper solution is absolutely deplorable.....especially as an allegedly educated individual.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

I always get a kick out of how antagonistic those who have already 'gotten theirs' react when people point out things that state they didn't bust their ass as hard as they thought.

Lemme guess? Inheritence? some minority scholarship? parents involved in the school board or PTA?

I fail to see how beating down those who point out flaws in a failing system will help anyone.  By your justification: the system works just fine and the millions of people who aren't getting the adequate medical attention or advanced education to allow them a level playing field with the rich kids is due entirely to their stupidity.  ....Spoken like a true rich kid: "I've got mine, what's your problem?"

I'm not whining about how hard I had it or that I was denied the same opportunities as those born with a silver-spoon up their ass, I'm explaining that not everyone has the same opportunities as some and that, for those will come after us, there's a need for changes so they won't have as hard a time as many of the people this time around.

Simply voting for Candidate X who opposes Candidate Y's views is absolutely pointless.  It's hard for rich, middle-aged white men to even fathom the life of those not within their own microcosm (further proven to a degree by the attacks in this forum. Your profile says "golf" as an interest. 'nuff said).

Sure, you could write-in a 3rd party but we all know that's a wasted vote.  

How can someone make a difference without voting for one of those two morons?  Simple: get the issues advertised enough to make the populace angry enough about to bitch for a long enough time to get a feigned sincerity about said issue by one of the reptiles puting on a show for the media/polls.  Then, and only then, would voting actually work.  

Since neither candidate gives a rats ass about any of the issues affecting me, I have no reason to vote this round.   Besides, it'd be a pointless risk for jury duty when all I'd be doing is writing in "Mickey Mouse" again.

This high school mentality shit is getting rather tiring.  If someone doesn't share your views, attacking them won't make either side come to any understanding.  If this were a verbal discussion, it probably would've been reduced to a shouting match by now and the weight of an argument isn't gauged by insults or decibels.  

That's where my "alleged education" comes into play.  Looks like some of us lucked out in the dumpy in-state colleges after all.

I am waiting for Boog to step it up to #2.

He's not really giving me much to work with. He gave up on life. What can you say to that?

[Vanilla Ice]Word to your motha.[/Vanilla Ice]

Or hey, instead of being a whiny bitch about how your parents can't pay for school you can always get your Uncle to pay for it.  Try serving your country; free healthcare, school largely paid for, and a life experience that very few of this current self indulgent generation have any more.

There are ways to get school paid for.  You can either work your ass off and go to school at the same time or give something back to your country.  Higher education isn't something that's owed to you, and having a comfortable life isn't an entitlement.  Welcome to adulthood.

See, people tend to look at past adversity in two different ways.  One group looks at it as a horrible experience that they shouldn't have had to go through; the other group looks at it with pride as a time they overcame the obstacles in their way.

This has nothing to do with starting conditions, both groups exist among the rich and poor alike.  Both groups did manage to get through the time of hardship.  The thing is, the former tend to look for ways to avoid such difficulties, and ways to allow others to avoid such things.  Whereas the latter tend to look for ways to push themselves through the difficulties, and occasionally will head straight towards a difficulty with the knowledge that it'll be tough, but that they will grow in the process... They also work to help others achieve, not by removing the difficulty, but by changing their attitude about adversity.

While all that is a mouthful, it's often easier to attach names, like 'pessimist' and 'optimist', or 'liberal' and 'conservative', to these positions.  There are other meanings behind these words, but different attitudes about adversity are core issues that seperate the sides.

--
Alkiera

Or you can do what I did, nearly max out a credit card and take enough student loans to having you absolutely swimming in debt.  I didn't work one hour while school was in session my entire undergrad.

Work your summers and presto you've got a master's degree. It wasn't pretty, but it was effective.

You want free health care? You can:

A) Move to Canada.
B) Move to a town on the Mexican side of the border and use US hospitals for free. They'll even send an ambulance for you.


I'd also point out that the majority of the richest people in the US are not college graduates.

Everyone has the same opportunity. Some people just have more of a leg up, so they start closer to their goal and have to work less. No, it's not fair, but that's the system.  Life itself isn't fair, humans aren't fair-minded creatures, and Socialism doesn't work. There will always be haves & have-nots.

Before you delve into the asanine, baseless class labeling, I'm not a rich kid with a silver spoon up my ass.  My parents made 30k and had to support 4 kids with that money.  30k wasn't a lot of money, but it was too much for government assistance beyond a few hundred in pell grants.

I still went to school, still got an education, and I wasn't 'forced' to steal to do so.  Like Rasix I never held a job while classes were going, due to the requirements of my major.  But I had a place to live, food to eat and graduated. Summer internships & debit are wonderful things.

And before you call me a conservative, I usually think DV is a wongminded twit with narrow vision. Yet I find myself agreeing with everything he said to you.

The only people I have ever met in the second group are people who have never faced serious adversity.  I've heard people say "you know, I'm glad my parents never bought me a car when I was 16 because it got me to appreciate the value of money and working hard, and I think that's a valuable experience other people should have."

I have not heard anyone say "you know, I'm glad my parents were alcoholic fucks who beat the shit out of me every day and kicked me out of the house when I was 14 for a week while I slept in a cardboard box hoping the vagrants wouldn't rape me.  That made me appreciate the value of good family life, and I think that's a valuable experience other people should have."

People like to pretend they face adversity, because Horatio Alger myths are what legitimize success in our society.  But, by and large, they don't like real adversity.



I don't really want to get into an equality of opportunity argument, but these sentences don't make any sense to me.  3 sprinters who start 50, 100, and 150 meters from the finish line don't have the same opportunity to win that race.

Newsflash..... Life ISNT FAIR!! omg FILM AT 11:00

Duse seriously you have major issues. Everything you have listed and blame on "the man" keeping you down can directly be attributed to you or a choice you made. So you had a hhard time getting into and paying for school. How many grants/student loans did you apply for? Scholarships?? If your grades were the problem here guess who that reflects on?? You hoss.

This is probably my favorite post ever. You know jack shit about me son, but you're quick to label me as a "rich boy" who already "got his"....an assessment predicated on the fact that I list golf as one of my interests. You're wrong....and I particularly enjoy that you have this automatic assumption that everyone who disagrees with you and calls you a whiny pussy is automatically a rich kid who wants to deny you or anyone a chance at success.

Please refute that a completely destitute homeless man can walk into any ER in the country and receive emergency medical care if needed. That is to say nothing of any other programs or clinics that aim to provide healthcare and preventive care to those who cannot easily afford it.

Please refute that community colleges can provide relatively affordable educational opportunities, and that financial aid programs including grants, student loans, and scholarships exist to provide additional opportunities to folks that cannot easily afford college.

Please refute that there were avenues for you to avoid starvation that did not require theft.

Please refute that you are ultimately responsible and accountable for your own actions.

Please refute that there is not a way for you to make a positive change in the US political process without actually taking in part in it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Res, pick your fights better. This one was fucking stupid.

Everyone else, you know better than to pick on the new guy. You know he doesn't know better.

I think we all pretty much agree that Kerry is running on the "I'm not Bush" ticket or the "I'm like Bush only not-as-bad".  The question remains: will this work for him?  It worked for Clinton, but let's face it... Kerry doesn't have the charisma that Clinton had/has.  

Personally, I think Bush needs to set a course for the Iraq mess and give a state of the union address letting America know where he's heading.  I also think that Bush would help his cause by soliciting some opinions from the world community (even if he chooses not to follow them like he has been) prior to the election.  

The feeling I get from the "man on the street" is that most people are voting the party ticket because neither of these guys has really come out with a clear and concise strategy for the future.  They're both full of political rhetoric, but neither seem to have a plan.

EDIT: There, I'm on topic... happy Schild?

Well if nothing else Kerry has performed yeoman work just getting Bush back closer to something more proximate to the center.  A moderated Clinton was pretty powerful and preferable to what we'd have seen with the Dems controlling the government to the degree we see the GOP currently.

Not that it will last more than a few weeks after the election but that's the fun part - watching folks get pissed off because "their guy" performed true to his past record rather than adhering to the blather he spewed to get elected.

Very true.  The sad part is the fact that no matter who wins the election, they'll still have a hard time enacting any policy changes due to the lack of concessions from either side in the house and senate.  The polarity of the two party system in this country seems to be almost counterproductive in our efforts to change current political mechanisms.  I think this was stated by some of our non-American counterparts earlier in the thread.

It is good to see that at election time both of these guys seem to be shifting more to the middle.  I just doubt that they'll stay there long once elected.  I actually have more faith in Kerry remaining near the middle than Bush... but that's purely opinion.

Ahhh, I was waiting for the first person to post that.  You win a gold star. :)  Seriously, it was a guy from alt.callahans.



One of the secrets about me is that I can actually be quite diplomatic and charming when I want to be.  I found out early in life that I can be a good liar, to the point where now I have a general distaste for deception and try to be as open and up front with people as I can be.  As a result, I'm constantly banging my head againt social conventions that restrict such honesty to varying degrees in varying situations.

Bruce

Well, at least you're one of the good guys now :)

I view deception like stealing time and my life's too short to have stolen from me.  Good to hear there's people sick of the BS out there as well.

Stealing to make it through college is pretty weak, and I can't think of any circumstance where that would be required vs. say....GETTING A JOB!

Thievery is as much a job as any other. It's just illegal and the benefits suck.

That said it's better than what two of the kids at UMD I knew (by association) were doing. One was serving up child porn and the other was selling drugs. Like dirty mexican shit. Not high class uptown crack from wall street. </tongue in cheek>

Seriously though. Who gives a shit what people do as long as it doesn't affect you. And it doesn't effect you. Boog was just bitter because he didn't finish college. Why else do you think he lurks message boards and hops at the slightest chance to insult someone?

Being poor and time deprived can often lead people to do things against their better judgement.  It sounds to me like these people regret their actions and have learned from it. Is it necessary to rub their nose in it?

I think we could all be readily judged for our own shortcomings.

Maybe the guy that sold drugs. But he'd already served time. As for the child porn guy. Yea, that fucker deserved what he's got. I hope the people in jail are rubbing some salt in those wounds. There are degrees to stupidity. He's way past the red line.



I'm not religious enough to touch that with a ten foot pole.

Ok, there are degrees.  Stealing a candybar is one thing, exploiting children for porn is another.  the first I say big fucking deal, the latter I say hang the son of a bitch.

Edited me being stupid.

I never said "equal" opportunity.  Equal opportunity is a myth. I said the same opportunity.  At the start of the race, they all have a chance of winning since nobody's won yet. It's not an equal one, or even a fair one if all the athletes are equal. But they all have a chance. Semantics?  Maybe, but life is full of subtleties sometimes.

You might ask "How the hell would the guy that far behind win?"  Well, if you put me at the 50, and Flo-jo at the 100 or even 150, chances are she'll win.  I can't run for shit thanks to my knees.  Yeah, the 50 meter spot needs a world-class talent to beat someone who can't run more than 10-20 meters, but as pointed out  the world ain't fair.

  If you work, and you strive and you sacrifice you can achieve from a disadvantage.  The biggest difference between those who do and those who don't is mindset.  Think you've lost and you already have, and all those old adages.  Yeah, you probably won't look back with fondness on your adversity.  Doesn't mean it has to defeat you to the point of, "OMG I can never win! I give up!"

Never went. Never went to high school. Didn't finish grade school.

Don't think highly about education in general.

With that being said, if it's something you want and you can't get it's entirely your own fault. If I have to flat out turn down a free ride, I'm certain less bitter people can manage to find their way.

And I troll message boards because it's amusing and easy to multitask.