|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 20, 2004 19:06:58 GMT -5
Maybe next time your leaders may listen to the international community (read UN), and exercise some self control before starting a shit fight they can't win...A United Nations with 3 very strong countries selfishly guarding their own financial self-interests in Iraq, roadblocking us in our protection of ourselves and of protection of an ally like Israel from dangers which the intel of the Brits and of the U.S. said was present and imminent....those nations tried their damnedest to block us at every turn, for their own gain. THIS is an organization to respect? 'Respected international community' my ass. Fuck, had they not been running such strong interference, a full UN-backed force in Iraq WOULD HAVE secured all those small villages on the Coalition's march northward to Baghdad, instead of pulling out after routing Sodom's gurad troops from them....which allowed the doubts to creep in and fester among the ordinary Iraqi villagers. I definitely DO wish they'd held off for more support, now, in hindsight....but the intel being what it was...WTF? Were you going to wait for the anthrax to hit Tel Aviv? THEN move in...as the French, Germans and Russians STILL scream about their 'interests' in Sodom's government? The UN is what turned those moderates into terrorists... Good points all Doc. Straw also said that we went to war illegally. Sorry Straw, but that's just wrong. We had all the authority we needed with UN resolution 1441. Illegal my ass. Respected international community? The UN?! You are kidding right? Is there a more corrupt organization on the face of the earth? I doubt it. JLLM: Btw, I've never seen such negative election campaigning in all my years watching politics. Have Bush and his cronies got no shame? Surely you aren't that naive JLLM (although perhaps you are, getting your news from the BBC and all). Chrisfan is right. The vast majority of these negative ads (on both sides) are coming from these '527' groups, the vast majority of which are being funded by liberal interests. For you to suggest for one minute JLLM, that the Bush campaign is leading the way in the negative campaign dept., is just plain wrong. Given your bias however, I suppose it's to be expected. Here's some links about those '527' groups to get you started. There's a ton of them, I'll just post a few. Additionally, I had run across a site that had broken down the money raised by liberal 527's, and conservative 527's, which showed the liberal groups with a huge advantage. If I can find it, I'll post it. Again, the reason the amount of money these groups are raising is important, is because they are the ones largely behind the negative ads. The links to get you started: www.publicintegrity.org/527/report.aspx?aid=120&sid=300www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1261209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1178531/postswww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23283-2004Jun7.html |
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Aug 20, 2004 20:18:56 GMT -5
...yep this incursion into Iraq is the biggest fuck up since Vietnam....and remember prior to the invasion I said so on the now defunct RS.com... I did as well, straw. What was astounding to me at the time was that Bush was saying to Congress, et al, "We're going to have to invade Iraq," and everybody in the country just yawned, or said, "Uh, OK." I was not at all convinced. I was yelling at the TV over an apparently "non-issue"! But now it is an issue... Now that it's a huge mess. Stepped in what...?I think I wrote this in the summer of '02 at RS: "I’ve kept quiet about a lot of things, just watching things take their course for years. I was once a yellow-dog Democrat – now I consider myself a Libertarian and can’t fall in with either major party. Having said that, I am in complete disbelief of the current prevailing attitude about opening a new war with Iraq. It seems to me that because we got a serious black eye, now Bush and company have a hard-on for some Arab nation – any will do. If Bush starts an unprovoked war in Iraq, it will bring ruin and misery to this country. And after we lose a few tens of thousands of our people[thank Christ that hasn't been the case yet - ed], there will be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. I have no love for Saddam Hussein, but at this point it would be like cornering an injured jackal – and if he does have weapons of mass destruction, he will surely use them on us – our boys as well as our citizenry if he can. [He didn't and he couldn't. - ed] "There hasn’t been the Republican born yet who was capable of effectively prosecuting a war, or playing that evil game of brinkmanship (Lincoln included). I’ve never been a hawk, but I’ve got to give the Devil his due. If a Democrat had been in the White house during the first Gulf War, things would have gone differently. He would have said, “We’ve got ‘em on the run, boys – there’s been a change of objectives! We would have kicked the silly fucker’s ass and probably occupied and garrisoned off a bunch of Iraq and said, “This is U.S. - allied territory now – and thanks for the oil! You don’t like it? Fuck you!” The time was ripe then – if we go in now, we will be alone or begrudgingly and halfheartedly supported by our allies. Terrorism?? At least it’s a secular country! The religious fanatics scare me much more. Saddam can’t take a shit without us blowing up his outhouse, as it is now. "Contrast JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev blinked because he knew that fucker Kennedy was crazy enough to do it – and he would have! He would have gone down in history as the antichrist, but he sure as hell would have pushed the button! Don’t Tread on Me! (And get your missiles off of Cuba now, you commie bastard. “We will bury you” indeed – bring it on!) "Bush’s saber rattling (and I hope that’s all it is!) is ill conceived and dangerous. The Arab World isn’t buying it – they aren’t shaking in their boots. They know what will happen if we “cowboys” try to pull this stupidity off. It will unite them against us. And our allies? Well, I don’t know what they’ll do, poor bastards. "What I have learned from American history is this: America has always been fair, generous, and shown much compassion and goodwill. Where is that now? Let’s get a grip! That’s what makes us Americans! Like it or not, Iraq is a sovereign nation! So, we think they might have some bad weapons? How many are in that club? So he might use them on us? Hmmm, maybe. Then their nation would be toast. This is like saying that since some kid is a gang member and probably has an illegal gun, he might commit a crime, so let’s just lock him up now – we don’t like him anyway. Well, we don’t do that in America, the “Guardian of Democracy.” Remember after WWII when we were the only nation with the Bomb? We knew Russia was working on it, and it was just a matter of time before they would have it. Did we demand inspections and the removal of their leaders? Preposterously idiotic! Did we invade them or bomb them to prevent it? No, America doesn’t do that." There is a little ideological ranting there at the end. Well, I hope it doesn't sound too naive now... Those were me beliefs. I think I nailed it with a few of them... |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 20, 2004 20:48:46 GMT -5
guess i'm not going to work overtime anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 20, 2004 20:56:23 GMT -5
Why not Proud? Do you make over 100k annually?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Aug 21, 2004 0:32:38 GMT -5
Actually, although the rhetoric is that it only applies to those making more than $100,000 annually, the jobs defined in the resolution are done so rather loosely, and the experts quoted in the Detroit News at least think that it will end up affecting most workers making less than $30,000 a year too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 21, 2004 7:02:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 21, 2004 8:59:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 21, 2004 9:21:53 GMT -5
Rocky, in all fairness, the overtime laws previously were defined very losely. So in that respect, there's not much change. And DED, there are salaried employees who are elgible for overtime too. The issue of overtime is one that has needed a lot of work for a long time, but most politicians wouldn't touch it, because no one wants to labeled as "the guy who took my overtime away". Are there going to be people who lose their overtime now who will hurt from it. YEs. But there are also going to be people who weren't gettng it befofre, and deserved it, who will That's the way reform always works -- some undeserving people get screwed, and some deserving people benefit. (and of course, some undeserving people benefit and some deerving people get screwed). As I understand it, the new reforms are based heavier on skill, with the idea being that people with higher skill levels are in a better position to increase their earnings without overtime. Previously, things were too dependent on title, wthout as much consideration on WHAT the job was. As an example, you take a burger flipper, call him a burger flipper and have him face a wall, he gets overtime. But if you turned his position so he was flipping burgers but facing people instead of a wall, you called him a supervisor, and he lost that overtime for doing the same job. I'm not naive enough to believe that some people will hurt by losing overtime that they count on through this reform. But at the same time, I think that making things much more skill based enpowers workers. Hey, it may even take away the power of some of thsoe "evil" top managers to screw the little guy out of their hard earned pay too.  |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 21, 2004 10:08:47 GMT -5
Why in the hell is that mosque still standing? We should be bombing it into a pile of dust, and then bomb the pile of dust once for good measure.
CHENEY: Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area, and we are very much aware of its sensitivity. On the other hand, a lot of people who worship there feel like Moqtada Sadr is the one who has defiled the shrine, if you will, and I would expect folks on the scene there, including U.S. commanders, will work very carefully with the Iraqis so that we minimize the extent to which the U.S. is involved in any operation that might involve the shrine itself.www.hughhewitt.com/pages/archives_index.htmSo there you have it. Apparently our vice president has flipped flopped and now believes we can win the war on terror by being sensitive. Although the idea that bombing the shrine would be a better option is the most abominable statement I've ever heard. Civil war is already on the horizon, it's probably best not to do what we can to bring it closer. All this misdirection talk about 527s just shows how easily some of you will not only drink the Kool-Aid but ask for seconds and thirds. Amazing, and yet, not surprising at all. www.swiftvets.com/(as of 12:45pm the front page image is of "Ken Cordier") 64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:7Mtcv7gCB14J:www.georgewbush.com/Veterans/SteeringCommittee.aspx+Cordier+NAM-POWs.&hl=enThe 527 talk is a red herring. The more people discuss the legal and constitutional properties of the 527, the less people ask questions about whether or not the SBVfT and the Bush campaign are coordinating. This all started when McClellan was asked point blank if the President condemns the SBV ad and he changed the subject to soft money instead of answering yes or no. Where there's smoke... |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 21, 2004 10:55:12 GMT -5
Shin kiddo, the guy who has a Kool-aid drip IV permanently inserted in his arm REALLY sounds like a bit of an ass accusing others of drinking the kool aid.  I did not support McCain-Feingold when it was signed, and I don't like it now. I believe that whoever wants to speak out about an election shoudl be able to do so in whatever means they choose, provide they can fund it themselves. To me, the 527 activity in this campaign is just another example of why turning to the government to fix a problem often times results in the problem growing rather than being fixed. But Shin, I think that you are completely missing theargument if you're claiming it's a red herring or that the connection between the Bush campaign and the swift boat dudes is not being questioned. See, when the issue is the legality of the 527s, the involvement with the Bush campaign (or Kerry campaign when it comes to 87% of the negative 527 ads) is at the very heart of the matter. If there is any coordination, that is EXACTLY what makes it illegal. In other words, discussing the legality does EXACTLY what you say should be done. I agree with you. They should look into whether or not there are any REAL ties (not to be confused with the Kevin Bacon-game like connections that the NY Times came up with) between the Swift Boat dudes and the Bush campaign. But at the very same time that they're investigating those ties, they need to look intoany possible ties between the Kerry campaign and the 87%. I think that Kerry needs to be asked why he's not denouncing the anti-Bush ads in the same way he's calling for Bush to directly denounce the swift boatdude's. I also think that they need to ask why on earth there were so many reps of the MoveOn/ACT groups at the Democratic convention, and attending events with KErry campaign officials. Bottom line ... there is something fishy here, but its fishy on BOTH sides of the aisle. It's the people who are pinting fingers in one direction, while completely denying that the other side even needs to be investigated that have od'd on Kool-Aid. And BTW ... why hasn't kery put as much energy into proving these guys wrong (if they're so unreliable) as he has in squelching their free speech? |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 21, 2004 13:21:44 GMT -5
Chrisfan kiddo, my IV drip is filled with Truth Kool-Aid, unlike yourself. You sound like a bit of an ass when you don't realize the difference I'm sorry but I'm not missing any point. McClellan is asked: does the President condemn these ads? McClellan gives a non-denial denial: *we* don't question Kerry's record on this...but to answer your question, 527s should be looked at. Q Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity. We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not -- and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. I think that this is another example of the problem with the unregulated soft money activity that is going on. The President thought he put an end -- or the President thought he got rid of this kind of unregulated soft money when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. This is classic misdirection politics, Chrisfan. You've bought it wholesale. All McClellan had to say, given that the campaign claims not to doubt Kerry's record, was "the President thinks those ads are unfair and misleading." That's all he had to do. So now while everyone's debating the legality of 527s, Bush need not condemn the group that's looking more and more like is nothing more than a direct extension of his campaign. You're even illustrating it yourself: it's about Bush AND Kerry's campaign involvements. See? Don't look at me, look at him, that sort of thing. If you don't believe me, take a look at what you're willing to say to make things look "fair" while you misdirect the truth: Buuuut... edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/17/war.records.ap/index.htmlOops. The problem is not 527s. The problem isn't even necessarily coordination with campaigns, illegal or not (which is a conversation worth having at some point). The problem is that the SBVfT are *lying* and *smearing*. There's no substance of truth to their allegations and all evidence that anyone can find, from Kerry's military records to the testimony of Kerry's *crew mates* to even their own records contradict their claims. That these people even have a shred of credibility is a travesty. Chrisfan, I know you don't want to hear this, but the burden of proof is on the Swift Boat Vets, not Kerry. If someone makes an outrageous claim that is not supported by the official military records OR by anyone who was an ACTUAL witness, why the hell is it up to Kerry to prove them wrong? They proved themselves wrong just by opening their slimy mouths. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 21, 2004 18:53:49 GMT -5
the simple facts:
john kerry served in vietnam, and served honorably.
george w. bush may or may not have served honorably. maybe we'll find out someday.
the conclusion:
it's disgusting, if not vomitworthy, for the bush camp to question kerry's war record.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Aug 21, 2004 20:00:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Aug 21, 2004 20:38:41 GMT -5
it's disgusting, if not vomitworthy, for the bush camp to question kerry's war record.
You fucking assholes really piss me off. Bush hasn't questioned Kerry's war record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Aug 21, 2004 21:26:23 GMT -5
No, Bush hasn't offically questioned Kerry's war record, but he knows if he doesn't denouce the ads then people who can't be arsed to find out any different(read: most Americans) will believe them. You know it and I know it. Even if he had nothing at all to do with them he knows exactly what he's doing by not denoucing them. Of course he wants to Kerry to join him in rejecting all soft money ads because most of them make him look like an ass...but he doesn't want to denouce this one which is the most damaging and has repeatedly been proven false. Kerry has spoken out against several of the Moveon ads, but Bush can't say anything about this one ad. A particularly hurtful ad. Back in the 2000 election Mccain stated more then anything Bush ever said what hurt him most was Bush standing next to a man who had called him a traiter during one of his speeches. This isn't just some random assholes trying to smear him, this is people who were there...people who should know better.
|
|
