Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
Kirk,
I trust the American people, when given access to all information, to chose correctly.



I absolutely agree with you. They chose Al Gore by 500,000 votes in the last election, and they were right. The whole reason we are going thru hell now is because the guy NOT chosen got in. Its not the American people I have a problem with, it is our unethical politicians who game the system just so they claim power, like Bush did in Florida.

hmm, maybe you dont remember, but in 1992 Clinton didnt win the popular vote either.

moparmike: NRA4LIFE

__________________
1991 300 D 2.5 Turbo, 220k
also in the family:
1981 240 D 185k
1991 350 SD 185k
2006 S 500
2005 SLK 350

This is tiresome.
You keep stating the myth that Gore won the popular vote. I reply showing that it is not known who won because not all the votes were counted, ( absentees).
We are talking past each other. This is no discussion.


My caveat on trusting the American people is that they have access to all the information. Some do; many are too lazy to do so, and merely vote the way they're instructed by someone--whether its Dan, Pete, Rush, the DNC, etc. In any event, we get the governemnt we deserve.

Check your facts. Clinton won the most votes in a three way race. Bush did not.

this was my point I can see that you do your research etc.. but you are getting to the point of not caring which could be very dangerous to this country... and it surely sounds like you're maybe gonna vote for the 3rd guy which at this time in American politics is basically a wasted vote; not that a third candidate isn't better for the job then the two muppets we keep bashing here...

__________________
72 W114/M130

RedMeat cartoon

Wow Kirk if I a dollar for everytime your gang talked about Bush's dental records of drinking and driving I'd be a millionaire, er um well I'd have more millons anyway but you should get my point.

Your charts don't seem to indicate planes smashing into US interests.

Actually, Medmech, you can find Sept 11 on the charts. The drop of the dollar ties right to it, however, I have never really bought the idea that Sept 11 in and of itself has been responsible for recession and major economic calamity. Our reaction to it has done a whole lot more damage. These terror alerts, none of which have turned out to be worth a bootful of cow piss, hurt the economy every time they trot them out, and an adminstration that pushes fear and raises the debt level is also harming us. In addition, as I stated before 911 should have been a wake up call to get off foriegn oil, and we will now pay dearly for not doing so. We now are moving into a point of economic convergence - high debt load where interst is paid to foreign oil potentates, high trade deficit fuled by energy price rises, high government expenditures outside the US, that point to a macroeconomic shift in overall cash outflow from this country to the rest of the world. It is not good, and more of it can be tied to government failure to recognize this gathering storm than to 911.

I really have tried to keep any attacks on Bush's service to strictly a response to this Swift Boat stuff. I have stated numerous times we should just drop it and concentrate on the present. Unfortunately, the present isn't working out for the right. If you look at the futures markets, they ain't betting things are going to get any better.

Even in retaliation on Bush's service record I don't play that card, I walk the walk, one of the things I do like about you is that your fairly consistent but your hatred of Bush seems to cloud that thought at times. I think you'd be a much more credible if you jumped out of that "anybody but Bush" line.

I regards to the rest US/World Economics to much too complex to even attempt to make a case for either side. I could easily provide contradictory data, but it's pointless.

Look what the people on the other side are posting. Hate is simply being met with hate. It is ugly, for sure, but the alternative is to allow what is essentially unprovable slander to stand - it is the core principle of a smear operation at work here, where BS talk and innuendo is passed of as fact, and if no one refutes it, it becomes so.

What bothers me the most about it is that these guys have attracted a lot of funding from somewhere to the point they have been able to mount a national media campaign, and the White House supports it with silence, so I can only conclude that Rove is involved with it, given the big money donors supplying the loot. It is dirty politics, and I have seen the Bushies pull this time after time, lastly with McCain, but they also pulled different versions of this in Texas. This is SOP for these guys, and one of the reasons they need to be pushed off the national stage.

I have reached the "anyone but Bush" point simply because he is such a bad leader, I don't think we could do any worse if we picked Moe and Shemp over George and Dick. They have simply mismanaged the government and the affairs of the American people to the point they need to be fired. And I am no blind partisan - I would be perfectly happy if the Congress stayed Repub, and the bunch investigated the crap out of each other. But this Orwellian operation we have in the White House has to go.

Anybody remember exactly where they spent the Christmas season 30 years ago? I think I was in Mallorca, but I may have been in Rosie Roads. Either way, I did what Uncle said. OTOH, I never made a public claim to be either place in order to make a political point.

So to me, the controversy is a push-pull, net = 0.

Bot

Actually, surveys are showing that the TV ads are causing a negative response in the swing states. Sometimes people who are involved in the inside baseball of politics take too much for granted. In this case, an average person comes away from the ad with an impression the Bush campaign put it out. Somehow the Smear Boat Veterans figured that they could splatter this mud without it getting on Bushie. The end result is someone not that involved with politics comes away with the impression the Bushies are wacking out over 40 year old $hit.

Kerry may have embellished some of his military exploits. WGAS, so did my uncle. "No $hit, there I was, 40 japs and only my messkit........"

But this little snippet from last night's Hardball interview of this O'neill slimeball shows why the whole thing is a loser for the right:


From the August 12 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

Pushed by Matthews, O'Neill admitted that "Kerry, in being shot at, showed courage," but O'Neill emphasized that Kerry only exhibited an "ordinary degree of courage." O'Neill then claimed that, despite his courage, Kerry is "millions of steps behind ... everybody," appearing to include President George W. Bush.

MATTHEWS: [I]f a man shows any courage in the battlefield, he's done more than most people do in this country. He's gone out and fought for his country and risked his life for his country and shot one of the enemy for his country. That puts him a step above most people, doesn't it?

O'NEILL: I think he is millions of steps behind, because he went over ...

MATTHEWS: Behind whom?

O'NEILL: Behind everybody.

MATTHEWS: Behind Bush? President Bush?

O'NEILL: Yes. I'm not going to speak to President Bush.

After listening to all of O'Neill's claims, Matthews concluded the program by stating: "Well, I've already heard enough that he's [Kerry] done more than I ever did for my country and a lot more than anybody else ... and more than the president."

I saw that "interview" yesterday. Ordinarily I really like Matthews, but yesterday he pulled the obnoxious Bill O'Reilly routine. Too bad, because it was an opportunity for Matthews to fully expose O'Neil's views in an honest interview. Instead, Matthews constantly interrupted and even failed to make cogent follow-ups, a rare mistake for Matthews. All in all, it was a waste because all I learned about was Matthews opinion of O'Neill and learned next to nothing about O'Niell's views. F**k O'Niell, I want to know about the assertions in the book. I'm still not gonna waste my time and treasure buying and reading his book. But if the guy is a guest on a show, then we ought to get his views.

In defense of Chris Matthews, usually the guy really has his stuff together and is really hard on everybody whom he forces to commit to a position and then defend it. Too bad.

Bot

I thought Matthews did a pretty good job. If you want to see O'neill make his best case speech, go watch him on Fox. Matthews let him speak at length, and then pushed the guy to the point he started making statements that showed what an extremeist and Kerry hater he is. I know a few Navy guys that would love to discuss with O'niell about whether or not sailors who served in the Gulf of Tonkin were theater vets. The guy stuck his foot in his mouth about ten times. He also gave some lame lying speech on how he is not a Republican - in today's news is the fact the guy contributed $15,000 to Republicans since 2000. Tell me, how does a guy who claims he voted for Gore give $1,000 to the Bush 2000 campaign? Matthews just went after a sewer rat, which is all this guy is.

I didn't hear O'Neill get many complete sentences out before Matthews interrupted him and reinterpreted them with his own spin--typical O'Reilly methodology. Its entertaining but uninformative.

Please don't misunderstand, I still think the exception-taking to Kerry's service is, under the best possible interpretation, irrelevant to his ability to be President. I was just disappointed that Matthews missed a chance to do an objective interview.

An analysis of Kerry's service in the legislative branch, and his interpretation of it, is way more important. I am also looking forward to hearing Kerry define himself as something more than the "Not Bush Candidate"--thus far his most likely avenue to power.

But unless he turns water into wine rather than whine, he ain't gettin' my vote.

B

Oh, sorry. Hey, Muppets! Thats a great idea! Vote Sweedish Chef POTUS-2004!

/Turns down the burners of previous post...

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg