# American Presidential Election



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

In light of the recent hype in the U.S. about our upcoming presidential election in Nov. 2004, I'm opening this topic to discussion of politics and the candidates. This is not only for U.S. citizens, but to everyone on the forum. I'm interested in everyone's opinions. Who do you think should win and why? This will not only affect America, but the world, too.

*George W. Bush/ Dick Cheney*(VP)









or *John Kerry/ John Edwards*(VP)









Personally, I'm for Kerry, but basically only since I hate George!

Who will you vote for?

-Grant with an "R"


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2004)

Same vote.

Voting for Kerry and wildly advocating Kerry not because I like Kerry but because I despise Bush.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Man, the lesser of two evils is all I can say. But I will probably vote for Bush for only one reason. We are in a completely different world since 9/11. The US is forever changed, the world is forever changed.

We've gotta' go global, we can't be insular/isolationist and yet we've got to do something about our out-of-control immigration, etc., and we're sitting on the fence.

I realize the country desperately needs attention internally, but I'm afraid of changing horses (or whatever hoofed creature you'd like to call Bush) in mid-stream. Iraq is still seriously unstable, the Middle East is a mess. I think changing to a man who has no experience (not saying Bush is great, but he is the incumbent and has been in this mess from the get-go) in international relations.

At least Bush has people around him who have working relationships on one level or another with many of the troubled countries in the world. I have a bad feeling that Colin Powell is going to head for the hills though after this mess.

I vote for continuation of leadership... "stability" ... a sense that we are going to barrel ahead. I don't know how Kerry will handle this. To me he's an unknown quantity. At least we know the good, bad and ugly about Bush.

It's a scary situation. But I'm looking at the global picture and international relations.

*Very tough call. No one slap me, but plenty of people thought Reagan was full of shit to call The Soviet Union's bluff, but his persistence dissolved the former Soviet Union.*

Also, forgive, but Michael Moore has a lot of powerful propaganda -- and is a demon in terms of misrepresentation. I suggest reading the actual 9/11 Commission report. The history of Al Quaida. I'm still struggling through the book.

As I always say... things are not as simple as they appear.
I would never want to be the president of the United States.
Never.

Peace,
D :shock: 
Only time will tell.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2004)

Im following the news of the Conventions here in Holland with much interest and much amazement. The amazement especially I have with the way the Republicans demonstrate their campaign. I sat here watching in disbelief when several spoke (Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the democratic guy, who now has switched camps, probably because he had some quarrels with Kerry and get back at him or a personal vendetta to fight).
I dont know, but it all looks so damn hypocritical and the pattriotism is sickening to me, im getting Nazi vibrations.
We in Holland dont have any of that pattriotism, we simply think its foolish.
I cant believe the level of hypocrisy and the Republican americans' blindness.

Polls say that in different European countries (France, Germany, Spain) 80% of people would vote for Kerry. I despise Bush too. I cant see the man, I cant stand the man, most hypocritical president ever, its so obvious he only cares about power and uses everything to get it. Im amazed that the republicans dont look through his politics. A child can see it.

O yes and then the 'who's First wife is more popular'-polls. I heard that Mrs Bush is more popular than Mrs Kerry. Come on, give me a fucking break! 
If I could I would vote for Kerry.

HAD to get this off my chest! Hope I didnt offend any americans here.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2004)

Kerry.

Kerry seems to be much more thoughtful and calm.
Bush behaves like a brain amputated moron, and it seems he always has to get his thoughts from elsewhere but from within himself. That explains why he talks shit all the time.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Wendy,
One thing about the media. It is biased in EVERY country. We've learned that from our OWN media and Al-Jazeera among other things. Reading various papers here in the US will give you a million different views.

What to believe?

Also, I hate the fact we have 4-year terms. I believe in the UK it's 6. This is like having a teaparty in the middle of a .... WAR, LOL. It is all pomp and circumstance, which yes, IS the US.

The reason for all the Patriotism here.... we are a country of immigrants. California for instance has an Hispanic majority, a growing Asian population (Japanese, Chinese, Korean) you name it. The reason for the flag, the patriotism is to remind a DIVERSE community that we are "ONE".

That is our way of "unifying". Having been here my whole life, I don't find it bothersome, but I'm not waving the flag myself.

I hate the race to reelection. And it's happening at a horrible time. It's crap, I agree. We may be changing a number of things in our political system including the tenure of officials. We may change our voting system from electoral college to popular vote.

We acknowledge tremendous flaws in our government, but we aren't alone. The case is the same in ALL countries. And we aren't the worst.

I am terrifed of terrorism. The story of the Chechyn rebels in Russia who have just recently slaughtered 150 women in children -- in that school hostage business.... oh my GOD.

And I have one question... I don't know what we were supposed to do about terrorism. I don't know if we should have invaded Iraq... our country is divided on that. But * not even including the invasion of Afhanistan and Iraq, what should we have done in response to 9/11?*

Also, our connection with the Saudis. We are not alone in that. Every country in the world needs oil, not just the US, but that wasn't the reason for the invasion. The French, the British, many countries, our allies, wanted Hussein OUT. He was the worst of all evils in the Middle East.

We miscalculated the need for extra manpower to police the state after the collapse of his dictatorship.

I'm as confused as anyone else about all of this, my concern is still "hawkish", and I don't know if Kerry will be as powerful as an international liason with other countries. I may be wrong.

Bush doesn't come across well at all. He's a horrible public speaker. He doesn't always follow what his advisors want.

I still worry about Kerry. It's in my gut. That's how I'm voting.

Also, the US is forever changed. We will need to sacrifice a lot of liberties in order to control terrorism here. Osama Bin Laden has indeed declared a Holy War against America. What would make him happy? We should let Saudi Arabia collapse under its welfare state, hand it over to the terrorists, as well as Israel. These two countries are our strongest allies in the Middle East. Again, the lesser of any evil. That's the game of politics, and EVERYONE is in someone's back pocket.

A sorry thing.

Peace,
D :shock:

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oh, forgot about this, but aside from looking at the Al-Jazeera website, our own news (TV/print) I also see "The National" from Canada and we get the BBC on our Public Broadcasting station. It is astounding how slanted each news story is. Completely different views of the same story. And who is right? I don't know.

Also, during the Sydney Olympics I had a Brit visiting me in L.A. He complained bitterly about our "exclusive coverage of Americans and no one else". Well, this year, I watched the Canadian coverage and the US coverage. Canadians cover Canadians, Americans cover Americans... in that sense countries, all countries have patriotism. It is part of our identity, a unifying force. And of course, why wouldn't each country be interested in their own teams? Makes sense to me.

I am NOT saying the US is "better" than ANY other country, though I'd say I'm lucky to not live in some terribly impoverished, war-torn, countries. Europeans and Americans are fortunate I think. Each country/each system has it's good and bad based on YEARS of history and interaction with other countries/peoples.

History will tell how this election pans out. I have no answers and am only voting with my gut. The country here is divided obviously. Very.

Best,
D :shock:


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

Wendy, I definitely agree with you that the US is the most hypocritical nation in the world and we don't care (as a whole.)

Dreamer, I personally feel that Michael Moore is a long list of word I can't list here for many reasons. Not only is he so full of himself that he can't see past his hippy glasses and haircut, but his total bias and completely one-sided "patriotism" has led him to lie about everything in his "documentary" _Fahrenheit 9/11_ to the point of cutting video clips without letting it be known that they were spliced. One example was Charleton Heston's speech about Columbine, spliced with a clip from a year later in an NRA meeting where he said the motto of the club, "From my cold dead fingers." Apparently Moore zoomed in on Heston's face to cover up his shirt from view to not reveal that it was *a different color*.

I didn't actually see this, by the way, I just heard a report about it on the radio.

Here's my opinion on Bush's actions pertaining to 9/11: He was right in going to "war" with the terrorists in Afghanistan. We most certainly needed to pay attention to that part of the world more. But the time he spent there was pushing it. And then to go to Iraq to find "Weapons of mass destruction" and his plot to flaunt the "evil-doers" was just WAY too far. Though the taking down of Saddam was good, practically the only positive in the whole happening.

Now it's time for the Commander-in Chief to turn his attention to more important things, like domestic policy. And keep an eye out for terrorism and threats, not to keep an army, a navy, the marines, billions of dollars and the world's distraction out for them.

This is just part of what I believe, so don't hold me to it. I could argue for hours over it.

In politics, even though it's all opinions, there are rights and wrongs. Even though 100% of the time they're "wrong"s. I also would not want to be president, but at least the person who is *should do SOMETHING right.*

-Grant with an "R" (for Really un-Republican.)


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

I can't comment too much on this, because my knowledge of what these two stand for is hampered by the fact that I cant watch their electioneering for more than five minutes without being shocked to the point of being sick or amused to the point of pant-wetting.

Shocked about just how ridiculously childish the whole thing seems. I'm disillusioned enough by our British political system, but this mickey mouse bullsh1t puts things into perspective. I honestly cannot believe how any intelligent american can take this nonsense seriously, I mean they're arguing about who's tougher than who...it's all soundbites and flag waving. What about policy?

The boundaries between our Labour Party and Fasc....sorry, Conservative Party may have become blurred over the past decade, but at least you know you've got a choice between a moderate left-wing party and a right-wing party. And then there's the lib dems who are like Old Labour socialists...the only party with the guts to admit they'll put up tax to fund our schools and hospitals. But what do you have to choose between there...or at least what differences are being made apparent by their electioneering conferences? Who'd win in a fight? Crikey, next they'll be comparing sizes of their manhoods....I wouldn't be surprised.

Americans....do me a favour. Make a positive choice and spoil your ballot. Your country was founded on good principles by true political idealists...now it's politics serve as nothing but good comedy for supercilious europeans like me.

g


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2004)

Gavin D, where on earth do politics actually make sense?

Be it germany, france, uk, or what there is, including usa.
It's just all a big show for idiots and these idiots are the people that are governed by the morons moderating the show.

I mean voting for one's government is considered a sign of maturity, but where on hell is the maturity regarding politics. I mean it is idiotic to a point where I don't even really care anymore.....it just makes me sick.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Grant, my son! :wink:

I think we really agree. And I agree with everyone here who says politics is a bunch o' bunk. And the thing is I can't really argue as I don't know enough to argue. As I said, from the little knowledge I have, I simply feel we should maintain some continuity in leadership right now. My gut feeling.

Problem is, get ten people in a room and you'll never get them to agree on everything. Get every country in the world interacting and, well it's amazing we're doing as well as we are, and that's pretty frightening, LOL.

I tend to believe that US government, as it was originally conceived, gives power to our leaders to um..... no memory ..... OK, control the finances of the country, control the military, and legislate at the highest levels -- Supreme Court, etc.. Oh and keep the mail going etc. What is it Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

I believe that less government is more, basing this on the horrible failures of communism, dictatorships, etc. We make horrible mistakes everyday, and we are wrapped up in so much red tape it's impossible to see.

And here's the odd thing. In THEORY each form of government, in the IDEAL is peachy, but it never operates as it was initially conceived.

And Gavin? Who said this. I simply can't watch Bush on TV AT ALL. I read what the news says. I can't stand the guy. He makes me feel humiliated for our country. We do look like a bunch of idiots.

I don't think either Kerry or Bush have any negative ulterior motives. Bush is awkward in communicating, and Kerry the same as far as I'm concerned.

We need a domestic overhaul, but right now I believe we need to continue to focus on the Middle East, not break whatever continuity there is.

In Peace.
I don't really argue politics. I like to understand it, but to me, neurology is easier to understand!

L,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2004)

Prediction: Bush will win.

Know why?

I bet they catch Bin Laden shortly before the election.
Coincidence? You decide.

But mark my conspiratorial words, grin

J


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

I, you are kind of right. Politics is all a show now to one degree or another wherever in the world you are. There's too much spin and too much style over substance. But that doesn't mean I dislike or distrust all politicians. After all, we're all politicians in one way or another, because politics permeates almost every aspect of life, we just don't get paid for making our political views known. And I believe that there are many politicians in the house of commons who are still conviction politicians rather than career politicians. David Blunkett, Charles Kennedy, Robin Cook...even Tony Blair. And on the other side....err, this is hard....Anne Widicombe, even though I strongly oppose everything she stands for. And I'm sure there's many on Capitol Hill too. It's just there's too much spin and soundbites and hollow promises made just for the purpose of staying in power. Sometimes these people forget that their purpose is to serve their country first and their party second.

I guess I disagree with Dreamer when she says less government is more. But that's because I don't begrudge the size of our government when I receive my incapacity benefit or when I go to hospital for tests and don't have to worry about picking up the tab. If I didn't have these safety nets that the government supplies then God knows what state I'd be in now.
I know it's the American way that people are supposed to stand on their own two feet and are free from government interference...but in my opinion that can only create freedom for those with the means. For those who are born poor or who suffer some cruel stroke of fate like a nervous breakdown or being laid off (look at all those poor bastards in Ohio who are having to scrounge for food handouts like people in a 3rd world country) then that kind of freedom is not THEIR freedom....it's the rich's freedom from responsibility to the welfare of their fellow countrymen. That kind of freedom is the poor's slavery. Only 'inteference' from the government can be the lifeline for people like them (and like me for that matter). And if the price I pay for it is filling in endless forms to hand to countless overpaid bureaucrats who run these organs of the government, then so be it. I'd rather be driven crazy by them every once in a while than driven hungry and destitute.

g


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

> And I have one question... I don't know what we were supposed to do about terrorism. I don't know if we should have invaded Iraq... our country is divided on that. But not even including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, what should we have done in response to 9/11?


Ah, dreamer, sweetheart.

I can speculate on what should have been done. A massive police action with all the full force and might of American strength and intelligence, in conjunction and cooperation with the full force, strength, and brain-power of the rest of the world (especially our European Allies?all equally vulnerable to this kind of atrocity) all directed at the people who actually _*did *_this horrible crime?*Radical Islamic Fundamentalists *(Bin Ladin and Al Quaida and similar organizations) and the people who *funded them *(Saudis) and *harbored them *(Afghanistan and Talaban)

What we got was an attack on Iraq.

Whatever you say about them, Iraqis, before the war, had not killed any Americans, had never voiced any desire to kill Americans, and Hussain?s government had no sympathy for Islamic fundamentalism.

How many Westerners had their heads chopped off in front of video cameras in Iraq before this war?

Attacking Iraq as a response to 9-11 makes the same sense as attacking Mexico as a response to Pearl Harbor.

The deaths of tens of thousands of people, the stirring up of more radical hatred of the U.S., the mobilizing of the religious fundamentalists (who were always the villain in this, not ever the secular despots like Sadam Hussain), needs a better rationale than ? we had to do _something_.

I would think anyone leaning toward Bush would have to have something that makes sense to them about why this war took place. The Bush team can not be let off the hook with excuses or explanations. If there are no solid reasons for something as serious as an unprovoked war, then the best explanation is that they manipulated the truth to get support for a war that had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked the U.S.

If this explanation is not true, then there must be some other real, intellectually honest reasons. (That Iraq might have developted WMD, and then might have forged an alliqnce with the islamic fundamdntalists, then might have given them these weapons -- is not too strong or convincing) If these reasons aren't there then the Bush team must be taken out of power.

I have more but want to be slow and careful. Trying to persuade people (who are not already radical true-believers )who think they will vote for Bush to not vote for Bush is, to me now, the most important cause so far in my life.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

> But mark my conspiratorial words, grin
> 
> J


J I fear worse. Bush has said that God wanted him to be president, and this could make him extraordinarily reckless -- they are talking now about WMD and Iran; they are warning about more immanent attacks.

peter


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

> Not only is he so full of himself that he can't see past his hippy glasses and haircut, but his total bias and completely one-sided "patriotism" has led him to lie about everything in his "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11 to the point of cutting video clips without letting it be known that they were spliced.


And Grant, Moore is no hippy but a muckraker of working class origins. And Fahrenheit 9/11 was checked for factual error by the best fact-checking team in the world, the staff at the New Yorker. I would think that to discredit the film one would have to pick some specific data and show that it is wrong -- and there are lots and lots of hard claims here to work with. Moore's interperetations, his own theories, can be debated, but these are not presented as fact. Anyway,

peter


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Peter and Grant, et al. 
Per the Michael Moore debate, I have an excellent reference to a site which point by point discusses the manipulations in Moore's "documentary". I consider his work to be strictly propaganda.

If anyone's interested have a look at *Fifty-nine Deceits in Farenheit 911* by David Kopel. He has a 4 page, point by point summary, and a 49 page PDF.

I suggest a far finer documentary, that DOCUMENTS, and doesn't have a personal agenda ... wonderful .... recommended by Janine -- "Capturing The Feinsteins". A dysfunctional family, and the pedophile witch-hunts of the 1980s. Compare the two and you will further understand the heavy left-wing bent of the Hollywood community. Also, many French found the Palm D'Or win embarrassing. (See articles in Le Monde, etc.)

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

I love these discussions, but we need to be talking with each other. So difficult to "have a coversation" on the internet. Ticks me off.

Peace,
D :shock:



dalailama15 said:


> > Not only is he so full of himself that he can't see past his hippy glasses and haircut, but his total bias and completely one-sided "patriotism" has led him to lie about everything in his "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11 to the point of cutting video clips without letting it be known that they were spliced.
> 
> 
> And Grant, Moore is no hippy but a muckraker of working class origins. And Fahrenheit 9/11 was checked for factual error by the best fact-checking team in the world, the staff at the New Yorker. I would think that to discredit the film one would have to pick some specific data and show that it is wrong -- and there are lots and lots of hard claims here to work with. Moore's interperetations, his own theories, can be debated, but these are not presented as fact. Anyway,
> ...


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS, my God, there ARE social programs that I need, and will need in the future. That's the strange thing. I'm not 100% Conservative or 100% Liberal. No one can be. And no party can be everything to all people.

I could use socialized medicine, but I also see how it can be a very poor system. I hear complaints from you Brits and Canooks  Also, our Health Maintenance Organizations, based on the same system, provide the worst healthcare. As the saying goes, "You get what you pay for", and "Nothing is free." We pay income tax, ya'll have ridiculous taxes on commodities, everything, and that value added tax thing in Canada.

I'm mostly conservative, but I am pro-choice, I'm for gay civil unions, I'd like to know if I'll have any social support when I'm older, Rx medication may be unaffordable, etc., etc.

And then I see the world and think, well, that won't matter if we're blown up tomorrow.

Forgive if I come across too "Republican" ... part of it was I was raised in a very conservative community. That stays with you, how you were raised. "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." And I was brought up by the endless rantings of my successful, mother/doctor/shrink -- "Just pull yourself up by the goddamned bootstraps and shut up." Ah, the American Way? Yes, and no. We need a little kindness as children to be strong adults.
Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2004)

I don't get the "god" thing in politics.
The dollar note says "in god we trust" but what has god to do with money?
Bush often stresses religious faith in his speeches and is still confident of the war in iraq.

Bush's hypocritical religious faith is nothing but religious rape and the foreign policy or even the whole government under bush reminds me of europe in the middle ages when church and state weren't separate. Sometimes I think bush and the army is not a bit better than the radical islamis. America's government attacks iraq in the name of a christian god, the other side attacks america in the name of their non- christian god.

The only thing that makes the above equation untrue is the fact that americans don't handle their faith so radically. 
Thank god!

I hope kerry isn't such a moron and gets elected and keeps religion out of governing a country, god damn!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Ooops, as Janine reminded me, I NEVER remember the name of the cool documentary, CRAP!, sorry, it's ...

*"Capturing the Friedmans"* 

Also, religion is always part of culture, in a general sense. Even countries like France which consider themselves "secular" still have members of numerous practicing religions. Their recent bid to rid everyone of their religious trappings in public only infuriated most religious people, but Muslims in particular -- that move was political, and not for the benefit of maintaining a secular "image." Calling a country "secular" is window dressing. The US attempts to separate Church and State, yes, but that is VERY difficult, and is so in other countries which do the same.

*Also, I hate to say this, but Osama Bin Laden declared a Holy War in the name of Allah against all Americans and wants us all dead.* And George Bush, in the history of U.S. Presidents, speaks no more about God than some of our past Presidents. (I'll get references for that.)

Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter come to mind as very religious individuals.

It is so strange to say why do we have "In God We Trust" on our money, or why do we say "One nation, under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. Those things are part of our HISTORY, they weren't invented yesterday.

We're still wasting time debating over such issues. There's a huge debate about taking a cross or something off of the California State flag as it represents part of the critical history of the state by Junipero Serra, who set up missions along the coast.

That is so "Politically Correct". ACH. I'm *not* a religious person, and never once did I think about this. We have enough other problems in the world.

*But why does everyone forget that the Muslim Fundamentalists (this is NOT the belief of the average Muslim at all) have declared a what, fatois, or a jihad, or whatever it's called.... a Holy War in the name of Allah against Americans and their friends? And this "Holy War" was declared back in the 1980s if I'm not mistaken. This is OLD news.*

*Ah, and here's food for thought... should we eliminate the Olympic torch relay and destroy the Olympic flag? Many of the pomp and circumstance of the Olympics was established by Adolf Hitler. I'm not lying, I'll find a reference for that if anyone wants it.*

*Life is not a sound bite. Politics/diplomacy is not simple. NOTHING is simple in this world. I hate Presidential campaigning, etc., but that history is old as the hills as well.*

Not trying to sound cranky or mean. Please don't take it that way, I can't even remember the name of the one good bit of filmmaking I've seen in the last year, LOL. :roll:

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2004)

What I am saying is that I don't like the way religious issues are connected with governmental stuff.
When america fights against another country and not even the reason is clear to the people, god and religion should not be involved in the argumentation. It is all about wordly issues, maybe even economic.

I am not religious either but as far as I know christianity is the religion of peace according to the bible and jesus and I think all the filthy stuff that is done these days only spoils the message of jesus.

When I think of how often money is used to exploit people not to mention to fund wars, I don't see how god fits in.

I know religion is a sensitive issue so I will leave it with that and also I am not a member of any church so I just wanted to add my opinion here.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear I,

I agree, I don't like religious issues mixed in with politics, etc. But this is inevitable.

If we take the abortion rights battle, or the gay civil marriage battle -- those are highly influenced by people with strong religious convictions. In order to legislate these issues, politicians have an impossible task. And if George Bush is a Christian, he's going to have problems, just as any human being with these issues.

How can one legislate morality? This is what I mean by less government intervention. And some would say secularism leads to greater corruption as there is no moral compass. I don't know if that's true or not, but it is something to think about.

Ah, and here's soemthing interesting about creating jobs and sending jobs overseas. We complain about outsourcing jobs to other countries. YET, because Honda and Toyota are far superior to American cars, we have quickly accepted outsourcing -- that is because we want more fair competition w/the Japanese auto market, the Japanese outsource .... in other words *there are Honda and Toyota plants in the U.S. that give U.S. citizens jobs. So if we want to stop that practice, do we bump Honda out of the U.S. to make their cars there? And then we take away jobs from Americans again and face the high cost of importing these cars, tariffs and whatnot -- I don't understand all of that economic stuff.*

*If we don't believe in sending jobs overseas, why should we say it's OK for other countries to send their jobs HERE?*

Anyway, religious issues are very thorny. I agree 100%. But they are part and parcel of human society. It is inevitable that these two things, politics and religion clash. Politicians try to cater to everyone, how can they not?

Again, I don't want the Federal Government legislating morality, telling a gay couple they can't get married. But being gay is a hot button in most if not all societies. Etc., etc.

Things are never simple. Never.

Again in the spirit of healthy debate, which keeps me awake and some neurons firing, LOL.
Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear I,

I agree, I don't like religious issues mixed in with politics, etc. But this is inevitable.

If we take the abortion rights battle, or the gay civil marriage battle -- those are highly influenced by people with strong religious convictions. In order to legislate these issues, politicians have an impossible task. And if George Bush is a Christian, he's going to have problems, just as any human being with these issues.

How can one legislate morality? This is what I mean by less government intervention. And some would say secularism leads to greater corruption as there is no moral compass. I don't know if that's true or not, but it is something to think about.

Ah, and here's soemthing interesting about creating jobs and sending jobs overseas. We complain about outsourcing jobs to other countries. YET, because Honda and Toyota are far superior to American cars, we have quickly accepted outsourcing -- that is because we want more fair competition w/the Japanese auto market, the Japanese outsource .... in other words *there are Honda and Toyota plants in the U.S. that give U.S. citizens jobs. So if we want to stop that practice, do we bump Honda out of the U.S. to make their cars there? And then we take away jobs from Americans again and face the high cost of importing these cars, tariffs and whatnot -- I don't understand all of that economic stuff.*

*If we don't believe in sending jobs overseas, why should we say it's OK for other countries to send their jobs HERE?*

Anyway, religious issues are very thorny. I agree 100%. But they are part and parcel of human society. It is inevitable that these two things, politics and religion clash. Politicians try to cater to everyone, how can they not?

Again, I don't want the Federal Government legislating morality, telling a gay couple they can't get married. But being gay is a hot button in most if not all societies. Etc., etc.

Things are never simple. Never.

Again in the spirit of healthy debate, which keeps me awake and some neurons firing, LOL.
Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2004)

To me, the most disturbing part of the religion rubric is this: we all lie about the topic and we all pretend no one is lying.

The major religions are NOT institutions set up to "live and let live." The concept, in intellectualization only, of "we should all be free to pursue our own faith and not interfere with anyone else's" is just lovely. It is also a lie.

The major religions believe they are Right. They believe THEY ALONE have God's ear and THEY ALONE are doing His desire. If that includes lying to their fellow countrymen, or slaughtering thousands of other people in order to fulfill a holy prophecy, they'll do it and not blink.

The fight over the land of Israel is not about land. It's not about different peoples needing places to live and eat and procreate. It's about who is ENTITLED to it, "it" being "special ground" that MEANS something special according to their respective gods.

The Christians will play along with the Jews as long as need be, but that is not the same as tolerance. The right wing of American religious groups thinks the Jews play an Important Role in the prophecy of the End Times, therefore Israel needs to continue under their rule - at the End of course, Jesus will return and each Jew is toast, but we won't worry about that yet because we need them on that hallowed ground to guarantee His second coming.

NONE of the actions done in the name of religious zealotry are benign or tolerant or based in any way on democractic concepts. It's a bunch of different factions moving around one another like chess pieces under the belief that THEY ALONE have God as their king piece.

None of that can change unless we're willing to open our eyes and call it for what it is. As long as we, Americans, say "they over there in the Middle East hate us because we are free and happy...." the joke goes on.

Peace?
How about Truth,
Janine


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2004)

To me, the most disturbing part of the religion rubric is this: we all lie about the topic and we all pretend no one is lying.

The major religions are NOT institutions set up to "live and let live." The concept, in intellectualization only, of "we should all be free to pursue our own faith and not interfere with anyone else's" is just lovely. It is also a lie.

The major religions believe they are Right. They believe THEY ALONE have God's ear and THEY ALONE are doing His desire. If that includes lying to their fellow countrymen, or slaughtering thousands of other people in order to fulfill a holy prophecy, they'll do it and not blink.

The fight over the land of Israel is not about land. It's not about different peoples needing places to live and eat and procreate. It's about who is ENTITLED to it, "it" being "special ground" that MEANS something special according to their respective gods.

The Christians will play along with the Jews as long as need be, but that is not the same as tolerance. The right wing of American religious groups thinks the Jews play an Important Role in the prophecy of the End Times, therefore Israel needs to continue under their rule - at the End of course, Jesus will return and each Jew is toast, but we won't worry about that yet because we need them on that hallowed ground to guarantee His second coming.

NONE of the actions done in the name of religious zealotry are benign or tolerant or based in any way on democractic concepts. It's a bunch of different factions moving around one another like chess pieces under the belief that THEY ALONE have God as their king piece.

None of that can change unless we're willing to open our eyes and call it for what it is. As long as we, Americans, say "they over there in the Middle East hate us because we are free and happy...." the joke goes on.

Peace?
How about Truth,
Janine


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Janine,
Capturing the FRIEDMANS, LOL...

I have to disagree, eyepoke time, that this is all based in religion. Behind every political move, there is a financial, strategic, and diplomatic investment.

We need Israel as it is a stronghold of democracy in the Middle East. We need Saudi Arabia (a Muslim country) as it provides us with 7%-11% (yes a small amount) of our oil, but the output is the most reliable, keeping prices down here, and that is what Americans want if they have Humvees sp? Tiny Quatar is an ally sp? as it wishes to move from a monarchy to a democracy.

The backgrounds of so many disputes may have religious underpinnings but bottom line they are political. They Chechyn mess in Russia goes back decades again. It appears to be a Muslin Extremest movement, but it has more to do with disenfranchised, unemployed young men. And the history of that goes back for decades. Its microcosm is the horror of the ghetto, gangs, crime, in inner cities.

My belief is that politics is politics, often misunderstood as being cloaked in religion. And certainly this comes from the history of the Crusades, etc. But again, Christianity is not the only religion to wreak havoc in the world.

I've now forgotten what I wanted to say. LOL. But I see the problems we have internationally are politically motivated, having to do with land, resources, territory (in the Middle East, land rich in oil that the Middle Eastern countries use to manipulate other countries -- US and Europe, etc.)

I see this whole mess as having much more to do with political stability than with religion. With a desire (that may never happen?) for the Middle East/Africa/China, etc. to join the "Global Economy." This is what happened to the former Soviet Union -- a country that prohibited freedom of religious expression.

Random thoughts. These things need to be talked out.
It seems it is bad to have power, good to be weak. The US is "bad" because it has tremendous power and influence, other countries are "good" because they don't. And yes power can be evil. And "absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- that is communism, fascism in the form of Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc., etc.

I hope something of this makes sense.
I'm hungry already and it's not time for lunch.  
Love,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Janine,
Capturing the FRIEDMANS, LOL...

I have to disagree, eyepoke time, that this is all based in religion. Behind every political move, there is a financial, strategic, and diplomatic investment.

We need Israel as it is a stronghold of democracy in the Middle East. We need Saudi Arabia (a Muslim country) as it provides us with 7%-11% (yes a small amount) of our oil, but the output is the most reliable, keeping prices down here, and that is what Americans want if they have Humvees sp? Tiny Quatar is an ally sp? as it wishes to move from a monarchy to a democracy.

The backgrounds of so many disputes may have religious underpinnings but bottom line they are political. They Chechyn mess in Russia goes back decades again. It appears to be a Muslin Extremest movement, but it has more to do with disenfranchised, unemployed young men. And the history of that goes back for decades. Its microcosm is the horror of the ghetto, gangs, crime, in inner cities.

My belief is that politics is politics, often misunderstood as being cloaked in religion. And certainly this comes from the history of the Crusades, etc. But again, Christianity is not the only religion to wreak havoc in the world.

I've now forgotten what I wanted to say. LOL. But I see the problems we have internationally are politically motivated, having to do with land, resources, territory (in the Middle East, land rich in oil that the Middle Eastern countries use to manipulate other countries -- US and Europe, etc.)

I see this whole mess as having much more to do with political stability than with religion. With a desire (that may never happen?) for the Middle East/Africa/China, etc. to join the "Global Economy." This is what happened to the former Soviet Union -- a country that prohibited freedom of religious expression.

Random thoughts. These things need to be talked out.
It seems it is bad to have power, good to be weak. The US is "bad" because it has tremendous power and influence, other countries are "good" because they don't. And yes power can be evil. And "absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- that is communism, fascism in the form of Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc., etc.

I hope something of this makes sense.
I'm hungry already and it's not time for lunch.  
Love,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I think I know what I meant to say now.

All of this has more to do with tribalism, territorialism, racism, the need for homogeneity. The US represents diversity and that is threatening for those who wish to remain insular, maintaining their own goverments even if they are destructive and hurt their own people.

I think we are more afraid to admit this baser side of human nature, which again goes back to survival.

African dictators starve and murder those individuals they "don't want". Hussein didn't like the Kurds and gassed them. Hitler didn't like the Jews, and Christians, and mentally ill/retarded persons, gays .... "defective people."

The question is, should the US be the watchdog re: all of this? I don't know, but somehow we do get asked for assistance from many countries, and somehow are placed in a strange position in the world.

I have so many mixed feelings about this. But so many immigrate here, from all over the globe, to escape opression of various kinds, even death.

OK, time for ... time to shut up 
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I think I know what I meant to say now.

All of this has more to do with tribalism, territorialism, racism, the need for homogeneity. The US represents diversity and that is threatening for those who wish to remain insular, maintaining their own goverments even if they are destructive and hurt their own people.

I think we are more afraid to admit this baser side of human nature, which again goes back to survival.

African dictators starve and murder those individuals they "don't want". Hussein didn't like the Kurds and gassed them. Hitler didn't like the Jews, and Christians, and mentally ill/retarded persons, gays .... "defective people."

The question is, should the US be the watchdog re: all of this? I don't know, but somehow we do get asked for assistance from many countries, and somehow are placed in a strange position in the world.

I have so many mixed feelings about this. But so many immigrate here, from all over the globe, to escape opression of various kinds, even death.

OK, time for ... time to shut up 
D


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2004)

I don't think it's an eyepoke, grin..(I so miss your ol' cyclops, lol). I agree that there are all kinds of monetary motives as well as power, control, etc.

My point is that it is through the religious zealotry that Bush has taken such control over this country. I guarantee you, if that radical fundamentalist religious Right was not behind him (for their own, non monetary, but purely delusional religiousity) he wouldn't win. And he knows it.

Peace,
J
GOOD debate!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2004)

I don't think it's an eyepoke, grin..(I so miss your ol' cyclops, lol). I agree that there are all kinds of monetary motives as well as power, control, etc.

My point is that it is through the religious zealotry that Bush has taken such control over this country. I guarantee you, if that radical fundamentalist religious Right was not behind him (for their own, non monetary, but purely delusional religiousity) he wouldn't win. And he knows it.

Peace,
J
GOOD debate!!


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2004)

Voting for BUSH is nuts. If he wins, we will stay in Iraq, more US troops will die & Bush & the republicans will gain more profit. Don't you people understand that BUSH & CHANEY have ties to oil companies in Iraq, they actually have STOCK & Ownership in some. Bush & his associates has also been associated with people from the Bin Laden family. And where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? There is none, it was all a big political/economical stunt that Bush pulled to gain profit form himself & republicans. Not to mention if Bush stays in office, there is a good chance that there will be a draft. Who the fuck wants to go over to the mess & Iraq.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2004)

Voting for BUSH is nuts. If he wins, we will stay in Iraq, more US troops will die & Bush & the republicans will gain more profit. Don't you people understand that BUSH & CHANEY have ties to oil companies in Iraq, they actually have STOCK & Ownership in some. Bush & his associates has also been associated with people from the Bin Laden family. And where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? There is none, it was all a big political/economical stunt that Bush pulled to gain profit form himself & republicans. Not to mention if Bush stays in office, there is a good chance that there will be a draft. Who the fuck wants to go over to the mess & Iraq.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2004)

I agree with soulbro.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2004)

I agree with soulbro.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2004)

a small input from a woman who rarely speaks about politics.

I don't know if American's are more patriotic than other nations.

As we are all aware we just had the olympic games and boy talk about patriotic,we Aussies certainly are a proud country.
I feel deeply patriotic and assume most people do.Personally I see this as a good thing.
It doesn't mean I think young men and women should die in another pointless war.
Then again talk about men and women behaving badly.
I've seen some horrid displays of this by unfortunately mostly U.S.military
people(although I'm certain it's happening with other countries as well)
I thought things were settling in Afghanistan until I recently watched a very disturbing doco.
What a mess!
Terrorists being the low life that they are tend to hide amongst civilians,so the military can't trust anybody,young or old.

We are getting rather extensive coverage of the upcoming U.S. elections.
We are also about to have our own.

I believe the war in Iraq and the support of the Bush administration or lack of by our parties may influence our election outcome.

If I were voting it wouldn't be for Bush for several reasons.
It simply does not seem a good idea to have such a globally disliked person as the head of the most powerful nation on earth.
I know saying America is powerful stirs up certain people.
I wonder,considering the options who they might prefer...........China perhaps :?:


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2004)

a small input from a woman who rarely speaks about politics.

I don't know if American's are more patriotic than other nations.

As we are all aware we just had the olympic games and boy talk about patriotic,we Aussies certainly are a proud country.
I feel deeply patriotic and assume most people do.Personally I see this as a good thing.
It doesn't mean I think young men and women should die in another pointless war.
Then again talk about men and women behaving badly.
I've seen some horrid displays of this by unfortunately mostly U.S.military
people(although I'm certain it's happening with other countries as well)
I thought things were settling in Afghanistan until I recently watched a very disturbing doco.
What a mess!
Terrorists being the low life that they are tend to hide amongst civilians,so the military can't trust anybody,young or old.

We are getting rather extensive coverage of the upcoming U.S. elections.
We are also about to have our own.

I believe the war in Iraq and the support of the Bush administration or lack of by our parties may influence our election outcome.

If I were voting it wouldn't be for Bush for several reasons.
It simply does not seem a good idea to have such a globally disliked person as the head of the most powerful nation on earth.
I know saying America is powerful stirs up certain people.
I wonder,considering the options who they might prefer...........China perhaps :?:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Like your post Shelly.

I want to say more, but I'm posting this article re: the French government's version of "separating Church and State".

Nothing wrong with patriotism, agreed. All countries have it, many are willing to die for it. And you know, as all "empires" of the past centuries, the U.S. will fall, and some other country will take over. And it could be China for all we know!

Ah, and if Kerry is elected, he knows we cannot pull out of Iraq in one fell swoop. He said we will stay there "four more years." ACH, we are in a mess no matter who is President as far as I see it.

*OK, now, what is the reaction to government legislation re: how/when/where one wears a religious garment/a cross/skull cap, etc....?
I think this is a mistake. I wouldn't be pleased, and I'm not of any particular religion?*

----------------------
*Up to 120 Girls Defy French Head Scarf Ban* 
Updated 7:29 AM ET September 8, 2004

PARIS (AP) - "Some 100 to 120 girls have defied a new law banning Islamic head scarves in classrooms and are in talks with school officials trying to convince them to remove the head coverings, Education Minister Francois Fillon said Wednesday.

It was the first complete figure made public since the start of the school year last Thursday.

When classes resumed a week ago, Fillon cited 70 cases of defiance but that did not take into account a batch of students returning to school for the first time on Friday.

"I think we'll end up convincing the quasi-totality of these young girls," Fillon said in an interview on Europe-1 radio.

*The law, which forbids conspicuous religious symbols and apparel in public schools, calls for a period of dialogue for those who fail to comply. If students do not agree to follow the new law during the discussions, which can last several weeks, measures are taken to expel them.

While the law targets Muslim head scarves, it also forbids Jewish skull caps and large Christian crosses in classrooms.*

While France's tiny Sikh community was left out of the debate before the law was passed in March, five Sikh students who wear turbans were forbidden to attend classes when schools opened last week, according to officials in the Sikh and education communities.

The law is meant to bring France's increasingly vocal Muslim population, estimated at 5 million, into line with its cherished principle of secularism.

There are some 5,000-7,000 Sikhs in France."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

------------------
Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Like your post Shelly.

I want to say more, but I'm posting this article re: the French government's version of "separating Church and State".

Nothing wrong with patriotism, agreed. All countries have it, many are willing to die for it. And you know, as all "empires" of the past centuries, the U.S. will fall, and some other country will take over. And it could be China for all we know!

Ah, and if Kerry is elected, he knows we cannot pull out of Iraq in one fell swoop. He said we will stay there "four more years." ACH, we are in a mess no matter who is President as far as I see it.

*OK, now, what is the reaction to government legislation re: how/when/where one wears a religious garment/a cross/skull cap, etc....?
I think this is a mistake. I wouldn't be pleased, and I'm not of any particular religion?*

----------------------
*Up to 120 Girls Defy French Head Scarf Ban* 
Updated 7:29 AM ET September 8, 2004

PARIS (AP) - "Some 100 to 120 girls have defied a new law banning Islamic head scarves in classrooms and are in talks with school officials trying to convince them to remove the head coverings, Education Minister Francois Fillon said Wednesday.

It was the first complete figure made public since the start of the school year last Thursday.

When classes resumed a week ago, Fillon cited 70 cases of defiance but that did not take into account a batch of students returning to school for the first time on Friday.

"I think we'll end up convincing the quasi-totality of these young girls," Fillon said in an interview on Europe-1 radio.

*The law, which forbids conspicuous religious symbols and apparel in public schools, calls for a period of dialogue for those who fail to comply. If students do not agree to follow the new law during the discussions, which can last several weeks, measures are taken to expel them.

While the law targets Muslim head scarves, it also forbids Jewish skull caps and large Christian crosses in classrooms.*

While France's tiny Sikh community was left out of the debate before the law was passed in March, five Sikh students who wear turbans were forbidden to attend classes when schools opened last week, according to officials in the Sikh and education communities.

The law is meant to bring France's increasingly vocal Muslim population, estimated at 5 million, into line with its cherished principle of secularism.

There are some 5,000-7,000 Sikhs in France."

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

------------------
Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2004)

Interesting Dreamer,a bit hard to seperate Church and State when goverments keep talking of old fashioned family values(meaning Christian) and politicians thanking God for everything from their spouse,kids and dog to their success in politics.

I can see both sides of the French arguement.
No doubt civil liberitarians are opposed to the French government's decision.
Then again it doesn't take much to get the "everyones got rights" groups stirred up.

I noticed some Iraqi mulisha are displeased with idea.They feel beheading 
a couple of French citizens will convince the government it's not a wise idea. :shock:

I can see where the French decision might appear to be targeting muslims.I can also see where in a manner they might be attempting to protect muslims.

My feelings are to leave it alone.Live and let live.I don't have problem with veils,turbans,crosses, etc.

Recently I was on a domestic flight.A group of middle eastern men and women boarded the plane.The women were all wearing veils and covered from head to toe.
I must say I felt nervous,all sorts of thoughts were running through my already fertile imagination.
I acknowledge that this was unfair of me.
I strongly suspected the flight crew may have been a little extra attentive.
If the women had of been dressed in a less traditional style,in modern western style garb,I wonder if I'd have felt differently.
Perhaps in jeans and open toed sandals.
I actually think I would.
I realise that the clothing doesn't mean anything as far as my safetly is concerned.Not in Australia anyway.
It is just that right now in this time in history,9/11 and other events are still so fresh in our minds.

Shelly


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2004)

Interesting Dreamer,a bit hard to seperate Church and State when goverments keep talking of old fashioned family values(meaning Christian) and politicians thanking God for everything from their spouse,kids and dog to their success in politics.

I can see both sides of the French arguement.
No doubt civil liberitarians are opposed to the French government's decision.
Then again it doesn't take much to get the "everyones got rights" groups stirred up.

I noticed some Iraqi mulisha are displeased with idea.They feel beheading 
a couple of French citizens will convince the government it's not a wise idea. :shock:

I can see where the French decision might appear to be targeting muslims.I can also see where in a manner they might be attempting to protect muslims.

My feelings are to leave it alone.Live and let live.I don't have problem with veils,turbans,crosses, etc.

Recently I was on a domestic flight.A group of middle eastern men and women boarded the plane.The women were all wearing veils and covered from head to toe.
I must say I felt nervous,all sorts of thoughts were running through my already fertile imagination.
I acknowledge that this was unfair of me.
I strongly suspected the flight crew may have been a little extra attentive.
If the women had of been dressed in a less traditional style,in modern western style garb,I wonder if I'd have felt differently.
Perhaps in jeans and open toed sandals.
I actually think I would.
I realise that the clothing doesn't mean anything as far as my safetly is concerned.Not in Australia anyway.
It is just that right now in this time in history,9/11 and other events are still so fresh in our minds.

Shelly


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

I am just laughing, now. I think DP people must be some of the most intelligent people in the world. Maybe I'm biased....

Anyway, as an American living abroad in the UK, I say right now things must change. Bush should go. Whether we like it or not, the world is on the verge of full-blown world government. It's just a matter of time before the developed countries improve their current global-level organizations.

Whatever happened to the cold war? There is no time like the present for the Russians and Americans to get snuggled in bed...........

The Russians now with their own 9/11, have vowed to take the war on terrorism to any country which might be responsible for the recent senseless murder of school children. Putin sounds like Bush. Watch out!

Was Nostradamus correct?? Will the eagle and bear go chasing the man in the blue turban afterall?? Oh my. Am I DP'd or has the world gone mad??

Okay guys, we (Americans) need a president that can deal with people with more than two words like "Smoke'm out". We need a leader who can negotiate rather than dictate. But yes we need action, and military experience is good too. Even Bush acknowledges that Kerry deserved his military medals. We need Kerry right now, America!! He's Catholic so he could still pray with Tony

God Bless America,

DrP.


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

I am just laughing, now. I think DP people must be some of the most intelligent people in the world. Maybe I'm biased....

Anyway, as an American living abroad in the UK, I say right now things must change. Bush should go. Whether we like it or not, the world is on the verge of full-blown world government. It's just a matter of time before the developed countries improve their current global-level organizations.

Whatever happened to the cold war? There is no time like the present for the Russians and Americans to get snuggled in bed...........

The Russians now with their own 9/11, have vowed to take the war on terrorism to any country which might be responsible for the recent senseless murder of school children. Putin sounds like Bush. Watch out!

Was Nostradamus correct?? Will the eagle and bear go chasing the man in the blue turban afterall?? Oh my. Am I DP'd or has the world gone mad??

Okay guys, we (Americans) need a president that can deal with people with more than two words like "Smoke'm out". We need a leader who can negotiate rather than dictate. But yes we need action, and military experience is good too. Even Bush acknowledges that Kerry deserved his military medals. We need Kerry right now, America!! He's Catholic so he could still pray with Tony

God Bless America,

DrP.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2004)

I would like to add another veiwpoint.
This is my daughter's input after our discussion on the subject.
She is an adult( she has dp).

She thinks the French government is making the correct decision even though it seems radical.

She feels that children,teenagers and young adults form most of their opinions from their peers.
People can isolate themselves and allienate others by wearing a symbol that says "I might be here amongst you but ulitmately my loyalty lies eleswhere because I belong to another group.

Religion is not just like another activity as with sports.
Religion is way of life and influences all aspects of a person's life.
If you're making a strong statement about your beliefs,everyone around you will automatically judge you and lump you into a category.
The religious person will alienate themselves without trying and in some ways it's safety blanket to belong to a group.

If everyone is on an equal footing then there is no means to judge them. In a classroom and social situations people will naturally commincate without pre conceived ideas and actually get to know one another as human beings.
If later they discover the person belongs to a particular religion they may drop their prejudices because they may actually like them as a person first.

If this was done in multi cultural western countries,gradually you would create generations of people who look beyond religion,the individual's religious beliefs will be secondary.
They might find common ground first without the pre conceived ideas getting in the way.
They may like each or not but this would not be based on religion.

Roxy


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2004)

I would like to add another veiwpoint.
This is my daughter's input after our discussion on the subject.
She is an adult( she has dp).

She thinks the French government is making the correct decision even though it seems radical.

She feels that children,teenagers and young adults form most of their opinions from their peers.
People can isolate themselves and allienate others by wearing a symbol that says "I might be here amongst you but ulitmately my loyalty lies eleswhere because I belong to another group.

Religion is not just like another activity as with sports.
Religion is way of life and influences all aspects of a person's life.
If you're making a strong statement about your beliefs,everyone around you will automatically judge you and lump you into a category.
The religious person will alienate themselves without trying and in some ways it's safety blanket to belong to a group.

If everyone is on an equal footing then there is no means to judge them. In a classroom and social situations people will naturally commincate without pre conceived ideas and actually get to know one another as human beings.
If later they discover the person belongs to a particular religion they may drop their prejudices because they may actually like them as a person first.

If this was done in multi cultural western countries,gradually you would create generations of people who look beyond religion,the individual's religious beliefs will be secondary.
They might find common ground first without the pre conceived ideas getting in the way.
They may like each or not but this would not be based on religion.

Roxy


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Roxy? LOL
I have to disagree re: what the French are doing. I've read a number 
of articles and watched a few talking head shows which have discussed 
that the French (especially since 9/11) have never been thrilled with 
their Muslim population (though it's small). They are marginalized. They live in a "ghetto" situation. I saw the housing in one documentary. They are "the untouchables" in that country.

And I know the French are especially homogeneous sp? I got what for, and spit at, for having a Japenese car w/an American license plate, in Quebec which wants to split from Canada proper -- are they still working on that?

It was discussed (and I tend to believe this) that the French thought 
that this would indeed help "incorporate" the Muslims into French 
culture and also "give them a warning to behave themselves in case they're thinking about terrorism", but instead it has caused outrage, and if anything, this outrage and feeling of being an unwanted minority is potential fodder for MORE violence ... possible acts of terrorism in France, etc.

And of course Chirac HAD to incorporate all other religions or it would have been too obvious what he was doing.

And Shelly, agreed re: your comments of seeing Middle Eastern people on a plane ... especially since 9/11. 9/11 changed the world FOR ALL OF 
US.

A woman here in the US flying from Detroit to Los Angeles saw a group 
of 6 young "Middle Eastern" men and nearly had heart failure, caused a 
ruckus, panic ensued, etc. (Not sure if they landed the plane before 
L.A., or were planning to.) She wasn't charged with anything, however 
there was an armed Air-Marshall on the plane who said essentially, "these 
were just like a bunch of goofy college kids messing around." He saw 
no threat at all. And he was correct. He could have taken action 
himself -- HE profiles -- and yet found no reason to be concerned.

What you say, and let me preface this with I don't much care for 
EVERYTHING the A.C.L.U. stands for (I probably agree with them 10% of 
the time), but "making everyone the same" -- yes even in a global 
economy starts sounding rather dicey.

And, I HAVE DONE THE SAME THING MYSELF, LOOKED AT A GROUP OF YOUNG HISPANIC MEN IN L.A. FOR INSTANCE, AND WONDERED IF THEY WERE IN A GANG especially during the L.A. riots, looking at groups of young black men, KOREAN gangs, who were taking advantage of the situation..... ... but what is the difference from making the assumption that a black man, an hispanic man is going to attack someone, or that a group of exclusively Middle Eastern individuals (who could be Egyptian, Jewish ... you don't know) are going to take down a plane?

What is wrong with being UNIQUE, having different cultures that 
interact/exchange ideas/learn from each other? We used to be terrified 
of the Japanese during WWII because they bombed Pearl Harbor. They 
were interned, their homes were destroyed, their property taken away. 
Well, that was then, they are now some of our most exceptional 
students/workers in the U.S. They are a challenge to the US auto industry, but they command great respect.

In school, say through high school to age 18, I'm for uniforms. I went to a private school and they were required -- everyone was "equal". It was a wealthy community, but some of the students came from downtown, not as wealthy. We were easily identified in our uniforms, and not occupied with bling-bling. :shock: 
BUT, if someone were a Jew, or Christian, or name it,they were 
certainly allowed to wear religious symbols.

Indian woman have always been seen in public dressed in cultural garb and that seems to be no problem -- Indira Ghandi for goodness sake. And what of those of African heritage who take pride in wearing the colorful clothing of Africa?

When one is an adult, and learned how to behave civilly, and have 
respect for others, then one can wear what he/she wants within reason. 
And even so, certain employers have strict dress codes -- but that's private enterprise, not the government mandating what one wears in public.

Right now, we are afraid of "Middle Easterners", but ALL of them are 
not bad. No more than, all young black men are gang members, or all 
poor whites are "trailer trash", or all Vietnamese are "gooks", or all 
Jews "*****", see, my mind is going in a bad direction ... 
namecalling/stereotyping that is related to bad events.
And we STILL have problems with the Ku Klux Klan.

And we Americans are also stereotyped, and some of it is true. Some 
American tourists are loud, boorish, arrogant idiots in other 
countries, with no vague attempt to understand the simple courtesies of 
another culture. Don't bother to learn even a few words of the 
language and are indignant that a local doesn't understand them. Other 
Americans are welcome guests the world over.

When I start thinking we should "all be the same", I think of Facism, I 
think of Hitler -- the perfection and unity and homogeneity of the 
Aryan race -- no outsiders, no religion, no gays, no mentally ill, no 
Jews, no Christians, no mentally retarded people.

I'm not saying this is what you're saying ... but it can head in that 
direction. It has before. And history is always doomed to repeat 
itself.

In Peace
And in the Spirit of Healthy Debate.
I REALLY like this thread and wish so much we all could TALK.
And what I love about you folks from Oz, and the U.K. are your 
DIFFERENCES, your unique way of talking, your humor, your lifestyle, 
etc., etc. I have also enjoyed in my travels many different countries 
... the culture.....THE FOOD. Let's not all be the same! We can't be!

We are all unique! Even our individual DP experiences are totally 
unique, though we still can understand each other.

Vive La Difference! (How ironic, en francais!)
L,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Roxy? LOL
I have to disagree re: what the French are doing. I've read a number 
of articles and watched a few talking head shows which have discussed 
that the French (especially since 9/11) have never been thrilled with 
their Muslim population (though it's small). They are marginalized. They live in a "ghetto" situation. I saw the housing in one documentary. They are "the untouchables" in that country.

And I know the French are especially homogeneous sp? I got what for, and spit at, for having a Japenese car w/an American license plate, in Quebec which wants to split from Canada proper -- are they still working on that?

It was discussed (and I tend to believe this) that the French thought 
that this would indeed help "incorporate" the Muslims into French 
culture and also "give them a warning to behave themselves in case they're thinking about terrorism", but instead it has caused outrage, and if anything, this outrage and feeling of being an unwanted minority is potential fodder for MORE violence ... possible acts of terrorism in France, etc.

And of course Chirac HAD to incorporate all other religions or it would have been too obvious what he was doing.

And Shelly, agreed re: your comments of seeing Middle Eastern people on a plane ... especially since 9/11. 9/11 changed the world FOR ALL OF 
US.

A woman here in the US flying from Detroit to Los Angeles saw a group 
of 6 young "Middle Eastern" men and nearly had heart failure, caused a 
ruckus, panic ensued, etc. (Not sure if they landed the plane before 
L.A., or were planning to.) She wasn't charged with anything, however 
there was an armed Air-Marshall on the plane who said essentially, "these 
were just like a bunch of goofy college kids messing around." He saw 
no threat at all. And he was correct. He could have taken action 
himself -- HE profiles -- and yet found no reason to be concerned.

What you say, and let me preface this with I don't much care for 
EVERYTHING the A.C.L.U. stands for (I probably agree with them 10% of 
the time), but "making everyone the same" -- yes even in a global 
economy starts sounding rather dicey.

And, I HAVE DONE THE SAME THING MYSELF, LOOKED AT A GROUP OF YOUNG HISPANIC MEN IN L.A. FOR INSTANCE, AND WONDERED IF THEY WERE IN A GANG especially during the L.A. riots, looking at groups of young black men, KOREAN gangs, who were taking advantage of the situation..... ... but what is the difference from making the assumption that a black man, an hispanic man is going to attack someone, or that a group of exclusively Middle Eastern individuals (who could be Egyptian, Jewish ... you don't know) are going to take down a plane?

What is wrong with being UNIQUE, having different cultures that 
interact/exchange ideas/learn from each other? We used to be terrified 
of the Japanese during WWII because they bombed Pearl Harbor. They 
were interned, their homes were destroyed, their property taken away. 
Well, that was then, they are now some of our most exceptional 
students/workers in the U.S. They are a challenge to the US auto industry, but they command great respect.

In school, say through high school to age 18, I'm for uniforms. I went to a private school and they were required -- everyone was "equal". It was a wealthy community, but some of the students came from downtown, not as wealthy. We were easily identified in our uniforms, and not occupied with bling-bling. :shock: 
BUT, if someone were a Jew, or Christian, or name it,they were 
certainly allowed to wear religious symbols.

Indian woman have always been seen in public dressed in cultural garb and that seems to be no problem -- Indira Ghandi for goodness sake. And what of those of African heritage who take pride in wearing the colorful clothing of Africa?

When one is an adult, and learned how to behave civilly, and have 
respect for others, then one can wear what he/she wants within reason. 
And even so, certain employers have strict dress codes -- but that's private enterprise, not the government mandating what one wears in public.

Right now, we are afraid of "Middle Easterners", but ALL of them are 
not bad. No more than, all young black men are gang members, or all 
poor whites are "trailer trash", or all Vietnamese are "gooks", or all 
Jews "*****", see, my mind is going in a bad direction ... 
namecalling/stereotyping that is related to bad events.
And we STILL have problems with the Ku Klux Klan.

And we Americans are also stereotyped, and some of it is true. Some 
American tourists are loud, boorish, arrogant idiots in other 
countries, with no vague attempt to understand the simple courtesies of 
another culture. Don't bother to learn even a few words of the 
language and are indignant that a local doesn't understand them. Other 
Americans are welcome guests the world over.

When I start thinking we should "all be the same", I think of Facism, I 
think of Hitler -- the perfection and unity and homogeneity of the 
Aryan race -- no outsiders, no religion, no gays, no mentally ill, no 
Jews, no Christians, no mentally retarded people.

I'm not saying this is what you're saying ... but it can head in that 
direction. It has before. And history is always doomed to repeat 
itself.

In Peace
And in the Spirit of Healthy Debate.
I REALLY like this thread and wish so much we all could TALK.
And what I love about you folks from Oz, and the U.K. are your 
DIFFERENCES, your unique way of talking, your humor, your lifestyle, 
etc., etc. I have also enjoyed in my travels many different countries 
... the culture.....THE FOOD. Let's not all be the same! We can't be!

We are all unique! Even our individual DP experiences are totally 
unique, though we still can understand each other.

Vive La Difference! (How ironic, en francais!)
L,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Man has this been on my mind. Thought more about this last night.

Imagine if you (and I'm referring to anyone) were a woman born in a Muslim country where yes, "religious laws", are a part of everyday life. You are proud to be Muslim. You are raised in that religion. As a woman, you are taught, since a child that you must be very modest and cover your head (at minimum), even your face, to avoid shame/retribution, etc.

You emmigrate to another country. You bring yourself, your patriotism for your homeland with you, your religion, your values. You slowly try to integrate into the new society while holding on to your cultural values.

Then the government of the new country you live in tells you, you cannot wear the head covering that you have worn for your entire life. You feel ashamed. You are violating not only religous teaching, but must suddenly throw away centuries of history/ritual, *part of your identity. And you feel shame exposing yourself, or shame that you are disrespecting your God, Allah.*

But, even without your head covering, you are still a Muslim woman. How does removing the garment take away a good part of your identity?

What's difficult about all of this is the darned religion arguement ... where's Martin anyway? miss him ... ironically the bulk of the world is Christian and Muslim (the two largest religions) and these religions are embraced by MANY different races of people.

Religion is an important part of a child's upbringing, and in theory so is tolerance of others.

I agree, there is tremendous hypocrisy in MANY religions, but that has to do with rogue interpretations, off-shoots, dissenting groups, and the religion becomes watered down, tolerance of others lost. *But this is NOT true of the bulk of the everyday person of any religion, who simply wants to get through a normal day, work, take care of his/her children, and enjoy life.*

I want to say, "live and let live". We're judging more than "head scarves", we are looking at skin color, facial features, languages, accents, and making snap judgements, going back to old stereotypes.

I don't know, when I get hooked into something like this, I feel frustrated. Guess I'm just trying to sort it out in my head. But all I can say is, here in Detroit, there are many neighborhoods, ghettos that are clearly dangerous. If I took my car and drove into one of these neighborhoods, as a white woman alone, I would literally be putting myself in danger. I would be afraid that a black man might try to hijack my car, or I could literally be hit by a stray gang bullet.

Yet I also know many black people whom I respect very much, who are intelligent, kind, productive people. And here in America racial profiling continues. If a black businessman is driving a Mercedes he is more likely to get stopped -- "How can a black man afford a Mercedes? He must have stolen it." Black men are disproportionally stopped by police when they have committed no crime.

I honestly don't see the difference. One cannot "stop being who they are" any more than they can change their skin or eye color.

Well, I've gotten carried away with this.

Again, I'm explaining myself into a rather large hole. I've weighed in on this enough!
Forgive,
Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Man has this been on my mind. Thought more about this last night.

Imagine if you (and I'm referring to anyone) were a woman born in a Muslim country where yes, "religious laws", are a part of everyday life. You are proud to be Muslim. You are raised in that religion. As a woman, you are taught, since a child that you must be very modest and cover your head (at minimum), even your face, to avoid shame/retribution, etc.

You emmigrate to another country. You bring yourself, your patriotism for your homeland with you, your religion, your values. You slowly try to integrate into the new society while holding on to your cultural values.

Then the government of the new country you live in tells you, you cannot wear the head covering that you have worn for your entire life. You feel ashamed. You are violating not only religous teaching, but must suddenly throw away centuries of history/ritual, *part of your identity. And you feel shame exposing yourself, or shame that you are disrespecting your God, Allah.*

But, even without your head covering, you are still a Muslim woman. How does removing the garment take away a good part of your identity?

What's difficult about all of this is the darned religion arguement ... where's Martin anyway? miss him ... ironically the bulk of the world is Christian and Muslim (the two largest religions) and these religions are embraced by MANY different races of people.

Religion is an important part of a child's upbringing, and in theory so is tolerance of others.

I agree, there is tremendous hypocrisy in MANY religions, but that has to do with rogue interpretations, off-shoots, dissenting groups, and the religion becomes watered down, tolerance of others lost. *But this is NOT true of the bulk of the everyday person of any religion, who simply wants to get through a normal day, work, take care of his/her children, and enjoy life.*

I want to say, "live and let live". We're judging more than "head scarves", we are looking at skin color, facial features, languages, accents, and making snap judgements, going back to old stereotypes.

I don't know, when I get hooked into something like this, I feel frustrated. Guess I'm just trying to sort it out in my head. But all I can say is, here in Detroit, there are many neighborhoods, ghettos that are clearly dangerous. If I took my car and drove into one of these neighborhoods, as a white woman alone, I would literally be putting myself in danger. I would be afraid that a black man might try to hijack my car, or I could literally be hit by a stray gang bullet.

Yet I also know many black people whom I respect very much, who are intelligent, kind, productive people. And here in America racial profiling continues. If a black businessman is driving a Mercedes he is more likely to get stopped -- "How can a black man afford a Mercedes? He must have stolen it." Black men are disproportionally stopped by police when they have committed no crime.

I honestly don't see the difference. One cannot "stop being who they are" any more than they can change their skin or eye color.

Well, I've gotten carried away with this.

Again, I'm explaining myself into a rather large hole. I've weighed in on this enough!
Forgive,
Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Well I saw Farenheit 9/11 last night, and whilst I was aware that Bush wasn't a very good president, I had no idea how deep the corruption ran. I know it's only a film, but I think it's far safer and more important to remain hyper critical of someone in such power, than to worship them like a god.
Hulk Hogan can get in for all I care, just please not Bush.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Well I saw Farenheit 9/11 last night, and whilst I was aware that Bush wasn't a very good president, I had no idea how deep the corruption ran. I know it's only a film, but I think it's far safer and more important to remain hyper critical of someone in such power, than to worship them like a god.
Hulk Hogan can get in for all I care, just please not Bush.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2004)

yes Dreamer I agree it's complex.

The second generation of these migrants are less likely to want to keep to all of their tradional values instilled into then whilst living in the old country.

Often times there are more than religious reasons for a female muslim wearing a head scarf and covered from top to toe.
Family pressure can be so extreme that these women,particularly young women have no choice.
I'm sick of reading horrid stories about women being beaten,burned and abused when they desire to break away from their families traditions.
This is happening here in Australia with daily atrocities occuring in islamic nations against women.

To me religion should be a personal choice.
Fat chance this is going on worldwide.
Let's turn the tables,how about we(a much younger version lol) attend a uni in say Yemen.Do you think
we could wear low slung jeans and a belly ring?
Why should tolerance be a one way street?
Religion is far too patriocal for my likings.

I don't really care what the French do as long as they keep their nuclear testing out of the pacific.

I'm over religion.
Am I personally accepting of others religious beliefs?not a hope.
Do I think people should be left to practice their religions......YES,YES,YES although in a pefect world I'd have children left out and allowed to make a decision when they are adults............can't see this ever happening though.

I'm pissed off this morning as another terrorist attack took place in Jakarta yesterday.This time they targeted the Australian embassy.
Luckily no Aussies were killed but sadly many Indonesians were.
The idiots are killing their own people!
What's it got to do with religion,everything unfortunately to these insane terrorists(Jemaah Islamah).


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2004)

yes Dreamer I agree it's complex.

The second generation of these migrants are less likely to want to keep to all of their tradional values instilled into then whilst living in the old country.

Often times there are more than religious reasons for a female muslim wearing a head scarf and covered from top to toe.
Family pressure can be so extreme that these women,particularly young women have no choice.
I'm sick of reading horrid stories about women being beaten,burned and abused when they desire to break away from their families traditions.
This is happening here in Australia with daily atrocities occuring in islamic nations against women.

To me religion should be a personal choice.
Fat chance this is going on worldwide.
Let's turn the tables,how about we(a much younger version lol) attend a uni in say Yemen.Do you think
we could wear low slung jeans and a belly ring?
Why should tolerance be a one way street?
Religion is far too patriocal for my likings.

I don't really care what the French do as long as they keep their nuclear testing out of the pacific.

I'm over religion.
Am I personally accepting of others religious beliefs?not a hope.
Do I think people should be left to practice their religions......YES,YES,YES although in a pefect world I'd have children left out and allowed to make a decision when they are adults............can't see this ever happening though.

I'm pissed off this morning as another terrorist attack took place in Jakarta yesterday.This time they targeted the Australian embassy.
Luckily no Aussies were killed but sadly many Indonesians were.
The idiots are killing their own people!
What's it got to do with religion,everything unfortunately to these insane terrorists(Jemaah Islamah).


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Want to respond more, but briefly, Shelly you said:



> Let's turn the tables,how about we attend a uni in say Yemen.Do you think we could wear low slung jeans and a belly ring?


No, as a student in any other country, or a traveller for that matter, I say in general "When in Rome do as the Romans do." I try to dress up if anything, or as appropriately as possible under the circumstances of being a tourist. But I feel that is an unfair example.

Slung jeans and a belly ring is not religious, it is a statement of adolescent rebellion. A Muslim woman's head scarf (and I won't go into whether or not this is fair to women) is an integral part of her identity and religion.

Have so much to say, but too brief.

*And Axel,* I must say again re: Farenheit 911. It is in great part a piece of manipulative propaganda. I mention a link to a very well-researched point by point analysis of the film entitled "Fifty-nine Conceits in Farenheit 9/11". (It's 50 pages long, but fascinating).

Also the Official 9/11 Commission report discusses what went on during and after 9/11, what the President and his staff were thinking, doing. It's a thick book analyzing the WTC disaster, but also the history leading up to it, and why the President made the decisions he did.

There are many things in Moore's film that are literally lies. Other "sound bites" edit out important details,etc.

It takes work to read the details of what happened. Moore is taking advantage of our faith that a documentary is just that, something that documents an event without personal commentary. It isn't, it has an agenda. Look at a real documentary, very moving, called 9/11, shot by two French brothers Jules and Gideon Naudet who happend to catch the first plane hitting the South Tower, purely by accident. THAT is a documentary. Moore's "work" is his own personal opinion.

Have 95 more things to say, but no time to write them out now. And yes, I am furious with all the horror in the world, but this in a sense is nothing new. The world is smaller.

*I read today in the NYTimes online that Muslims are infuriated by those who make them look like barbarians. All Muslims are not terrorists. I'll post the article in a mo.*

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Want to respond more, but briefly, Shelly you said:



> Let's turn the tables,how about we attend a uni in say Yemen.Do you think we could wear low slung jeans and a belly ring?


No, as a student in any other country, or a traveller for that matter, I say in general "When in Rome do as the Romans do." I try to dress up if anything, or as appropriately as possible under the circumstances of being a tourist. But I feel that is an unfair example.

Slung jeans and a belly ring is not religious, it is a statement of adolescent rebellion. A Muslim woman's head scarf (and I won't go into whether or not this is fair to women) is an integral part of her identity and religion.

Have so much to say, but too brief.

*And Axel,* I must say again re: Farenheit 911. It is in great part a piece of manipulative propaganda. I mention a link to a very well-researched point by point analysis of the film entitled "Fifty-nine Conceits in Farenheit 9/11". (It's 50 pages long, but fascinating).

Also the Official 9/11 Commission report discusses what went on during and after 9/11, what the President and his staff were thinking, doing. It's a thick book analyzing the WTC disaster, but also the history leading up to it, and why the President made the decisions he did.

There are many things in Moore's film that are literally lies. Other "sound bites" edit out important details,etc.

It takes work to read the details of what happened. Moore is taking advantage of our faith that a documentary is just that, something that documents an event without personal commentary. It isn't, it has an agenda. Look at a real documentary, very moving, called 9/11, shot by two French brothers Jules and Gideon Naudet who happend to catch the first plane hitting the South Tower, purely by accident. THAT is a documentary. Moore's "work" is his own personal opinion.

Have 95 more things to say, but no time to write them out now. And yes, I am furious with all the horror in the world, but this in a sense is nothing new. The world is smaller.

*I read today in the NYTimes online that Muslims are infuriated by those who make them look like barbarians. All Muslims are not terrorists. I'll post the article in a mo.*

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

From today's New York Times. Muslims infuriated with their fundamentalist/terrorist "brothers" ...

*September 9, 2004
Massacre Draws Self-Criticism in Muslim Press
By JOHN KIFNER*

*BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 8 - The brutal school siege in Russia, with hundreds of children dead and wounded, has touched off an unusual round of self-criticism and introspection in the Muslim and Arab world.

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched satellite television station Al Arabiya said in one of the most striking of these commentaries.*

Writing in the pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat, Mr. Rashed said it was "shameful and degrading" that not only were the Beslan hijackers Muslims, but so were the killers of Nepalese workers in Iraq; the attackers of residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar, Saudi Arabia; the women believed to have blown up two Russian airplanes last week; and Osama bin Laden himself.

"The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim," he wrote. "What a pathetic record. What an abominable 'achievement.' Does this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?"

*Mr. Rashed, like several other commentators, singled out Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a senior Egyptian cleric living in Qatar who broadcasts an influential program on Al Jazeera television and who has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for the killing of American and foreign "occupiers" in Iraq, military and civilian.*

*"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheik allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote. "How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?"

Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their adoption of violence, and the mosque was a haven of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.*

"Then came the neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."

A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheik Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind, that instead of defending true Islam, they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage taking and murder."

In Jordan, a group of Muslim religious figures, meeting with the religious affairs minister, Ahmed Heleil, issued a statement on Wednesday saying the seizing of the school and subsequent massacre "was dedicated to distorting the pure image of Islam.''

"This terrorist act contradicts the principles of our true Muslim religion and its noble values," the statement said.

*Writing in the Jordanian daily Ad Dustour, columnist Bater Wardam noted the propensity in the Arab world to "place responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists and the American intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case.''

"They came from our midst," he wrote of those who had kidnapped and killed civilians in Iraq, blown up commuter trains in Spain, turned airliners into bombs and shot the children in Ossetia.*

"They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils and call for the defense of Islamic causes,'' he said. "Therefore we must all raise our voices, disown them and oppose all these crimes."

*In Beirut, Rami G. Khouri editor of the Daily Star, wrote that while most Arabs "identified strongly and willingly" with armed Palestinian or Lebanese guerrillas fighting Israeli occupation, "all of us today are dehumanized and brutalized by the images of Arabs kidnapping and beheading foreign hostages."*

*Calling for a global strategy to reduce terror, he traced what he called "this ugly trek" in the Arab world to "the home-grown sense of indignity, humiliation, denial and degradation that has increasingly plagued many of our young men and women."*

A Palestinian columnist, Hassan al-Batal, wrote in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al Ayyam that the "day of horror in the school" should be designated an international day for the condemnation of terrorism. "There are no mitigating circumstances for the inhuman horror and the height of barbarism," he said of the school attack.

In Egypt, the semi-official newspaper Al Ahram called the events "an ugly crime against humanity."

In Saudi Arabia, newspapers tightly controlled by the government - which finds itself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists - were even more scathing.

Under the headline "Butchers in the Name of Allah," a columnist in the government daily Okaz, Khaled Hamed al-Suleiman, wrote that "the propagandists of jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam.''

"They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people,'' he said. "They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people."

*"The time has come for Muslims to be the first to come out against those interested in abducting Islam in the same way they abducted innocent children,'' he added. "This is the true jihad these days, and this is our obligation, as believing Muslims, toward our monotheistic religion."*

*Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company*

--------------------------
As they say oddly enough, it isn't the gun that kills someone, it's the person who fires it. It is also not religion that kills people, it is the people who have distorted it for their own means. This occurs in politics as well, again as represented by dictators the world over.

Best,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

From today's New York Times. Muslims infuriated with their fundamentalist/terrorist "brothers" ...

*September 9, 2004
Massacre Draws Self-Criticism in Muslim Press
By JOHN KIFNER*

*BEIRUT, Lebanon, Sept. 8 - The brutal school siege in Russia, with hundreds of children dead and wounded, has touched off an unusual round of self-criticism and introspection in the Muslim and Arab world.

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched satellite television station Al Arabiya said in one of the most striking of these commentaries.*

Writing in the pan-Arab newspaper Al Sharq al Awsat, Mr. Rashed said it was "shameful and degrading" that not only were the Beslan hijackers Muslims, but so were the killers of Nepalese workers in Iraq; the attackers of residential towers in Riyadh and Khobar, Saudi Arabia; the women believed to have blown up two Russian airplanes last week; and Osama bin Laden himself.

"The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim," he wrote. "What a pathetic record. What an abominable 'achievement.' Does this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?"

*Mr. Rashed, like several other commentators, singled out Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a senior Egyptian cleric living in Qatar who broadcasts an influential program on Al Jazeera television and who has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for the killing of American and foreign "occupiers" in Iraq, military and civilian.*

*"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious sheik allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote. "How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?"

Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their adoption of violence, and the mosque was a haven of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.*

"Then came the neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."

A columnist for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Siyassa, Faisal al-Qina'I, also took aim at Sheik Qaradawi. "It is saddening," he wrote, "to read and hear from those who are supposed to be Muslim clerics, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others of his kind, that instead of defending true Islam, they encourage these cruel actions and permit decapitation, hostage taking and murder."

In Jordan, a group of Muslim religious figures, meeting with the religious affairs minister, Ahmed Heleil, issued a statement on Wednesday saying the seizing of the school and subsequent massacre "was dedicated to distorting the pure image of Islam.''

"This terrorist act contradicts the principles of our true Muslim religion and its noble values," the statement said.

*Writing in the Jordanian daily Ad Dustour, columnist Bater Wardam noted the propensity in the Arab world to "place responsibility for the crimes of Arabic and Muslim terrorist organizations on the Mossad, the Zionists and the American intelligence, but we all know that this is not the case.''

"They came from our midst," he wrote of those who had kidnapped and killed civilians in Iraq, blown up commuter trains in Spain, turned airliners into bombs and shot the children in Ossetia.*

"They are Arabs and Muslims who pray, fast, grow beards, demand the wearing of veils and call for the defense of Islamic causes,'' he said. "Therefore we must all raise our voices, disown them and oppose all these crimes."

*In Beirut, Rami G. Khouri editor of the Daily Star, wrote that while most Arabs "identified strongly and willingly" with armed Palestinian or Lebanese guerrillas fighting Israeli occupation, "all of us today are dehumanized and brutalized by the images of Arabs kidnapping and beheading foreign hostages."*

*Calling for a global strategy to reduce terror, he traced what he called "this ugly trek" in the Arab world to "the home-grown sense of indignity, humiliation, denial and degradation that has increasingly plagued many of our young men and women."*

A Palestinian columnist, Hassan al-Batal, wrote in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al Ayyam that the "day of horror in the school" should be designated an international day for the condemnation of terrorism. "There are no mitigating circumstances for the inhuman horror and the height of barbarism," he said of the school attack.

In Egypt, the semi-official newspaper Al Ahram called the events "an ugly crime against humanity."

In Saudi Arabia, newspapers tightly controlled by the government - which finds itself under attack from Islamic fundamentalists - were even more scathing.

Under the headline "Butchers in the Name of Allah," a columnist in the government daily Okaz, Khaled Hamed al-Suleiman, wrote that "the propagandists of jihad succeeded in the span of a few years in distorting the image of Islam.''

"They turned today's Islam into something having to do with decapitations, the slashing of throats, abducting innocent civilians and exploding people,'' he said. "They have fixed the image of Muslims in the eyes of the world as barbarians and savages who are not good for anything except slaughtering people."

*"The time has come for Muslims to be the first to come out against those interested in abducting Islam in the same way they abducted innocent children,'' he added. "This is the true jihad these days, and this is our obligation, as believing Muslims, toward our monotheistic religion."*

*Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company*

--------------------------
As they say oddly enough, it isn't the gun that kills someone, it's the person who fires it. It is also not religion that kills people, it is the people who have distorted it for their own means. This occurs in politics as well, again as represented by dictators the world over.

Best,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Last brief thought.

All of these extreme versions of religions are in a sense essentially cults. One gives up one's possessions, one's family, one's friends, one's life to something so unbelievably radical it frequently ends in disaster. Think Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc., etc.

There are always followers -- lost people, with no sense of worth -- who need to "belong" to something. And they are easy prey for extremists of all kinds.

Even if you think of Hitler ... how did he get an entire nation (certainly not everyone) to tacitly agree to Facism and murder. The Germans had been sorely defeated in WWI. They were at their lowest point, losing their pride, their sense of value. Hitler came along at just the right time to unify a population in despair. Bad combination: a zealot and marginalized hopeless people.

This is happening all over the world.

I hear Cat Steven's song "Peace Train" in the car today, and it made my cry. Cryin' in my car again, LOL.

Peace is a beautiful ideal, but history has yet to acheive it.

It is wonderful that we are all so unique, and it is also very difficult. There are so many of us, and our little world is getting smaller and smaller.

L,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Last brief thought.

All of these extreme versions of religions are in a sense essentially cults. One gives up one's possessions, one's family, one's friends, one's life to something so unbelievably radical it frequently ends in disaster. Think Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc., etc.

There are always followers -- lost people, with no sense of worth -- who need to "belong" to something. And they are easy prey for extremists of all kinds.

Even if you think of Hitler ... how did he get an entire nation (certainly not everyone) to tacitly agree to Facism and murder. The Germans had been sorely defeated in WWI. They were at their lowest point, losing their pride, their sense of value. Hitler came along at just the right time to unify a population in despair. Bad combination: a zealot and marginalized hopeless people.

This is happening all over the world.

I hear Cat Steven's song "Peace Train" in the car today, and it made my cry. Cryin' in my car again, LOL.

Peace is a beautiful ideal, but history has yet to acheive it.

It is wonderful that we are all so unique, and it is also very difficult. There are so many of us, and our little world is getting smaller and smaller.

L,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2004)

Dreamer,I have more to say too LOL but I'm too busy and tired and besides I don't usually believe it or not get involved in religious or political debates,believe it or not LOL

I agree with the when in Rome idea,it makes good sense.
So why is it different when it comes to religion?
The main reason a woman cannot dress in western garb when living in some Islamic nations is due to the strong religious culture.
Why is it ok for a women to wear a scarf in a western country and another women not be permitted to wear a short skirt in some other placer?
Why is a non religious person not shown the same tolerance that a religious person is?
I think the answer lies in hypocrisy.

As I said before personally I don't think the French government is doing the best thing.
On the other hand to a non religious person as myself.
I may choose to show tolerance to a person who follows a certain religion but I don't feel any obligation to accept all aspects of their religion.
In many of these cultures the reason women dress the way they do is because men have ordered it be so.
One reason given is to stop the desire
that a woman might create in a male by showing more flesh....................please.

I find it difficult to accept all aspects of religion,including Christianity due to the over whelming patriarchal nature.

In my opinion Religion creates an "us and them"attitude.

We had a situation here in Oz where Islamic workers in a certain industry were insisting that they be able to stop work at several daily intervals in order to pray.
This is absurd.If you take one group into consideration then everybody else in the workplace would have a right to do their thing.

Love Shelly


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2004)

Dreamer,I have more to say too LOL but I'm too busy and tired and besides I don't usually believe it or not get involved in religious or political debates,believe it or not LOL

I agree with the when in Rome idea,it makes good sense.
So why is it different when it comes to religion?
The main reason a woman cannot dress in western garb when living in some Islamic nations is due to the strong religious culture.
Why is it ok for a women to wear a scarf in a western country and another women not be permitted to wear a short skirt in some other placer?
Why is a non religious person not shown the same tolerance that a religious person is?
I think the answer lies in hypocrisy.

As I said before personally I don't think the French government is doing the best thing.
On the other hand to a non religious person as myself.
I may choose to show tolerance to a person who follows a certain religion but I don't feel any obligation to accept all aspects of their religion.
In many of these cultures the reason women dress the way they do is because men have ordered it be so.
One reason given is to stop the desire
that a woman might create in a male by showing more flesh....................please.

I find it difficult to accept all aspects of religion,including Christianity due to the over whelming patriarchal nature.

In my opinion Religion creates an "us and them"attitude.

We had a situation here in Oz where Islamic workers in a certain industry were insisting that they be able to stop work at several daily intervals in order to pray.
This is absurd.If you take one group into consideration then everybody else in the workplace would have a right to do their thing.

Love Shelly


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Shelly,
I agree, "never talk about religion or politics at the dinner table". I've just gotten fascinated by all of this since 9/11.

Don't feel like a detailed reply myself at the mo' but here's a question.

Christmas. I HATE Christmas. Forgive me people, forgive me.

Now there is a religous event that has become a part of our culture ... Western that is. I was once in Morrocco over Christmas and it was... cool. No Christmas.

I'm NOT anti-Christian or anti any religion, am agnostic as you know, but I find it odd that the most important ritual in Christianity isn't EASTER which is also a horse and pony show with Easter Eggs and Bunnies.

Should we ban Christmas, LOL? It's a tad late. And yes, I can sort of get into the spirit. But I find a true Easter service far more moving, though I don't believe in the Resurrection.

If days are taken off for "the holidays" ... essentially Christian, why shouldn't other religions be given some slack? It's either all or nothing.

And I DON'T claim to have a solution, and I wouldn't ban Christmas, I'm not the Grinch, and sometimes it's very moving, sentimental, warm and fuzzy.

But that came to mind as I continue to ponder all of this.

*Bottom line though. I don't think one can extract religion from society. It is FAR different from other cultural "fads". If you think of it purely in terms of human survival, and biology, which I don't always like to do as it scare the shit out of me ... perhaps we ARE programmed, in our brains, to need some spiritual comfort. And religions have always served to unify groups, which can be very positive in terms of survival regarding common bonds and maintaining morality and civility.

We are all potential barbarians. 

Oh, to have a cups o' tea and a month to discuss this!*

L,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Shelly,
I agree, "never talk about religion or politics at the dinner table". I've just gotten fascinated by all of this since 9/11.

Don't feel like a detailed reply myself at the mo' but here's a question.

Christmas. I HATE Christmas. Forgive me people, forgive me.

Now there is a religous event that has become a part of our culture ... Western that is. I was once in Morrocco over Christmas and it was... cool. No Christmas.

I'm NOT anti-Christian or anti any religion, am agnostic as you know, but I find it odd that the most important ritual in Christianity isn't EASTER which is also a horse and pony show with Easter Eggs and Bunnies.

Should we ban Christmas, LOL? It's a tad late. And yes, I can sort of get into the spirit. But I find a true Easter service far more moving, though I don't believe in the Resurrection.

If days are taken off for "the holidays" ... essentially Christian, why shouldn't other religions be given some slack? It's either all or nothing.

And I DON'T claim to have a solution, and I wouldn't ban Christmas, I'm not the Grinch, and sometimes it's very moving, sentimental, warm and fuzzy.

But that came to mind as I continue to ponder all of this.

*Bottom line though. I don't think one can extract religion from society. It is FAR different from other cultural "fads". If you think of it purely in terms of human survival, and biology, which I don't always like to do as it scare the shit out of me ... perhaps we ARE programmed, in our brains, to need some spiritual comfort. And religions have always served to unify groups, which can be very positive in terms of survival regarding common bonds and maintaining morality and civility.

We are all potential barbarians. 

Oh, to have a cups o' tea and a month to discuss this!*

L,
D :shock:


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

GavinD said:


> I honestly cannot believe how any intelligent american can take this nonsense seriously, I mean they're arguing about who's tougher than who...it's all soundbites and flag waving. What about policy?
> 
> g


INTELLIGENT AMERICAN???

WHAAAAAT?? WHERE??? :shock:

AND JANINE..

OMFG.. i think you really nailed it sister. i put 10 grand on bush declaring that they got osama right before we go to the polls. brilliant observation!

(im not laughing either) :shock:


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

GavinD said:


> I honestly cannot believe how any intelligent american can take this nonsense seriously, I mean they're arguing about who's tougher than who...it's all soundbites and flag waving. What about policy?
> 
> g


INTELLIGENT AMERICAN???

WHAAAAAT?? WHERE??? :shock:

AND JANINE..

OMFG.. i think you really nailed it sister. i put 10 grand on bush declaring that they got osama right before we go to the polls. brilliant observation!

(im not laughing either) :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK Sleeping... and Janine has already heard this too. You've said something great in your post, firstly that

Americans are idiots, yes? then....



> OMFG.. i think you really nailed it sister. i put 10 grand on bush declaring that they got osama right before we go to the polls. brilliant observation!


Well my husband would say, "Well there you have it!" He works for the Federal Government and has said in resopnse to this theory that Bin Laden will appear before the election:

1. Impossible as the government is so incompetent, LOL
2. Impossible as Osama's friends/enemies and other hangers on wouldn't be able to shut up if he were missing, it's not possible.
3. If by some strange coincidence he WERE found in the next two months, wel, we've been lookin' for the dude for years.

American's are stupid, but we'll be able to pull off hiding Osama now, in a spider hole under the White House until about October 30ish? LOL.

Sorry, just Devil's advocate, but I'm not a conspiracy believer.

Janine is REALLY going to stab me in the eye with a machete, LOL.

Forgive.
L,
Peace, sincerely,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK Sleeping... and Janine has already heard this too. You've said something great in your post, firstly that

Americans are idiots, yes? then....



> OMFG.. i think you really nailed it sister. i put 10 grand on bush declaring that they got osama right before we go to the polls. brilliant observation!


Well my husband would say, "Well there you have it!" He works for the Federal Government and has said in resopnse to this theory that Bin Laden will appear before the election:

1. Impossible as the government is so incompetent, LOL
2. Impossible as Osama's friends/enemies and other hangers on wouldn't be able to shut up if he were missing, it's not possible.
3. If by some strange coincidence he WERE found in the next two months, wel, we've been lookin' for the dude for years.

American's are stupid, but we'll be able to pull off hiding Osama now, in a spider hole under the White House until about October 30ish? LOL.

Sorry, just Devil's advocate, but I'm not a conspiracy believer.

Janine is REALLY going to stab me in the eye with a machete, LOL.

Forgive.
L,
Peace, sincerely,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

And just in case ... I am glad I have NOT bet $10,000 however. Dear Lord ANYTHING is possible in the world these days, by the strangest happenstances! :shock:
Who knows?
Bush may not win.
There is a chance that there will be protest votes against both candidates for other partys. This will be an interesting election.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

And just in case ... I am glad I have NOT bet $10,000 however. Dear Lord ANYTHING is possible in the world these days, by the strangest happenstances! :shock:
Who knows?
Bush may not win.
There is a chance that there will be protest votes against both candidates for other partys. This will be an interesting election.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2004)

okay, so now it's clear that Dreamer is in on the plot, too.

grin,
Janine

no machetes, no eye injuries. I love political/government debates.
Sincerely, 
Fox Mulder


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2004)

okay, so now it's clear that Dreamer is in on the plot, too.

grin,
Janine

no machetes, no eye injuries. I love political/government debates.
Sincerely, 
Fox Mulder


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

New Scrutiny Of Bush's Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2004

Bush Guard Duty Scrutinized

"For anybody to try to interpret or presume they know what somebody who is now dead was thinking in any of these memos, I think is very difficult to do."
Dan Bartlett, the president's communication director

Barnes claims he was contacted by the late oilman Sid Adger, a friend to both Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush, to get George W. Bush into the Guard. (Photo: CBS)

A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, John Kerry recently has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester. (Photo: AP)

(CBS/AP) President Bush received preferential treatment in gaining entry to the National Guard during the Vietnam War and did not meet standards during his service period, a CBS News interview and newly released documents suggest.

In an interview broadcast Wednesday, former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes told CBS News Anchor Dan Rather that in 1968, at the request of a Houston businessman friendly with the Bush family, he helped arrange to get George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard.

Having graduated from Yale near the height of the U.S. presence in Vietnam, Mr. Bush could have been drafted. Enlistment in the Guard reduced the chances of being sent overseas.

Barnes, then the 29-year-old speaker of the Texas House, claims he was contacted by the late oilman Sid Adger, a friend to both Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush.

"It's been a long time ago, but he said basically would I help young George Bush get in the Air National Guard," says Barnes, who then contacted his longtime friend Gen. James Rose, the head of Texas' Air National Guard.

"I was a young ambitious politician doing what I thought was acceptable," says Barnes. "It was important to make friends. And I recommended a lot of people for the National Guard during the Vietnam era - as speaker of the house and as lieutenant governor."

"I would describe it as preferential treatment. There were hundreds of names on the list of people wanting to get into the Air National Guard or the Army National Guard," says Barnes.

Mr. Bush has denied he received special treatment.

The White House ascribed Barnes' remarks to political motives. Barnes is an adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry. A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, Kerry recently has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester.

"I chalk it up to the politics they play down in Texas. I've been there. I've seen how it works. But the bottom line is that there's no truth to this," the president's communication director, Dan Bartlett, told Senior White House Correspondent John Roberts.

The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter.

In May 1968, Mr. Bush signed a six-year commitment to fly for the Air Guard. The questions about his service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973, during which Mr. Bush transferred to an Alabama unit because he was working on a campaign there.

Earlier in his military career, Mr. Bush received glowing evaluations from his squadron commander, Col. Jerry Killian. Documents released this week show Mr. Bush with scores of 88 on an airmanship test, 98 on aviation physiology and 100 on navigational abilities.

Killian called Lt. Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "performed in an outstanding manner." That is part of the public record.

But previously unseen documents from Killian's personal file obtained by 60 Minutes include a memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November."

Lt. Bush tells his commander "he is working on a campaign in Alabama?. and may not have time to take his physical." Killian adds that he thinks Lt. Bush has gone over his head, and is "talking to someone upstairs."

One of the Killian memos is an official order to Mr. Bush to report for a physical. The president never carried out the order.

In an Aug. 1, 1972 memo, Killian wrote, "On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered."

The same memo notes that Mr. Bush was trying to transfer to non-flying status out of state and recommends that the Texas unit fill his flying slot "with a more seasoned pilot from the list of qualified Vietnam pilots that have rotated."

And in a memo from Aug. 18, 1973, Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to "sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush.

The memo continues, with Killian saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

The authenticity of at least one of the memos was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos.

"I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said one of the memos, signed by his father, appeared legitimate. But he doubted his father would have written another, unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

CBS stood by its reporting. "As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the 60 Minutes report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts," CBS News said in a statement. "As importantly, 60 Minutes also interviewed close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian. They confirm that the documents reflect his opinions and actions at the time."

The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.

Staudt, a longtime supporter of the Bush family, would not speak to CBS News.

Killian died in 1984. 60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic.

Asked about Killian's statement in a memo about the military's investment in Mr. Bush, Bartlett told CBS News: "For anybody to try to interpret or presume they know what somebody who is now dead was thinking in any of these memos, I think is very difficult to do."

Bartlett also said Mr. Bush's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

In another revelation, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area Guard unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit.

Bartlett claimed in 1999 that Mr. Bush had joined a Boston unit. Bartlett told the Globe this week that he "misspoke."

Facing poll numbers showing that attacks on Kerry's war record have damaged his candidacy, Democrats were quick to seize on the new questions about Mr. Bush's time in uniform.

Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, "George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'"

Meanwhile, a group called Texans for Truth unleashed an ad Wednesday charging President Bush was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard in the summer of 1972.


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

New Scrutiny Of Bush's Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2004

Bush Guard Duty Scrutinized

"For anybody to try to interpret or presume they know what somebody who is now dead was thinking in any of these memos, I think is very difficult to do."
Dan Bartlett, the president's communication director

Barnes claims he was contacted by the late oilman Sid Adger, a friend to both Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush, to get George W. Bush into the Guard. (Photo: CBS)

A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, John Kerry recently has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester. (Photo: AP)

(CBS/AP) President Bush received preferential treatment in gaining entry to the National Guard during the Vietnam War and did not meet standards during his service period, a CBS News interview and newly released documents suggest.

In an interview broadcast Wednesday, former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes told CBS News Anchor Dan Rather that in 1968, at the request of a Houston businessman friendly with the Bush family, he helped arrange to get George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard.

Having graduated from Yale near the height of the U.S. presence in Vietnam, Mr. Bush could have been drafted. Enlistment in the Guard reduced the chances of being sent overseas.

Barnes, then the 29-year-old speaker of the Texas House, claims he was contacted by the late oilman Sid Adger, a friend to both Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush.

"It's been a long time ago, but he said basically would I help young George Bush get in the Air National Guard," says Barnes, who then contacted his longtime friend Gen. James Rose, the head of Texas' Air National Guard.

"I was a young ambitious politician doing what I thought was acceptable," says Barnes. "It was important to make friends. And I recommended a lot of people for the National Guard during the Vietnam era - as speaker of the house and as lieutenant governor."

"I would describe it as preferential treatment. There were hundreds of names on the list of people wanting to get into the Air National Guard or the Army National Guard," says Barnes.

Mr. Bush has denied he received special treatment.

The White House ascribed Barnes' remarks to political motives. Barnes is an adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry. A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, Kerry recently has faced questions over his record as a Navy officer and an anti-war protester.

"I chalk it up to the politics they play down in Texas. I've been there. I've seen how it works. But the bottom line is that there's no truth to this," the president's communication director, Dan Bartlett, told Senior White House Correspondent John Roberts.

The president's service record emerged as an issue during the 2000 race and again this winter.

In May 1968, Mr. Bush signed a six-year commitment to fly for the Air Guard. The questions about his service center on how Mr. Bush got into the Guard and whether he fulfilled his duties during a period from mid-1972 to mid-1973, during which Mr. Bush transferred to an Alabama unit because he was working on a campaign there.

Earlier in his military career, Mr. Bush received glowing evaluations from his squadron commander, Col. Jerry Killian. Documents released this week show Mr. Bush with scores of 88 on an airmanship test, 98 on aviation physiology and 100 on navigational abilities.

Killian called Lt. Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "performed in an outstanding manner." That is part of the public record.

But previously unseen documents from Killian's personal file obtained by 60 Minutes include a memorandum from May 1972, where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about "how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November."

Lt. Bush tells his commander "he is working on a campaign in Alabama?. and may not have time to take his physical." Killian adds that he thinks Lt. Bush has gone over his head, and is "talking to someone upstairs."

One of the Killian memos is an official order to Mr. Bush to report for a physical. The president never carried out the order.

In an Aug. 1, 1972 memo, Killian wrote, "On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered."

The same memo notes that Mr. Bush was trying to transfer to non-flying status out of state and recommends that the Texas unit fill his flying slot "with a more seasoned pilot from the list of qualified Vietnam pilots that have rotated."

And in a memo from Aug. 18, 1973, Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to "sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush.

The memo continues, with Killian saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

The authenticity of at least one of the memos was questioned Thursday by the son of the late officer who reportedly wrote the memos.

"I am upset because I think it is a mixture of truth and fiction here," said Gary Killian, son of Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

Gary Killian, who served in the Guard with his father and retired as a captain in 1991, said one of the memos, signed by his father, appeared legitimate. But he doubted his father would have written another, unsigned memo which said there was pressure to "sugar coat" Bush's performance review.

"It just wouldn't happen," he said. "The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

CBS stood by its reporting. "As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the 60 Minutes report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts," CBS News said in a statement. "As importantly, 60 Minutes also interviewed close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian. They confirm that the documents reflect his opinions and actions at the time."

The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.

Staudt, a longtime supporter of the Bush family, would not speak to CBS News.

Killian died in 1984. 60 Minutes consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic.

Asked about Killian's statement in a memo about the military's investment in Mr. Bush, Bartlett told CBS News: "For anybody to try to interpret or presume they know what somebody who is now dead was thinking in any of these memos, I think is very difficult to do."

Bartlett also said Mr. Bush's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

In another revelation, the Boston Globe this week reported that Mr. Bush promised to sign up with a Boston-area Guard unit when he left his Texas unit in 1973 to attend Harvard Business School. Mr. Bush never signed up with a Boston unit.

Bartlett claimed in 1999 that Mr. Bush had joined a Boston unit. Bartlett told the Globe this week that he "misspoke."

Facing poll numbers showing that attacks on Kerry's war record have damaged his candidacy, Democrats were quick to seize on the new questions about Mr. Bush's time in uniform.

Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, "George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'"

Meanwhile, a group called Texans for Truth unleashed an ad Wednesday charging President Bush was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard in the summer of 1972.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dr.P,
Agreed this troubles me as well. Never said Bush was a Saint. A lot about him I dislike immensely. But right this moment, and this may change on 11/2 at the polls, I fear changing horses midstream. Not only do we lose Bush, we lose some of his GOOD advisors.

What will happen to the existing cabinet. Colin Powell is indeed a voice of reason. Our Secretary of State. Who will Kerry BRING WITH HIM to the Whitehouse? The President is not the only person I'm worried about.

Also, an article from today:

*U.S. Servicemen React to Bush Guard Memos 
Updated 6:46 PM ET September 11, 2004*

By ELLIOTT MINOR

*ALBANY, Ga. (AP) - Some current and retired members of the National Guard and other military services say they aren't bothered by newly revealed memos that indicate President Bush got preferential treatment in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, while others say they are troubling.*

Lt. Col. Jim Driscoll, spokesman for the Georgia Army National Guard, said retired service members may comment on political issues such as the Bush documents, but most current reservists and active-duty service members will hesitate to voice their political opinions.

"It would be inappropriate," he said. "The president is our commander-in-chief and so we have to be very careful from an ethical perspective of how we express our political opinions."

Frank Jones says he's angry about the documents, but he's not surprised by favoritism in the Guard. Jones, a Republican from Troy, N.Y., served in Vietnam in 1970 and 1971 before doing 16 years in the Guard himself. As the presidential election nears, Jones says controversy over both candidates' military records and the mounting death toll in Iraq are important issues.

"I'm really in neither camp at this point," he said. "However, I do see a direct correlation to Vietnam. The body count is really starting to get to me."

The documents, which became fodder for Democratic critics last week, indicate Bush was suspended from flying with his Texas Air National Guard unit because he missed a medical exam and that he missed six months of training. Questions have been raised about the documents' authenticity.

*Some who served in the National Guard say it is common practice to miss drills _ even up to six months _ because of job conflicts, family problems or illness.*

Ralph Bradley, 56, a Republican from Albany who served three years in Vietnam in the Air Force and 17 years in the Georgia Army National Guard, said members are encouraged to make up drills so they don't lose pay or retirement benefits.

"There's all kinds of situations ... that cause a person to go out of state for a period of time," he said.

Army Reserve Sgt. Tim Wilding, 37, of Jefferson City, Mo., agreed.

Back home for two weeks of leave from Iraq, Wilding said he remains a staunch Bush supporter despite allegations Bush may have tried to get out of Guard drills for several months in 1972.

"A lot of guys don't serve for four or five months at a time," he said. "They've got other stuff going on. They'll make it up later on, or they just won't get paid. That's really no big deal to a lot of National Guard soldiers."

*Allegations of suspect conduct during the Vietnam war also have been leveled at John Kerry, who won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in Vietnam.

A group sponsoring television ads challenging his wartime record contends Kerry's own gunfire caused the wound that brought his first Purple Heart. Navy records and other veterans do not support the charge.*

Ahmad Majied of Albany says the latest allegations about Bush's military record are more troubling to him than allegations about service honors leveled at Democratic challenger Kerry.

Majied, a Democrat from Albany who served 30 years in the Navy, including five years as a SEAL in Vietnam, said the memos support his belief that Bush was a "playboy" during his service years.

"He had enough money to get what he wanted," Majied said. "I think his main concern was not to go to Southeast Asia. I bet he never dreamed it would come back to haunt him."

*Neal Eubanks of Leesburg, who served 39 years in the military _ 23 in the Air Force and 16 in the Georgia Army National Guard _ said the presidential candidates should move beyond their military records and focus on the issues, such as the economy and unemployment.

"You don't see Korean veterans or World War II veterans or Grenada veterans always talking about 'I served here and I served there,'" said Eubanks, 67, a Bush supporter.*

___

*Associated Press writers Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga., David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and Michael Gormley in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.*

Sorry ^ 

------------------------------------
*I agree, this is an incredibly difficult decision to make.
Nothing is simple.
Nothing is certain.
Peace,
D* :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dr.P,
Agreed this troubles me as well. Never said Bush was a Saint. A lot about him I dislike immensely. But right this moment, and this may change on 11/2 at the polls, I fear changing horses midstream. Not only do we lose Bush, we lose some of his GOOD advisors.

What will happen to the existing cabinet. Colin Powell is indeed a voice of reason. Our Secretary of State. Who will Kerry BRING WITH HIM to the Whitehouse? The President is not the only person I'm worried about.

Also, an article from today:

*U.S. Servicemen React to Bush Guard Memos 
Updated 6:46 PM ET September 11, 2004*

By ELLIOTT MINOR

*ALBANY, Ga. (AP) - Some current and retired members of the National Guard and other military services say they aren't bothered by newly revealed memos that indicate President Bush got preferential treatment in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, while others say they are troubling.*

Lt. Col. Jim Driscoll, spokesman for the Georgia Army National Guard, said retired service members may comment on political issues such as the Bush documents, but most current reservists and active-duty service members will hesitate to voice their political opinions.

"It would be inappropriate," he said. "The president is our commander-in-chief and so we have to be very careful from an ethical perspective of how we express our political opinions."

Frank Jones says he's angry about the documents, but he's not surprised by favoritism in the Guard. Jones, a Republican from Troy, N.Y., served in Vietnam in 1970 and 1971 before doing 16 years in the Guard himself. As the presidential election nears, Jones says controversy over both candidates' military records and the mounting death toll in Iraq are important issues.

"I'm really in neither camp at this point," he said. "However, I do see a direct correlation to Vietnam. The body count is really starting to get to me."

The documents, which became fodder for Democratic critics last week, indicate Bush was suspended from flying with his Texas Air National Guard unit because he missed a medical exam and that he missed six months of training. Questions have been raised about the documents' authenticity.

*Some who served in the National Guard say it is common practice to miss drills _ even up to six months _ because of job conflicts, family problems or illness.*

Ralph Bradley, 56, a Republican from Albany who served three years in Vietnam in the Air Force and 17 years in the Georgia Army National Guard, said members are encouraged to make up drills so they don't lose pay or retirement benefits.

"There's all kinds of situations ... that cause a person to go out of state for a period of time," he said.

Army Reserve Sgt. Tim Wilding, 37, of Jefferson City, Mo., agreed.

Back home for two weeks of leave from Iraq, Wilding said he remains a staunch Bush supporter despite allegations Bush may have tried to get out of Guard drills for several months in 1972.

"A lot of guys don't serve for four or five months at a time," he said. "They've got other stuff going on. They'll make it up later on, or they just won't get paid. That's really no big deal to a lot of National Guard soldiers."

*Allegations of suspect conduct during the Vietnam war also have been leveled at John Kerry, who won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star in Vietnam.

A group sponsoring television ads challenging his wartime record contends Kerry's own gunfire caused the wound that brought his first Purple Heart. Navy records and other veterans do not support the charge.*

Ahmad Majied of Albany says the latest allegations about Bush's military record are more troubling to him than allegations about service honors leveled at Democratic challenger Kerry.

Majied, a Democrat from Albany who served 30 years in the Navy, including five years as a SEAL in Vietnam, said the memos support his belief that Bush was a "playboy" during his service years.

"He had enough money to get what he wanted," Majied said. "I think his main concern was not to go to Southeast Asia. I bet he never dreamed it would come back to haunt him."

*Neal Eubanks of Leesburg, who served 39 years in the military _ 23 in the Air Force and 16 in the Georgia Army National Guard _ said the presidential candidates should move beyond their military records and focus on the issues, such as the economy and unemployment.

"You don't see Korean veterans or World War II veterans or Grenada veterans always talking about 'I served here and I served there,'" said Eubanks, 67, a Bush supporter.*

___

*Associated Press writers Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga., David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and Michael Gormley in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.*

Sorry ^ 

------------------------------------
*I agree, this is an incredibly difficult decision to make.
Nothing is simple.
Nothing is certain.
Peace,
D* :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Well, I've made a decision, in great part due to my husband's knowledge of political science. Yes, he's influenced me, as well as some spirited debates here 

I'm voting for neither Kerry nor Bush. I'd say both are slimey.

They will both spend money we don't have on programs that are destined to fail.

I'm hoping that Congress will get its act together and find the presense of mind to represent us. I think whoever is President at this point is moot.

We do need to protect the country against terrorism, we need to reform our health care, social security and educational systems. Now how in the world do we do that?

No one person can do such a thing.

This debate has been very helpful to me. I'm focusing on other issues on the ballot.

I hate politics. I prefer music, flim, theatre, psychology, neurology, anything but politics these days.

Frustrated Dreamer
:shock: 
Lord Have Mercy!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Well, I've made a decision, in great part due to my husband's knowledge of political science. Yes, he's influenced me, as well as some spirited debates here 

I'm voting for neither Kerry nor Bush. I'd say both are slimey.

They will both spend money we don't have on programs that are destined to fail.

I'm hoping that Congress will get its act together and find the presense of mind to represent us. I think whoever is President at this point is moot.

We do need to protect the country against terrorism, we need to reform our health care, social security and educational systems. Now how in the world do we do that?

No one person can do such a thing.

This debate has been very helpful to me. I'm focusing on other issues on the ballot.

I hate politics. I prefer music, flim, theatre, psychology, neurology, anything but politics these days.

Frustrated Dreamer
:shock: 
Lord Have Mercy!


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2004)

I kind of agree...I think I'll vote Libertarian.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2004)

I kind of agree...I think I'll vote Libertarian.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Libertarian isn't a bad idea. And I also remembered the old saying...

Q. What is the opposite of *pro*gress?
A. *Con*gress

Ooooo I'm :evil: these days.
Everyone is playing evil. I have a firm belief that regardless of Bush's dicey ANG career, the miraculously found missing documents from his ANG file were forged. Pretty much a consensus. No one is playing by the rules.

Excuse me but all of this is a bunch of CRAP.

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Libertarian isn't a bad idea. And I also remembered the old saying...

Q. What is the opposite of *pro*gress?
A. *Con*gress

Ooooo I'm :evil: these days.
Everyone is playing evil. I have a firm belief that regardless of Bush's dicey ANG career, the miraculously found missing documents from his ANG file were forged. Pretty much a consensus. No one is playing by the rules.

Excuse me but all of this is a bunch of CRAP.

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2004)

Personally, I don't care anymore about Bush's military record than I cared about Clinton's cigar. I liked Clinton's work in the White House and I hate Bush's work in the White House. I actually think it's insulting to most adults in this country that we WOULD care about aspects of our politicians that do not directly affect the way they're governing our interests.

Peace,
Janine

I'm not going to vote because I don't want to get called for jury duty.
Patriot to the core,
grin


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2004)

Personally, I don't care anymore about Bush's military record than I cared about Clinton's cigar. I liked Clinton's work in the White House and I hate Bush's work in the White House. I actually think it's insulting to most adults in this country that we WOULD care about aspects of our politicians that do not directly affect the way they're governing our interests.

Peace,
Janine

I'm not going to vote because I don't want to get called for jury duty.
Patriot to the core,
grin


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

I don't know where Clinton put that cigar, but I certainly know where I'd like Bush to stick his military record.

oops. sorry


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

I don't know where Clinton put that cigar, but I certainly know where I'd like Bush to stick his military record.

oops. sorry


----------



## Blake (Aug 10, 2004)

Its John Kerry vs. Karl Rove.... not W

Rove is the puppet-master...


----------



## Blake (Aug 10, 2004)

Its John Kerry vs. Karl Rove.... not W

Rove is the puppet-master...


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

Blake said:


> Its John Kerry vs. Karl Rove.... not W
> 
> Rove is the puppet-master...


Actually, Blake, George H. W. Bush (Bush Sr.) is the puppet master.

-Grant


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

Blake said:


> Its John Kerry vs. Karl Rove.... not W
> 
> Rove is the puppet-master...


Actually, Blake, George H. W. Bush (Bush Sr.) is the puppet master.

-Grant


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

This Seymour Hirsh piece, from May of 03 New Yorker, explains the obvious intelligence manipulation in working up a case for this war, but the most interesting part is the the idiology of these guys--Perle, Wolfowitz. Rummy et. al. and where this ideology comes from. This is really good stuff from my hero, Hirsh.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

Also, listen to Hirsh's recent interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air regarding Abu Ghraib. His description, toward the end, of these guys, and the Rep. confention as "hallucinatory" is good.

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?di ... 09/14/2004


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

This Seymour Hirsh piece, from May of 03 New Yorker, explains the obvious intelligence manipulation in working up a case for this war, but the most interesting part is the the idiology of these guys--Perle, Wolfowitz. Rummy et. al. and where this ideology comes from. This is really good stuff from my hero, Hirsh.

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

Also, listen to Hirsh's recent interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air regarding Abu Ghraib. His description, toward the end, of these guys, and the Rep. confention as "hallucinatory" is good.

http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?di ... 09/14/2004


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Hello Dali! 

Yes, this is the mess we're in. Great article. Essentially the right hand doesn't know what the left FOOT is doing.

Also, NPR is a rather sane way of getting the news. I'm so frustrated these days re: where to turn. Great stuff.

Also wanted to say I love your Avatar, and also WasDrPepper's new one.

Here's another reason I hate George Bush. This is domestic policy, again, enough to make me want to throw in the towel ... by the way LONG pitched. I will make a protest Libertarian vote.

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

*September 25, 2004
U.S. Health Plans Include One With Catholic Tenets
By MILT FREUDENHEIM*

The Bush administration has broken new ground in its "faith-based" initiative, this time by offering federal employees a Catholic health plan that specifically excludes payment for contraceptives, abortion, sterilization and artificial insemination.

The new plan, announced last week, combines two White House priorities. It is part of a $1 billion project seeking to involve religious organizations in all types of federal social programs. At the same time, the plan is a new form of coverage - a health savings account combined with high-deductible coverage - that is being promoted as a centerpiece of President Bush's health care policy.

The plan, which will begin enrolling federal workers in 31 Illinois counties in November, is sponsored by OSF Health, a unit of the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, which runs the St. Francis Medical Center in Peoria and five Roman Catholic hospitals in Illinois and Michigan.

This is the first plan for federal workers "that has tailored its benefits in line with a set of tenets that are supported by the Catholic church," said Abby Block, a senior official in the Office of Personnel Management, which manages the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, the nation's largest purchaser of health insurance. It is also the first to be to marketed as "faith-based.''

Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said the Office of Personnel Management was one of a number of federal agencies, including the Housing and Urban Development, Justice and Agriculture Departments, that were directed to seek opportunities for faith-based programs.

"Over $1 billion has been made available to faith-based programs," he said. Faith-based organizations have, for example, been involved in job training and transitional services for former prisoners.

Ms. Block said that until now all federal employee benefit plans offered similar standard options and exclusions. Under a 1984 law, plans in the federal program are prohibited from covering abortions, except in cases involving rape, incest or danger to a woman's life. And while a 1999 law requires the plans to offer contraception coverage, Congress has repeatedly exempted insurance plans affiliated with Catholic organizations from that provision.

None of those restrictions, however, have been promoted as a way to appeal to a specific religious audience.

Kay Coles James, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, said last week that the new additions to federal employees' health benefits would "empower" workers to control their medical spending. Ms. James, a former spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, which advocates anti-abortion policies, added that the program gave federal employees "more opportunities to make choices in the private sector."

But some critics expressed concern that this trend in health care might grow into a wider phenomenon. Is this "explicit denial" the first step in "denying federal employees a normal benefit that has been traditional for 30 years?" asked Philip R. Lee, a professor of social medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and a former assistant secretary for health in the Clinton administration. "Is this simply the opening wedge?"

Four million federal workers across the country will have 249 choices of health plans for 2005. Those plans are sponsored by dozens of insurers, including Catholic health systems in Missouri, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin, as well as Illinois. Federal workers in Illinois can, of course, still select a health plan that does not have religious-based restrictions. But the OSF plan will be the only health savings account plan available to them.

The Bush administration has promoted health savings account plans as a way to hold down costs, give consumers greater control of health spending and increase personal savings.

The OSF plan has two parts. It couples a tax-free savings account for enrollees to use to pay for routine care with a high-deductible health plan that offers coverage only after the annual deductible has been reached - $1,050 for individual or $2,100 for family coverage. As part of the benefit, a portion of the premium that the government will pay to OSF will be deposited into each enrollee's savings account.

The government's total contribution to the new OSF plan will be $240.89 a month for individuals and $599 a month for families. The employees' monthly premium contribution will be $80.30 for individuals and $199.66 for families. By comparison, federal workers enrolling in a more traditional preferred provider plan in Illinois will pay $89.09 for individuals and $299.96 for families.

The federal program will announce the amount of the health savings account allotments late next month. Employees will be allowed to make pretax contributions of their own into their accounts, but the total in each account each year may not exceed the deductibles.

Ms. Block said that the reproductive- care exclusions in the OSF plan would be explained in brochures distributed to federal workers in Illinois when they choose their coverage for 2005 in November.

The vast majority of health plans sponsored by private employers now pay for various types of contraceptives prescribed by a doctor, according to surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that studies reproductive rights and care.

Currently, 23 states require contraceptive coverage, although 14 states provide for an exemption for employers or insurers that object on religious grounds.

A number of Catholic health plans have covered reproductive services including contraception; vasectomies; tubal ligation, which prevents pregnancy; and sometimes abortion, often under Medicaid laws and typically through a non-Catholic partner like a Blue Cross plan.

Indeed, members of other OSF Health plans in Peoria, including one with 4,067 federal employees, have access to contraceptive coverage, although not abortion coverage, through a separate third-party payer.

*In line with the administration's policy of encouraging faith-based organizations, however, the new OSF health savings account plan will not cover contraceptives. But because the money in the savings account itself is controlled by the enrolled member, the member could use the account to pay for an abortion or for contraceptives, according to federal officials.*

An abortion costs about $375 in Peoria, Ill.; the morning-after contraceptive pill, including the visit to a clinic, costs about $70 at the local Planned Parenthood office, said Joyce Harant, the organization's regional president.

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, an independent organization of Catholics who support reproductive choices, criticized the inclusion of a plan with such restrictions in the federal program.

*"I don't think substandard medical care should be offered through the federal government," she said.

Although many health plans do not cover abortion, Ms. Kissling said, "when it comes to contraceptives, assisted reproduction and voluntary sterilization, these services are generally covered within our society.''

"These are services that federal employees need," she added.

The level of disclosure of the restrictions also remains a concern for critics. "A lot of these religious restrictions do reduce access to health care, and people don't even know about it," said Elena Cohen, a senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center in Washington.*

Representative Pete Stark of California, the senior Democrat on the health subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a telephone interview: "Medical care is a science. Getting medical care and religion mixed together is just as bad as getting church and state mixed together."

But Jeff Koch, a spokesman for OSF Health, said that it was "a good thing for federal employees to have the option" of a plan that would adhere to Catholic Church policy.

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

I want to go move to the middle of nowhere and live on a farm. My GOD if that were possible.
I've never been so miserable about politics in my life. I never used to really CARE. Now it's too scary to look at.

Best,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Hello Dali! 

Yes, this is the mess we're in. Great article. Essentially the right hand doesn't know what the left FOOT is doing.

Also, NPR is a rather sane way of getting the news. I'm so frustrated these days re: where to turn. Great stuff.

Also wanted to say I love your Avatar, and also WasDrPepper's new one.

Here's another reason I hate George Bush. This is domestic policy, again, enough to make me want to throw in the towel ... by the way LONG pitched. I will make a protest Libertarian vote.

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

*September 25, 2004
U.S. Health Plans Include One With Catholic Tenets
By MILT FREUDENHEIM*

The Bush administration has broken new ground in its "faith-based" initiative, this time by offering federal employees a Catholic health plan that specifically excludes payment for contraceptives, abortion, sterilization and artificial insemination.

The new plan, announced last week, combines two White House priorities. It is part of a $1 billion project seeking to involve religious organizations in all types of federal social programs. At the same time, the plan is a new form of coverage - a health savings account combined with high-deductible coverage - that is being promoted as a centerpiece of President Bush's health care policy.

The plan, which will begin enrolling federal workers in 31 Illinois counties in November, is sponsored by OSF Health, a unit of the Sisters of the Third Order of St. Francis, which runs the St. Francis Medical Center in Peoria and five Roman Catholic hospitals in Illinois and Michigan.

This is the first plan for federal workers "that has tailored its benefits in line with a set of tenets that are supported by the Catholic church," said Abby Block, a senior official in the Office of Personnel Management, which manages the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, the nation's largest purchaser of health insurance. It is also the first to be to marketed as "faith-based.''

Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said the Office of Personnel Management was one of a number of federal agencies, including the Housing and Urban Development, Justice and Agriculture Departments, that were directed to seek opportunities for faith-based programs.

"Over $1 billion has been made available to faith-based programs," he said. Faith-based organizations have, for example, been involved in job training and transitional services for former prisoners.

Ms. Block said that until now all federal employee benefit plans offered similar standard options and exclusions. Under a 1984 law, plans in the federal program are prohibited from covering abortions, except in cases involving rape, incest or danger to a woman's life. And while a 1999 law requires the plans to offer contraception coverage, Congress has repeatedly exempted insurance plans affiliated with Catholic organizations from that provision.

None of those restrictions, however, have been promoted as a way to appeal to a specific religious audience.

Kay Coles James, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, said last week that the new additions to federal employees' health benefits would "empower" workers to control their medical spending. Ms. James, a former spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, which advocates anti-abortion policies, added that the program gave federal employees "more opportunities to make choices in the private sector."

But some critics expressed concern that this trend in health care might grow into a wider phenomenon. Is this "explicit denial" the first step in "denying federal employees a normal benefit that has been traditional for 30 years?" asked Philip R. Lee, a professor of social medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and a former assistant secretary for health in the Clinton administration. "Is this simply the opening wedge?"

Four million federal workers across the country will have 249 choices of health plans for 2005. Those plans are sponsored by dozens of insurers, including Catholic health systems in Missouri, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin, as well as Illinois. Federal workers in Illinois can, of course, still select a health plan that does not have religious-based restrictions. But the OSF plan will be the only health savings account plan available to them.

The Bush administration has promoted health savings account plans as a way to hold down costs, give consumers greater control of health spending and increase personal savings.

The OSF plan has two parts. It couples a tax-free savings account for enrollees to use to pay for routine care with a high-deductible health plan that offers coverage only after the annual deductible has been reached - $1,050 for individual or $2,100 for family coverage. As part of the benefit, a portion of the premium that the government will pay to OSF will be deposited into each enrollee's savings account.

The government's total contribution to the new OSF plan will be $240.89 a month for individuals and $599 a month for families. The employees' monthly premium contribution will be $80.30 for individuals and $199.66 for families. By comparison, federal workers enrolling in a more traditional preferred provider plan in Illinois will pay $89.09 for individuals and $299.96 for families.

The federal program will announce the amount of the health savings account allotments late next month. Employees will be allowed to make pretax contributions of their own into their accounts, but the total in each account each year may not exceed the deductibles.

Ms. Block said that the reproductive- care exclusions in the OSF plan would be explained in brochures distributed to federal workers in Illinois when they choose their coverage for 2005 in November.

The vast majority of health plans sponsored by private employers now pay for various types of contraceptives prescribed by a doctor, according to surveys by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that studies reproductive rights and care.

Currently, 23 states require contraceptive coverage, although 14 states provide for an exemption for employers or insurers that object on religious grounds.

A number of Catholic health plans have covered reproductive services including contraception; vasectomies; tubal ligation, which prevents pregnancy; and sometimes abortion, often under Medicaid laws and typically through a non-Catholic partner like a Blue Cross plan.

Indeed, members of other OSF Health plans in Peoria, including one with 4,067 federal employees, have access to contraceptive coverage, although not abortion coverage, through a separate third-party payer.

*In line with the administration's policy of encouraging faith-based organizations, however, the new OSF health savings account plan will not cover contraceptives. But because the money in the savings account itself is controlled by the enrolled member, the member could use the account to pay for an abortion or for contraceptives, according to federal officials.*

An abortion costs about $375 in Peoria, Ill.; the morning-after contraceptive pill, including the visit to a clinic, costs about $70 at the local Planned Parenthood office, said Joyce Harant, the organization's regional president.

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, an independent organization of Catholics who support reproductive choices, criticized the inclusion of a plan with such restrictions in the federal program.

*"I don't think substandard medical care should be offered through the federal government," she said.

Although many health plans do not cover abortion, Ms. Kissling said, "when it comes to contraceptives, assisted reproduction and voluntary sterilization, these services are generally covered within our society.''

"These are services that federal employees need," she added.

The level of disclosure of the restrictions also remains a concern for critics. "A lot of these religious restrictions do reduce access to health care, and people don't even know about it," said Elena Cohen, a senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center in Washington.*

Representative Pete Stark of California, the senior Democrat on the health subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a telephone interview: "Medical care is a science. Getting medical care and religion mixed together is just as bad as getting church and state mixed together."

But Jeff Koch, a spokesman for OSF Health, said that it was "a good thing for federal employees to have the option" of a plan that would adhere to Catholic Church policy.

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

I want to go move to the middle of nowhere and live on a farm. My GOD if that were possible.
I've never been so miserable about politics in my life. I never used to really CARE. Now it's too scary to look at.

Best,
D :shock:


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

Dreamer,

Thank you for liking my Avatar! It's nice to be recognized.


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

Dreamer,

Thank you for liking my Avatar! It's nice to be recognized.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

Me too. . I am glad that you can use something from your machine for the avatar. I got it from this site -- http://www.dharma-haven.org/tibetan/digital-wheels.htm (actually, I should credit them more often. I don't quite buy that spinning a prayer wheel in and of itself does anything, but it is interesting and has massive symbolic content.

And (dear) Dreamer. Reading Kerry's biography, I just don't see anything slimey. We know about his war record, a rich kid like W he _enlisted_, thinking he had to give something back. I think his veterans against the war stuff is nothing but admirable. He made substantive changes, as a prosecutor, to the horrible way rape victims had been treated in court. I don't have time to continue right now, but, for the right to choose, for environmental issues, for standing up against that proposed defacement of the constitution "defining" marriage, he has been consistane and on the front line throughout his career. As far as I can see, he's a guy with convictions that I agree with and the integrity not to be too political with them.

If some crap, exagerations, and mischaracterizations about some assinine thing called flip flop are the best the republicans can do. . .

flip-flop verses a massive change in american behavior and temperment and in, and I think, ethics that is called the "bush doctrine" (which was never publicly debated, and which the public had no idea about);

verses the detaining of people in cuba for years with no charges being filed, no access, not just to legal representation, but to their own families (call them dangerous terrorists, but with these guys record we can infer that many of which simply arent). This is America?

god I really got to go, but you get the drift. Envoronment. . . just look at Robert Kennedy juniors stuff and it is so convincing. . . the worst president every and danger of permanantly dismantaling environmental laws. . .


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

Me too. . I am glad that you can use something from your machine for the avatar. I got it from this site -- http://www.dharma-haven.org/tibetan/digital-wheels.htm (actually, I should credit them more often. I don't quite buy that spinning a prayer wheel in and of itself does anything, but it is interesting and has massive symbolic content.

And (dear) Dreamer. Reading Kerry's biography, I just don't see anything slimey. We know about his war record, a rich kid like W he _enlisted_, thinking he had to give something back. I think his veterans against the war stuff is nothing but admirable. He made substantive changes, as a prosecutor, to the horrible way rape victims had been treated in court. I don't have time to continue right now, but, for the right to choose, for environmental issues, for standing up against that proposed defacement of the constitution "defining" marriage, he has been consistane and on the front line throughout his career. As far as I can see, he's a guy with convictions that I agree with and the integrity not to be too political with them.

If some crap, exagerations, and mischaracterizations about some assinine thing called flip flop are the best the republicans can do. . .

flip-flop verses a massive change in american behavior and temperment and in, and I think, ethics that is called the "bush doctrine" (which was never publicly debated, and which the public had no idea about);

verses the detaining of people in cuba for years with no charges being filed, no access, not just to legal representation, but to their own families (call them dangerous terrorists, but with these guys record we can infer that many of which simply arent). This is America?

god I really got to go, but you get the drift. Envoronment. . . just look at Robert Kennedy juniors stuff and it is so convincing. . . the worst president every and danger of permanantly dismantaling environmental laws. . .


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the
influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's
license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been 'lost' and
is not available.

Military:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a
drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas
Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in
Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil
in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I
bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land
using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil
industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor outfoxes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making
Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston
replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in
borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American
history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's
appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over
500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in US history to enter office with a criminal
record

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one
billion dollars per week.

I spent the US surplus and effectively bankrupted the US Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S.
stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost
their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history. My poorest millionaire, Condoleeza Rice,
has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most
corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends,
Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S.
History: Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to
ensure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation
or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica
Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest
corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to
intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President
in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the
history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove
the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. prisoners of war detainees,
and have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. elections).

I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President
since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year
period. After taking off the entire month of August 2001, I presided over
the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center
attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in
the world---the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for
protests against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, preemptive
attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against
the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the
world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty
benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking
Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%)
view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear & "; Tactical Bunker Buster, &
"; a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to
justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's
library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt
companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended
regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for
public review.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004!


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the
influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's
license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been 'lost' and
is not available.

Military:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a
drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas
Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in
Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil
in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I
bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land
using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil
industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor outfoxes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making
Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston
replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in
borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American
history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's
appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over
500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in US history to enter office with a criminal
record

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one
billion dollars per week.

I spent the US surplus and effectively bankrupted the US Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S.
stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost
their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history. My poorest millionaire, Condoleeza Rice,
has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most
corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends,
Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S.
History: Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to
ensure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation
or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica
Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest
corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to
intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President
in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the
history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove
the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. prisoners of war detainees,
and have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. elections).

I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President
since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year
period. After taking off the entire month of August 2001, I presided over
the worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center
attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in
the world---the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously
protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for
protests against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, preemptive
attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against
the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the
world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty
benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking
Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%)
view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear & "; Tactical Bunker Buster, &
"; a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to
justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's
library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt
companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended
regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for
public review.

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004!


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

I wasn't going to get in to this, but after that post:

I stand, I applaude, I sit back down.

(Make mental note to call Democratic party and offer rides to people who have no other way to the polls. :idea: )


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

I wasn't going to get in to this, but after that post:

I stand, I applaude, I sit back down.

(Make mental note to call Democratic party and offer rides to people who have no other way to the polls. :idea: )


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

Alex, thank you! That was good.

-Grant


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

Alex, thank you! That was good.

-Grant


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

That's ok, just doing my part for mankind


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

That's ok, just doing my part for mankind


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

Did you build that alex? We need posters. Billboards. One of those songs where the guy recites a list. It's fantastic.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

Did you build that alex? We need posters. Billboards. One of those songs where the guy recites a list. It's fantastic.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

God yes terri. Me too. And lets get all our apolitical friends to register--everyone.

These people, these Bush people, are the enemy--it is not too strong a word.

John Kerry is our man.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

God yes terri. Me too. And lets get all our apolitical friends to register--everyone.

These people, these Bush people, are the enemy--it is not too strong a word.

John Kerry is our man.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

If I _was_ going to get in on this, I would be typing...

*Ker-ry ! Ker-ry ! Ker-ry!*

but, I'm really not going to get in on to this. 8)

Reminder to those with ultra buzy lives that care to watch...

1st debate - This Thursday Night at 9:00 pm EST.

Who knows, watching can change an opinion or form a more solid one.

Oh yeah...now Dalai, any particular Bush people on this site are commrades in the dp/dr war... I'll have to draw my own personal line 
here.

(But the rest of them :twisted: lol )


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

If I _was_ going to get in on this, I would be typing...

*Ker-ry ! Ker-ry ! Ker-ry!*

but, I'm really not going to get in on to this. 8)

Reminder to those with ultra buzy lives that care to watch...

1st debate - This Thursday Night at 9:00 pm EST.

Who knows, watching can change an opinion or form a more solid one.

Oh yeah...now Dalai, any particular Bush people on this site are commrades in the dp/dr war... I'll have to draw my own personal line 
here.

(But the rest of them :twisted: lol )


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

No, I can't take credit for putting that together, I posted it in the hope that commen sense will prevail in the US elections.

Voting for Bush is voting for more of the same, since he announced his "war on terror" terrorisim has never been higher or more rampant in the world, we can all see that. It's no secret that Syria and Iran have been warned by the US government. You just can't bomb third world countries to oblitiration under the cover of "war on terror". How many tens of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered in Afgahnistan and Iraq, is an American or Australian life worth more than an Iraqis life, it sure seems so. Launching missiles into a crowded restarant because you got a tip off that a known terrorist is dining there is criminal yet it happens every second day in Iraq. Imagine that happening in America, the paremedics dragging the dead men,women & children out of the rubble, lets say there was a terrorist in there and he/she was killed. WAS IT WORTH IT? Can we think of a better way?? How many American soldiers have lost their lives this "occupation of a sovreign nation" which happens to be illegal. THEY SHOULD NOT BE THERE.

Terrorisism is a reality, Bush's incompetance and ruthlesness is not the solution. His administrations agenda is not in the best interest of the worlds people. I don't know what the solution is but inciting hatred and further predjudice is not the way, not to mention using fear to herd people around in circles.

Vote for someone who is more open to working with the rest of the world and the U.N. Oh yeah voting for someone with a brain would also be a good idea. The world is counting on you.

DONT BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU HEAR ON THE NEWS............ANYTHING!!!!

Alex

P.S Sorry for being so forward, I feel very strongly about the subject


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

No, I can't take credit for putting that together, I posted it in the hope that commen sense will prevail in the US elections.

Voting for Bush is voting for more of the same, since he announced his "war on terror" terrorisim has never been higher or more rampant in the world, we can all see that. It's no secret that Syria and Iran have been warned by the US government. You just can't bomb third world countries to oblitiration under the cover of "war on terror". How many tens of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered in Afgahnistan and Iraq, is an American or Australian life worth more than an Iraqis life, it sure seems so. Launching missiles into a crowded restarant because you got a tip off that a known terrorist is dining there is criminal yet it happens every second day in Iraq. Imagine that happening in America, the paremedics dragging the dead men,women & children out of the rubble, lets say there was a terrorist in there and he/she was killed. WAS IT WORTH IT? Can we think of a better way?? How many American soldiers have lost their lives this "occupation of a sovreign nation" which happens to be illegal. THEY SHOULD NOT BE THERE.

Terrorisism is a reality, Bush's incompetance and ruthlesness is not the solution. His administrations agenda is not in the best interest of the worlds people. I don't know what the solution is but inciting hatred and further predjudice is not the way, not to mention using fear to herd people around in circles.

Vote for someone who is more open to working with the rest of the world and the U.N. Oh yeah voting for someone with a brain would also be a good idea. The world is counting on you.

DONT BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU HEAR ON THE NEWS............ANYTHING!!!!

Alex

P.S Sorry for being so forward, I feel very strongly about the subject


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

I agree terri* By these bush people, I mean Wolfey, Rummy, Cheney, et. al. -- I mean the administration, not the average guy who . . . nevermind, you know what I mean.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

I agree terri* By these bush people, I mean Wolfey, Rummy, Cheney, et. al. -- I mean the administration, not the average guy who . . . nevermind, you know what I mean.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

i do know what you mean.

we'll just see how it all goes.

Debates Tonight.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

i do know what you mean.

we'll just see how it all goes.

Debates Tonight.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

*It's their reality. We just live and die in it.*

BUSHWORLD, by Maureen Dowd. (Putnam, $25.95.) A journalist's assessment of President Bush, based on her columns and articles in The New York Times.

_(Dear Ms. Dowd.
I have been wandering through life without a purpose until now. I think you are really hot. Will you marry me? I know this is abrupt, but if you would just meet me for, say, a cup of coffee you would find. . . . )_


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

*It's their reality. We just live and die in it.*

BUSHWORLD, by Maureen Dowd. (Putnam, $25.95.) A journalist's assessment of President Bush, based on her columns and articles in The New York Times.

_(Dear Ms. Dowd.
I have been wandering through life without a purpose until now. I think you are really hot. Will you marry me? I know this is abrupt, but if you would just meet me for, say, a cup of coffee you would find. . . . )_


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

*
Out of the Question*
_Is Bush's biggest mistake too awful to admit?_
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, Oct. 1, 2004, at 12:58 AM PT

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

That's what it all comes down to?this debate, this war, this election. For all the differences between Iraq and Vietnam, the awful question John Kerry posed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 is the same one hanging over us now.

This time, however, Kerry isn't raising the question. His opponent, the president of the United States, is raising it. Why? Because Iraq is different from Vietnam. We were attacked on 9/11. We thought Saddam Hussein was behind it. We thought Iraq posed the next threat. We don't want to believe that we were wrong, that we've committed $200 billion and sacrificed more than 1,000 American lives in error. We can't imagine asking thousands more to die for a mistake.

Bush can't imagine it, either. So, he offers himself?and you?a way out. Ignore the bad news, he says. Ignore the evidence that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated. Ignore the evidence that Saddam had no operational relationship with al-Qaida. Ignore the rising casualties. Ignore the hollowness and disintegration of the American-led "coalition." If these reports are true, as Kerry suggests, then it was all a mistake. How can we ask our troops to die for a mistake? We can't. Therefore, these reports must be rejected. They must be judged not by evidence, but by their offensiveness to the assumptions we embraced when we went to war.

In tonight's debate, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Bush, "Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives?1,052 as of today?" Bush looked down. He recalled a woman whose husband had died in Iraq. "I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy," the president said. "Was it worth it? Every life is precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy. ... We can look back and say we did our duty."

That's how Bush judges the war's worth: not by costs and benefits, but by character. It shows our nobility. It shows we did our duty. He used the word "duty" seven times tonight. Kerry never used that word, except to refer to "active duty" troops. Eleven times, Bush called the mess in Iraq "hard work." To recognize error would be to abandon that work and shirk our duty. Again and again, he framed the acceptance of bad news as moral failure._ Will. Resolute. Steadfast. Uncertainty. Weakness. Supporting our troops_.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is "a brave, brave man," Bush told the audience. After Allawi addressed Congress last week, Kerry "questioned his credibility," Bush charged. "One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's courageous and brave [and] is trying to lead his country forward."

That's how Bush judges Allawi's assurances: not by evidence, but by character. Never mind that Allawi's rosy speech didn't match his own statements back home, much less independent reports from Iraq. Never mind that according to administration officials interviewed by the Washington Post, Allawi "was coached and aided by the U.S. government" and by "a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign." Any suggestion that Allawi spun Congress or was coached must be dismissed, because these suggestions besmirch a brave leader.

When Kerry quantified the meager troop contributions of our coalition partners, Bush protested, "I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when a candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers." Forget the facts. Kerry's numbers must be repudiated because they dishonor good men.

Kerry offered a different way to judge the war's truth and worth: by the evidence. "I don't know if he sees what's really happened," Kerry said of Bush's Iraq spin. He worried that Bush was "not acknowledging what's on the ground. He's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea. He's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues."

But when Lehrer transposed Kerry's famous question?"Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?"?Kerry balked. "No, and they don't have to," Kerry replied. "We have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence."

It doesn't add up. Kerry said tonight that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror. He said the WMD intelligence was wrong. He added, "Two-thirds of [Iraq] was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening." The logical upshot of these beliefs?and the evidence?is that Americans are dying in Iraq for a mistake.

Why won't Kerry say so? ***
For the same reason Bush accuses him of saying so: Because we don't want to believe it. On this ultimate question, Kerry clings to Bush's wishful thinking. Tonight, Kerry vowed to prevail in Iraq "for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line. That is noble. That's the most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility."

"I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right," Kerry said, explaining his vote against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq. "That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war, I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote."

No, Senator. That isn't what you did with that vote. You haven't said no to the Iraq War as you did to the Vietnam War. And the reason is that this time, you're running for president.

But the greater shame belongs to the candidate who launched this war, refuses to admit his errors, and now holds the moral pride of his countrymen hostage, blackmailing them into shunning the truth. Tonight he scoffed, "If I were to ever say, 'This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,' the troops would wonder, 'How can I follow this guy?' "

Exactly, Mr. President. If you were ever to give them the correct assessment, they would ask the correct question.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2107517/

***


> Why won't Kerry say so?


If he did the entire campaign would be in vain. If he did it would be imossible for him to win. The stakes are to high to commit a massive, yes, unfortunately, political error.

EDIT: I'm prosletizing. Sorry. I liked this basic description of the debate dynamics re the truth v. bush


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

*
Out of the Question*
_Is Bush's biggest mistake too awful to admit?_
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, Oct. 1, 2004, at 12:58 AM PT

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

That's what it all comes down to?this debate, this war, this election. For all the differences between Iraq and Vietnam, the awful question John Kerry posed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 is the same one hanging over us now.

This time, however, Kerry isn't raising the question. His opponent, the president of the United States, is raising it. Why? Because Iraq is different from Vietnam. We were attacked on 9/11. We thought Saddam Hussein was behind it. We thought Iraq posed the next threat. We don't want to believe that we were wrong, that we've committed $200 billion and sacrificed more than 1,000 American lives in error. We can't imagine asking thousands more to die for a mistake.

Bush can't imagine it, either. So, he offers himself?and you?a way out. Ignore the bad news, he says. Ignore the evidence that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated. Ignore the evidence that Saddam had no operational relationship with al-Qaida. Ignore the rising casualties. Ignore the hollowness and disintegration of the American-led "coalition." If these reports are true, as Kerry suggests, then it was all a mistake. How can we ask our troops to die for a mistake? We can't. Therefore, these reports must be rejected. They must be judged not by evidence, but by their offensiveness to the assumptions we embraced when we went to war.

In tonight's debate, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Bush, "Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives?1,052 as of today?" Bush looked down. He recalled a woman whose husband had died in Iraq. "I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy," the president said. "Was it worth it? Every life is precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy. ... We can look back and say we did our duty."

That's how Bush judges the war's worth: not by costs and benefits, but by character. It shows our nobility. It shows we did our duty. He used the word "duty" seven times tonight. Kerry never used that word, except to refer to "active duty" troops. Eleven times, Bush called the mess in Iraq "hard work." To recognize error would be to abandon that work and shirk our duty. Again and again, he framed the acceptance of bad news as moral failure._ Will. Resolute. Steadfast. Uncertainty. Weakness. Supporting our troops_.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is "a brave, brave man," Bush told the audience. After Allawi addressed Congress last week, Kerry "questioned his credibility," Bush charged. "One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's courageous and brave [and] is trying to lead his country forward."

That's how Bush judges Allawi's assurances: not by evidence, but by character. Never mind that Allawi's rosy speech didn't match his own statements back home, much less independent reports from Iraq. Never mind that according to administration officials interviewed by the Washington Post, Allawi "was coached and aided by the U.S. government" and by "a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign." Any suggestion that Allawi spun Congress or was coached must be dismissed, because these suggestions besmirch a brave leader.

When Kerry quantified the meager troop contributions of our coalition partners, Bush protested, "I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when a candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers." Forget the facts. Kerry's numbers must be repudiated because they dishonor good men.

Kerry offered a different way to judge the war's truth and worth: by the evidence. "I don't know if he sees what's really happened," Kerry said of Bush's Iraq spin. He worried that Bush was "not acknowledging what's on the ground. He's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea. He's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues."

But when Lehrer transposed Kerry's famous question?"Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?"?Kerry balked. "No, and they don't have to," Kerry replied. "We have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence."

It doesn't add up. Kerry said tonight that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror. He said the WMD intelligence was wrong. He added, "Two-thirds of [Iraq] was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening." The logical upshot of these beliefs?and the evidence?is that Americans are dying in Iraq for a mistake.

Why won't Kerry say so? ***
For the same reason Bush accuses him of saying so: Because we don't want to believe it. On this ultimate question, Kerry clings to Bush's wishful thinking. Tonight, Kerry vowed to prevail in Iraq "for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line. That is noble. That's the most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility."

"I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right," Kerry said, explaining his vote against the $87 billion appropriation for Iraq. "That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war, I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote."

No, Senator. That isn't what you did with that vote. You haven't said no to the Iraq War as you did to the Vietnam War. And the reason is that this time, you're running for president.

But the greater shame belongs to the candidate who launched this war, refuses to admit his errors, and now holds the moral pride of his countrymen hostage, blackmailing them into shunning the truth. Tonight he scoffed, "If I were to ever say, 'This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,' the troops would wonder, 'How can I follow this guy?' "

Exactly, Mr. President. If you were ever to give them the correct assessment, they would ask the correct question.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2107517/

***


> Why won't Kerry say so?


If he did the entire campaign would be in vain. If he did it would be imossible for him to win. The stakes are to high to commit a massive, yes, unfortunately, political error.

EDIT: I'm prosletizing. Sorry. I liked this basic description of the debate dynamics re the truth v. bush


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Well, after that pitiful debate... I couldn't watch after a while had to listen as Bush looked so ... ACH ... I'm voting for Kerry. I'm in a swing state, Michigan... we could go either way... so my vote counts.

So here's another for Kerry. I'm still focused on the global situation and the idea that many leaders of other countries have great distaste for Bush, worse than I had realized. I think we need new blood, but how do we know what any President will do until s/he's in office?

I am voting against a jerk. I honestly don't know enough about Kerry. I wish he would talk about what he's accomplished as a Senator in the past 20 years. I'm not clear on that. I know he's a conservative democrat. I don't know how we'll get out of the deficit Bush generated.

*Kerry here*

Best,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Well, after that pitiful debate... I couldn't watch after a while had to listen as Bush looked so ... ACH ... I'm voting for Kerry. I'm in a swing state, Michigan... we could go either way... so my vote counts.

So here's another for Kerry. I'm still focused on the global situation and the idea that many leaders of other countries have great distaste for Bush, worse than I had realized. I think we need new blood, but how do we know what any President will do until s/he's in office?

I am voting against a jerk. I honestly don't know enough about Kerry. I wish he would talk about what he's accomplished as a Senator in the past 20 years. I'm not clear on that. I know he's a conservative democrat. I don't know how we'll get out of the deficit Bush generated.

*Kerry here*

Best,
D :shock:


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

I'm happy about that debate- Bush seemed so weak!

*KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!*

-Grant


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

I'm happy about that debate- Bush seemed so weak!

*KERRY! KERRY! KERRY!*

-Grant


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Dreamer,

I was open to watching the debates and just seeing if Bush could pull a rabbit out of his hat. It was upsetting to see. I was not waving any flags or doing any kind of happy dance because it appeared to be so painful for Bush. I felt sad for our entire country.

Due to the war, right or wrong, whatever...global leaders do have a bad taste in their mouths. I think this will be the first time where world opinion of our President will have a big impact on decision making. I don't think I'm wrong when I say we need a team player.

Though not an advocate of this war, this opinion in no way is a thought against any of our military personnel or any person involved in the war at whatever level. I support the fact they are there. They were asked to go and are fulfilling that task. I will be on the streets when they return. We just need them to do the duty they were asked to perform by this President and then bring them home hero's.

Unless the next debate shows something different...

*Kerry here*,also.

Thanks for posting the article, dalai. We needed someone to open this thread again. :idea:


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Dreamer,

I was open to watching the debates and just seeing if Bush could pull a rabbit out of his hat. It was upsetting to see. I was not waving any flags or doing any kind of happy dance because it appeared to be so painful for Bush. I felt sad for our entire country.

Due to the war, right or wrong, whatever...global leaders do have a bad taste in their mouths. I think this will be the first time where world opinion of our President will have a big impact on decision making. I don't think I'm wrong when I say we need a team player.

Though not an advocate of this war, this opinion in no way is a thought against any of our military personnel or any person involved in the war at whatever level. I support the fact they are there. They were asked to go and are fulfilling that task. I will be on the streets when they return. We just need them to do the duty they were asked to perform by this President and then bring them home hero's.

Unless the next debate shows something different...

*Kerry here*,also.

Thanks for posting the article, dalai. We needed someone to open this thread again. :idea:


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

Another Michagander here    (So what does _your_ state look like.)

Reminder. Monday is the last day for us to register. Got to check how easy this is to do on line, and call some of my more a-political co-workers.

*Go, Johnny go go go* .


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

Another Michagander here    (So what does _your_ state look like.)

Reminder. Monday is the last day for us to register. Got to check how easy this is to do on line, and call some of my more a-political co-workers.

*Go, Johnny go go go* .


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Holy Cow Dali!,
The first Michigander w/DP. I spent 16 years in Los Angeles and had to come back to the green, to four seasons, to a FINE state.

Wowzer, if you're up for it... don't know where ye' be, we could have a cuppa joe in a neutral location if you like.

Isn't THAT big of a state, unless you're up in the U.P.!

Cheers,
Best,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Holy Cow Dali!,
The first Michigander w/DP. I spent 16 years in Los Angeles and had to come back to the green, to four seasons, to a FINE state.

Wowzer, if you're up for it... don't know where ye' be, we could have a cuppa joe in a neutral location if you like.

Isn't THAT big of a state, unless you're up in the U.P.!

Cheers,
Best,
D :shock:


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

I want to meet a DP person for a cup of Joe! I'm in the UK, though


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

I want to meet a DP person for a cup of Joe! I'm in the UK, though


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

(But I'm scared. What if you think I'm repulsive?  )


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

(But I'm scared. What if you think I'm repulsive?  )


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

CRIKEY! Why would I find you repulsive!!!! You may see me "fannying and flapping" as the Brits say, LOL. I.E. being self conscious and trying to entertain.

Holy COW if you live near M-Go-Blue my alma mater. I'm in the Greater Detroit Metro area. Willing to go in various directions. I had so many more DP contacts in L.A. None here.

It might be nice, even if we haven't a thing to talk about. I carry no weapons or explosives.

Let's think on it really!

Bestest,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

CRIKEY! Why would I find you repulsive!!!! You may see me "fannying and flapping" as the Brits say, LOL. I.E. being self conscious and trying to entertain.

Holy COW if you live near M-Go-Blue my alma mater. I'm in the Greater Detroit Metro area. Willing to go in various directions. I had so many more DP contacts in L.A. None here.

It might be nice, even if we haven't a thing to talk about. I carry no weapons or explosives.

Let's think on it really!

Bestest,
D :shock:


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

LOL -- I concur  -- piece of cake really. We'll work on it.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

LOL -- I concur  -- piece of cake really. We'll work on it.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

*Why conservatives must not vote for Bush*

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/20 ... x_np1.html

The left knows. The right weighs in
Pat Buchanan:

The Bush National Security Strategy ?is the imperial edict of a superpower out to exploit its present supremacy to make itself permanent Lord Protector of the universe.?

?This is democratic imperialism. This will bleed, bankrupt and isolate this republic. This overthrows the wisdom of the Founding Fathers about what America should be all about.?

On the War in Iraq:

Bush invaded Iraq, united the Arab world against us, isolated us from Europe, and fulfilled to the letter bin Laden?s prophecy as to what we were about. We won the war in three weeks -- and we may have lost the Islamic world for a generation.


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

I was doing a Google search for an image, and the URL was outdated.... so I got this message.









Note that a _Civil Iraq_ could not be found.

8) -Grant with an "R"


----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)

*Alex said:


> terrorisim has never been higher or more rampant in the world, we can all see that


Wrong.

*Global Terrorist Attacks Fall to Lowest Level Since 1969*

US State Department - 29 April 2004

The total number of international terrorist attacks in 2003 -- 190 incidents that killed 307 people -- was the lowest since 1969, according to the latest Department of State report on worldwide terrorism.

The annual report, "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003," shows the number of attacks last year was down slightly from the 199 attacks reported in 2002. At the same time, the 2003 figure is a 45 percent decline from the 346 attacks in 2001.

The 2003 Patterns of Global Terrorism Report -- required by federal law to be submitted to Congress annually -- was released by the State Department in Washington April 29.

"A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002," the report said. "A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before."

By geographic region, there were four terrorist attacks in Africa, 70 in Asia, two in Eurasia, 53 in Latin America, 37 in the Middle East, and 24 in Western Europe, according to the report. And the report indicated that the dominant type of terrorist event was bombing, with 137 occurrences in 2003.

"In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia," the report said.

According to the report, there were 82 anti-U.S. attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year. However, the 2003 figure represents a 62 percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.

Thirty-five American citizens died in 15 international terrorist attacks in 2003," it said.

COMPLETE STUDY:

http://usembassy.state.gov/ircseoul/wwwh5295.html

Best,

Jeff


----------



## 1A (Aug 12, 2004)

SoulBrotha said:


> Not to mention if Bush stays in office, there is a good chance that there will be a draft.


The Bush Administration has done zero to move toward a draft and does not support it.

The only bills submitted are by Democrats:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163: (Charles Rangel, D-NY)
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089: (Earnest Hollings, D-SC)

I just now discovered there's a political section on this forum. I have some catching up to do, but I'll try to get around to debunking the inaccuracies and lies, within time.. And, like above, I promise to prove arguments using fact and reason, not solely emotion.

Best,

Jeff


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Appreciated Jeff. I am so damned confused I don't know what to do re: the President, truly. I'm voting for local proposals I understand in my State, but am not happy with either candidate.

http://www.reason.com/sullum/101504.shtml

*From Reason Magazine: 
Reason Knowledge Problems If voters paid attention, maybe they'd
never make up their minds!*

The debates have only been helpful to me in finding I hate watching both men on TV and don't find either has the communication skills of Reagan, or the charm of Clinton. The rest is Spin.

But the Reason article notes that most of us don't know the most basic things about politics. It's embarrassing. And I include myself.
Sigh.
D :shock:


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

> The only bills submitted are by Democrats


Rangel/Hollings bill is an anti-Bush protest bill, and it is silly to not be able to interpret it as such.

Columbia Spectator:


> Rangel has stated that his intention is not to bring back the draft. Rather, by using an issue that holds a deep emotional resonance for many Americans, he is addressing the class disparity between the Americans who serve in the military and the civilians responsible for leading them. Rangel's draft proposal has one key difference from its Vietnam War predecessor: in order to equitably spread the cost of military service, it carries no exemptions for students in college or graduate school


http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/ ... 799b8d23e8

As opposed to this administrations plans for a ?skills draft?.



> In May, the Seattle Post Intelligencer published an article about a document they received through the Freedom of Information Act. It was revealed that the SSS is currently ?designing procedures? for the implementation of a ?Skills Draft? and had held a top-level meeting on it with Deputy Undersecretaries at the Defense Department. This draft would change the essential mission of the Selective Service and require ?virtually every young American,? male and female ages 18?34, to register for the Skills Draft and list all the occupations they are proficient in to fill labor shortages throughout nearly the entire government. If enacted, the Skills Draft proposed in this FOI-recovered document would change America as we know it. [...]
> 
> Although official word is that this secret list of options is not being implemented?the Issue Paper options have NOT been rejected and the 6-page proposal is rather sitting in the Pentagon, waiting. In addition, the SSS itself has said that it is ?designing procedures? (Seattle PI, May 1, 2004) to implement the skills draft, meaning designing the compliance cards and the data fields needed to keep track of ?virtually every young American? and their skills. Acting Director of the SSS Brodsky has also said the Skills Draft is the ?top priority? of the Selective Service for 2004.[...]
> 
> ...


http://blatanttruth.org/draft.php


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

> Wrong.
> 
> Global Terrorist Attacks Fall to Lowest Level Since 1969
> 
> US State Department - 29 April 2004


_*US State Department Says It Understated Terror Attacks and Casualties*_

David Gollust
VOA, State Department
10 Jun 2004, 21:35 UTC



> The State Department acknowledged Thursday there were errors in its latest report on global terrorism that greatly understated the number of terrorist attacks and resultant casualties last year. It insists that this was not a deliberate attempt to make the Bush administration's record on fighting terrorism appear better than it was.
> 
> *In an embarrassing admission, the State Department has acknowledged that the global terrorism report it issued in late April contained significant errors and that a corrected edition being prepared will show that terrorist attacks and fatalities in 2003 increased, rather than declined as initially stated. *
> The State Department began a review of the report earlier this month after private terrorism experts publicly challenged the figures contained in it, saying that some major incidents of international terrorism last year had been omitted.
> ...


http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/06-10-5.htm


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

Just wondering, how its looking over there......over here (Oz) the media is saying Kerry may have a slight lead, is that true?

1A, a couple of personal questions, you dont have to answer if you dont want to. Why do YOU think Bush should stay on as president, also do you always vote the same party or are you a swing voter, in other words do you vote by Party or by Policy?

Alex

P.S Thanks for posting that article Dalai


----------



## JAG (Aug 31, 2004)

I was up too late the other night and wrote a little sing a long

Sing it to the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies.

oooooooooooooh

Come and listen to a story about a man named Jeb
A rich governor, barely kept his state fed,
Then one day he was rigging some elections,
And up through the ground came a bubblin' Dubya.

Bush that is, illiterate, Texas inbred.

Well the first thing you know ol' Dubya's president,
Kinfolk said Jeb hide all the evidence
Said Californy is the place we didn't win
but thanks to you we won Floridaaaa.

State, that is. 
Swimmin pools, retired folks.

The Florida Elections!

Copyright ? 2004 JAG


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK, I hate to bring this up, as this was my concern from the very beginning. Let me note I don't like either candidate, however...

*Yasser Arafat (PLO) and Vladimir Putin (Russian Premier apparently leading Russia back to the Soviet Union days) have both endorsed Kerry. I find that very troubling.*

Any observations on this? Since when do despots endorse American Presidential Candidates? Shouldn't we be worried about this?

Edited for readability: 

Best,
D


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

not really...it's pretty obvious to me. Arafat, whether or not he is a despot, obviously knows he stands a better chance for his people with an actual politician at the helm of american government, rather than an evangelical cowboy who's only skill is to scaremonger....like the leader of a church youth group who tells ghost stories on camp to keep his kids in line. That's all 'dubya' seems to be. I find it absolutely mindblowingly astounding that these election campaigns are being fought almost entirely on foreign issues and the issue of terrorism. Okay, security and foreign policy are one part of leadership, but I'm certain that most americans are a million more times likely to suffer hardship from job losses, lack of social security, lack of adequate health care, polution etc than they are from terrorism. The whole thing seems to be way over the top. I dont exactly know if Kerry's gonna do much better for that vast chunk of america that lives in almost third world poverty, but it cant be any worse than Bush. I think if i was a yank I'd give the orange guy a try (is he really orange, or is that just cause of the fuzzy picture you get on american TV?).

vote Kerry!

gav


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

Grant said:


> Yasser Arafat (PLO)... endorsed Kerry.


But don't we want a president who can make peace in the Middle East and finally settle the Israel vs. Palestine dispute? We're already moving to the creation of a Palestinian state with the vote Ariel Sharon just received, despite Israelis calling him a traitor for giving away their Biblical claim of land-- they will soon realize he is correct.

-Grant with an "R"


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Gavin,
Dear God, the Brits really think we have a horrible life here, LOL. Hey, I could use more social services, things aren't perfect but... LOL, I won't get into that.

Here's the thing, again from my very Libertarian poli-sci husband. His concern... although we don't have to worry about Arafat it seems...he's dying?... is that in the past, Democrats have been "peace talkers", and Repulicans "hawks with hard fists."

If a despot LIKES a certain candidate, that can be a bad sign. Someone to easily manipulate in an endless processs, such as years of UN sanctions on Saddam that went no where. Arafat bit us in the butt after sitting at the table and enjoying being on US TV.

Sorry, I'm as cynical as my husband these days. Kerry is the lesser of two evils. Bush is nuts with his religious fanaticism that I didn't even SEE until this past year. First time I've been so conscious of politics, and I admit I am seriously lacking in knowledge.

Kerry is stuck with the legacy of Bush's failures if he wins.. and I now think he'll win. But not much will change. I have come to understand the Middle East is a horrible convergence of religious fanatacism... man am I in a negative POV on this. Peace talks can go on for eternity. There are too many parties involved... too many "tribes".... I honestly don't know what the answer is.

If Arafat dies, and SHaron is replaced, maybe, maybe????? Like Carter and Anwar Sadat, starting to get somewhere? And Anwar Sadat was assasinated, I don't even recall by whom .. his own people.

This is in need of a round table discussion, that will go around and around and around.

But I agree, Bush must go. I don't know what Kerry can do. Only time will tell. Will he be maniuplated by foreign leaders who can speak softly and carry big sticks?

ACH I hate all of this!
In Peace, I hope
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

And Gavin,
Gotta say. I would have agreed with you, on September TENTH, 2001 that domestic issues are far more important than global ones. But no matter what anyone says, 9/11 changed the face of the world forever.

I still think Kerry will win, unless there are protest votes for other parties that will take votes away from him.

Bush has gotta go. I agree with that.

And no President, not even the President of the US can solve all the world's problems. I believe that is humanly impossible. But, I hope to God things will work out in the end. Oddly enough my mantra is our greatest gift as humans and our greatest curse.... we are all UNIQUE individuals. We all have different needs, wants, beliefs... nothing wrong with that, but this is a little ol' world supporting a helluva lot of diverse cultures.

Gavin, there are places in Britain that are so polluted from old industry they can't be worse than some of the stuff we have to offer. As the UK does, we have areas of great beauty, and other areas of great ugliness and places of despair. But we aren't the former Soviet Union, we aren't the Sudan, we aren't North Korea.

I'm not saying we're a perfect country at all, but we get such a bad rep from every direction. Can you give us yanks a break 

Peace,
D :shock: 
Still debating a vote in my home state over the LOTTERY. OH for crying out loud. Also note *domestic issues are also dealt with at the state level, there are checks and balances in Congress, in the Supreme Court. The President can be vetoed in many different ways. I agree an international diplomat is a necessity now. VERY important. Bush is not the guy that I know.*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Re: Arafat's illness... not good for international relations and it ain't our fault, LOL.

Taken from a long article:

*Arafat's health crisis highlights Palestinian unpreparedness for their leader's death, making a chaotic transition all but inevitable. Arafat refuses to groom a successor; rival security chiefs already have battled each other in the streets.*

Qureia and Abbas both have been touted as possible political heirs to Arafat, though the Palestinian leader has bickered with each of them, blocking their attempts to limit his powers.

*"It's only natural to expect that there would be either a power struggle or there would be a loss of cohesion," Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi said.

Analysts said it could take years for a leader to emerge, hurting prospects for already stagnant attempts at peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians. Nevertheless, Israel and the United States hold out hope a post-Arafat Middle East would be more conducive to peace because of what they see as Arafat's blind eye to terror and opposition to reform.

Polls show the second most popular Palestinian after Arafat is Marwan Barghouti, a leader of Fatah's young guard. But Barghouti is serving five consecutive life terms in an Israeli prison for involvement in terror attacks.*

--------------------------
Associated Press writer Karin Laub contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Also, interesting. Long article (forgive) on this mess from *The New Republic.*

*WHY I AM SUPPORTING JOHN KERRY.
Risk Management
by Andrew Sullivan*

Only at TNR Online | Post date 10.26.04

he phrase "lesser of two evils" often comes up at this time every four years, but this November, I think, it's too cynical a formula. Neither George W. Bush nor John Kerry can be credibly described as "evils." They have their faults, some of which are glaring. They are both second-tier politicians, thrust into the spotlight at a time when we desperately need those in the first circle of talent and vision. But they are not evil. When the papers carry pictures of 50 Iraqi recruits gunned down in a serried row, as Stalin and Hitler did to their enemies, we need have no doubt where the true evil lies. The question before us, first and foremost, is which candidate is best suited to confront this evil in the next four years. In other words: Who is the lesser of two risks?

Any reelection starts with the incumbent. Bush has had some notable achievements. He was right to cut taxes as the economy headed toward recession; he was right to push for strong federal standards for education; he was right to respond to September 11 by deposing the Taliban; he was right to alert the world to the unknown dangers, in the age of Al Qaeda, of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He is still right that democratization is the only ultimate security in an age of Jihadist terror. And when you see women bravely exercising their right to vote in Afghanistan, you are seeing something that would not have happened without our current president. That moral achievement can never be taken away from him.

Equally, his presidency can and should be judged on its most fateful decision: to go to war against Iraq without final U.N. approval on the basis of Saddam's stockpiles of weapons and his violation of countless U.N. resolutions. I still believe that his decision was the right one. The only reason we know that Saddam was indeed bereft of such weaponry is because we removed him; we were going to have to deal with the crumbling mafia-run state in the heart of the Middle East at some point; and the objections of the French and Germans and Russians were a function primarily of mischief and corruption. And what we discovered in Iraq--from mass graves to children's prisons to the devastating effect of sanctions on the lives of ordinary Iraqis--only solidifies the moral case for removing the tyrant. The scandal of the U.N. oil-for-food program seals the argument.

At the same time, the collapse of the casus belli and the incompetent conduct of the war since the liberation point in an opposite direction. If you are going to do what the Bush administration did in putting all your chips on one big gamble; if you are going to send your secretary of state to the United Nations claiming solid "proof" of Saddam's WMDs; if you are going to engage in a major war of liberation without the cover of international consensus--then you'd better well get all your ducks in a row.

Bush--amazingly--didn't. The lack of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq remains one of the biggest blows to America's international credibility in a generation. The failure to anticipate an insurgency against the coalition remains one of the biggest military miscalculations since Vietnam. And the refusal to send more troops both at the beginning and throughout the occupation remains one of the most pig-headed acts of hubris since the McNamara era. I'm amazed that more war advocates aren't incensed by this mishandling of such critical matters. But even a Bush-supporter, like my friend, Christopher Hitchens, has termed it "near-impeachable" incompetence.

I would add one more thing: Abu Ghraib. In one gut-wrenching moment, the moral integrity of the war was delivered an almost fatal blow. To be involved in such a vital struggle and through a mixture of negligence and arrogance to have facilitated such a fantastic propaganda victory for the enemy is just unforgivable. In a matter of months, the Bush administration lost its casus belli and its moral authority. Could it have run a worse war?

Domestically, the record is horrifying for a fiscal conservative. Ronald Reagan raised taxes in his first term when he had to; and he didn't have September 11 to contend with. Ronald Reagan also cut domestic spending. Bush has been unable to muster the conservative courage to do either. He has spent like a drunken liberal Democrat. He has failed to grapple with entitlement reform, as he once promised. He has larded up the tax code with endless breaks for corporate special interests; pork has metastasized; and he has tainted the cause of tax relief by concentrating too much of it on the wealthy. He has made the future boomer fiscal crunch far more acute by adding a hugely expensive new Medicare prescription drug entitlement.

He ran for election as a social moderate. But every single question in domestic social policy has been resolved to favor the hard-core religious right. His proposal to amend the constitution to deny an entire minority equal rights under the law is one of the most extreme, unnecessary, and divisive measures ever proposed in this country. And his response to all criticism--to duck the hardest questions, to reflexively redirect attention to the flaws of his opponents, and to stay within the confines of his own self-reinforcing coterie--has made him singularly unable to adjust, to learn from mistakes, to adapt to a fast-changing world. In peacetime, that's regrettable. In wartime, it's dangerous.

I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign's constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man's record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point--about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good.

So we have two risks. We have the risk of continuing with a presidency of palpable incompetence and rigidity. And we have the risk of embarking on a new administration with a man whose record as a legislator inspires little confidence in his capacity to rise to the challenges ahead. Which is the greater one?

The answer to that lies in an assessment of the future. We cannot know it; we can merely guess. My best judgment of what we will face is the following: a long and difficult insurgency on Iraq; an Iran on the brink of a nuclear capacity; a North Korea able to distract the United States at a moment's notice from the crisis in the Middle East; and an immensely complicated and difficult task of nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq. At home, we face a fiscal crisis of growing proportions--one that, if left alone, will destroy our future capacity to wage the war for our own survival.

Which candidate is best suited for this unappetizing ordeal? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration has shown itself impatient with and untalented at nation-building. Moreover, the toll of the war has left the United States with minimal international support, one important ingredient for the successful rebuilding of nations. If Bush is reelected, even Britain will likely shift toward withdrawal in Iraq, compounding American isolation there and making it even harder for a new Iraqi government to gain legitimacy. In the essential tasks of building support for greater international help in Iraq--financially, militarily, diplomatically--Kerry is the better choice. No, other countries cannot bail us out or even contribute much in the way of an effective military presence. But within Iraq, the impact of a more international stamp on the occupation and on the elections could help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of Iraqis. That battle--as much as the one on the battlefield itself--is crucial for success. I fear Bush is too polarizing, too controversial, too loathed a figure even within his own country, to pull this off.

The president says that he alone can act militarily when the danger is there; and Kerry is too weak for our current crisis. I disagree. The chance of a third forced regime change somewhere in the world in the next four years is extremely low. We don't even have the troops. Bush's comparative advantage--the ability to pull the trigger when others might balk--will be largely irrelevant. That doesn't mean it hasn't come in handy. Without Bush, Saddam would still be in power. But just because the president was suited to fight the war for the last four years doesn't mean he is suited to succeed at the more complicated and nuanced tasks of the next four. In fact, some of the very virtues that made him suited to our past needs now make him all the more unsuited to our future ones. I am still glad he was president when we were attacked. But that doesn't mean he's the right leader for the years ahead. And one of the great benefits of being a democracy at war is that we can change leaders and tactics to advance the same goals. Dictatorships are stuck with the same guy--with all his weaknesses and all the hubris that comes from running successful wars, hubris that almost always leads to fatal errors, hubris that isn't restricted to tyrants.

Does Kerry believe in this war? Skeptics say he doesn't. They don't believe he has understood the significance of September 11. They rightly point to the antiwar and anti-Western attitudes of some in his base--the Michael Moores and Noam Chomskys who will celebrate a Kerry victory. I understand their worries. But they should listen to what Kerry has said. The convention was a remarkable event in that it pivoted the Democratic Party toward an uncomplicated embrace of the war on terror. Kerry has said again and again that he will not hesitate to defend this country and go on the offensive against Al Qaeda. I see no reason whatsoever why he shouldn't. What is there to gain from failure in this task? He knows that if he lets his guard down and if terrorists strike or succeed anywhere, he runs the risk of discrediting the Democrats as a party of national security for a generation. He has said quite clearly that he will not "cut and run" in Iraq. And the truth is: He cannot. There is no alternative to seeing the war through in Iraq. And Kerry's new mandate and fresh administration will increase the options available to us for winning. He has every incentive to be tough enough but far more leeway to be flexible than the incumbent.

Besides, the Democratic Party needs to be forced to take responsibility for the security of the country that is as much theirs as anyone's. The greatest weakness of the war effort so far has been the way it has become a partisan affair. This is the fault of both sides: the Rove-like opportunists on the right and the Moore-like haters on the left. But in wartime, a president bears the greater responsibility for keeping the country united. And this president has fundamentally failed in this respect. I want this war to be as bipartisan as the cold war, to bring both parties to the supreme task in front of us, to offer differing tactics and arguments and personnel in pursuit of the same cause. This is not, should not be, and one day cannot be, Bush's war. And the more it is, the more America loses, and our enemies gain.

Does Kerry believe in the power of freedom enough to bring Iraq into a democratic future? I don't know. It's my major concern with him. At the same time, it's delusional to believe that democracy can take root overnight in Iraq; and a little more humility in the face of enormous cultural difference does not strike me as unwarranted at this juncture. Besides, Kerry has endorsed democracy as a goal in Iraq and Afghanistan; he has a better grasp of the dangers of nuclear proliferation than Bush; he is tougher on the Saudis; his very election would transform the international atmosphere. What Bush isn't good at is magnanimity. But a little magnanimity and even humility in global affairs right now wouldn't do the United States a huge amount of harm.

Domestically, Kerry is clearly Bush's fiscal superior. At least he acknowledges the existence of a fiscal problem, which this president cannot. In terms of the Supreme Court, I have far more confidence in Kerry's picks than Bush's. In 2000, Bush promised moderate, able judges; for the last four years, he has often selected rigid, ideological mediocrities. Obviously, Kerry's stand against a constitutional amendment to target gay citizens is also a critical factor for me, as a gay man. But I hope it is also a factor for straight men and women, people who may even differ on the issue of marriage, but see the appalling damage a constitutional amendment would do to the social fabric, and the Constitution itself. Kerry will also almost certainly face a Republican House, curtailing his worst liberal tendencies, especially in fiscal matters. Perhaps it will take a Democratic president to ratchet the Republican Party back to its fiscally responsible legacy. I'll take what I can get.

And when you think of what is happening in the two major parties, the case for a Kerry presidency strengthens. If Bush wins, the religious right, already dominant in Republican circles, will move the GOP even further toward becoming a sectarian, religious grouping. If Kerry loses, the antiwar left will move the party back into the purist, hate-filled wilderness, ceding untrammeled power to a resurgent, religious Republicanism--a development that will prove as polarizing abroad as it is divisive at home. But if Bush loses, the fight to recapture Republicanism from Big Government moralism will be given new energy; and if Kerry wins, the center of the Democratic party will gain new life. That, at least, is the hope. We cannot know for sure.

But, in every election, we decide on unknowables. When I read my endorsement of George W. Bush of four years ago, I see almost no inkling of what was about to happen and the kind of president Bush turned out to be. But we do the best we can in elections, with limited information and fallible judgment. I should reiterate: I do not hate this president. I admire him in many ways--his tenacity, his vision of democracy, his humor, his faith. I have supported him more than strongly in the last four years--and, perhaps, when the dangers seemed so grave, I went overboard and willfully overlooked his faults because he was the president and the country was in danger. I was also guilty of minimizing the dangers of invading Iraq and placed too much faith, perhaps, in the powers of the American military machine and competence of the Bush administration. Writers bear some responsibility too for making mistakes; and I take mine. But they bear a greater responsibility if they do not acknowledge them and learn. And it is simply foolish to ignore what we have found out this past year about Bush's obvious limits, his glaring failures, his fundamental weakness as a leader. I fear he is out of his depth and exhausted. I simply do not have confidence in him to navigate the waters ahead skillfully enough to avoid or survive the darkening clouds on the horizon.

Kerry? I cannot know for sure. But in a democracy, you sometimes have to have faith that a new leader will be able to absorb the achievements of his predecessor and help mend his failures. Kerry has actually been much more impressive in the latter stages of this campaign than I expected. He has exuded a calm and a steadiness that reassures. He is right about our need for more allies, more prudence, and more tactical discrimination in the war we are waging. I cannot say I have perfect confidence in him, or that I support him without reservations. But not to support anyone in this dangerous time is a cop-out. So give him a chance. In picking the lesser of two risks, we can also do something less dispiriting. We can decide to pick the greater of two hopes. And even in these dour days, it is only American to hope."

Andrew Sullivan is a senior editor at TNR.


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

Dreamer, It's not for me to give you yanks a break, cause i aint got nothing against american people whatsoever...its for you to give yourself a break, a break from ultra right-wing idiots who care nothing for the american people and only care for their own kind...the rich elite. Yes there are places in Britain that are blighted by our industrial past...but in talking about pollution i was thinking of Kyoto and Britain and most of the industrialised world is signed up to that, unlike the US. But what we dont have here is the kind of dispicable poverty that is allowed to exist in your country...i was in LA earlier this year and i saw sights that looked like something straight out of the middle east. I could not believe this was the richest country in the world. I'm not against the american people at all...if i was i wouldnt get so wound up about all this. I just hate the way the american government always makes out like the US is the pinnacle of western civilisation and democracy...when compared to most european countries it has a lot of catching up to do.

g


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2004)

> If a despot LIKES a certain candidate, that can be a bad sign.


 Dreamer said that re Arafat....see, that's too accurate. It's indeed a HUGE red flag to me.

I have much more important things to be doing this morning, people. At work, MUST do some actual stuff, then a paper to write, then serious dp posts to reply to....

But this thread is too good.

sigh,
so many posters, so little time
J


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> i was in LA earlier this year and i saw sights that looked like something straight out of the middle east. I could not believe this was the richest country in the world. I'm not against the american people at all...if i was i wouldnt get so wound up about all this. I just hate the way the american government always makes out like the US is the pinnacle of western civilisation and democracy...when compared to most european countries it has a lot of catching up to do.


Dear Gavin,
Interesting re: Los Angeles. I lived there from 1984 to 2001. It is an amazing city. A huge city. It is like New York. One thing about the US is we have immigrants streaming into the country. California is destined to become primarily Hispanic within 10-20 years.

What you may have seen is the squalor of first, second, even third generation immigrants who always start at the bottom rung of the ladder, like the Irish, the Jews, the Italians at the turn of the century. This is nothing new for the US. What makes us so unusual is our lack of homogenaeity,sp? which is yes, both very good, and sometimes very bad.

L.A. has 8 million people. I found it too claustrophic. The career I was pursuing in the entertainment industry too overwhelming. But if you get to know the city -- and I lived in a rather bad part of town -- you can see it growing. It isn't a dead city -- like Detroit (at least the inner city where I live now).

I think it is easy to see one's country with rose-colored glasses. I've done it. I grew up in the Upper Class. I lacked for nothing -- save love which was what I needed the most. I was able to experience the best of the best and was also able to travel a great deal and acknowledge that the US isn't the be all and end all.

I'm now living the other side of the coin. I'm afraid, yes. If I had my mental health I'd feel much more comfortable. I could use socialism now. But if I were well, I'd be more likely to believe in privitization with philanthropy picking up for those who fall through the net. But all people are not that generous. Many people are not equal or good, regardless of their country.

There are benefits to socialism, there are benefits to democracy. Extremes are dangerous, in either direction. I don't think our politicians are the only ones to see the US as "the leader of the free world" -- the West and many other countries always end up looking to us for help. People from other countries stream across our borders everyday.

The US is a strange place. It is made up of immigrants.

Our electoral system is antiquated, I agree. We need to overhaul that as much as we need to overhaul a ton of domestic policies.

I'm not really answering your question, but I don't see the extremes of rich and poor, which I can understand you see from a standpoint of socialism. And I have lived in both worlds. I'm poor right now. I'm someone who could fall through the cracks.

But again, I'd rather live here, or many other countries would also be fine by me.

Rambling. Forgive.
I guess I'm again saying there are no simple answers to any political dilemma. How to solve the health care problem is not easy. Ours is falling apart, but so is Canada's. Completely different systems, and neither work well. In Britain, the wealthy can purchase private health insurance to avoid the NHS. In that sense, I see similar problems in all three countries, with no simple solution.

Man I need to take a break from this board, LOL. But this is keeping me from taking a nap.

Take Care,
In the spirit of healthy debate and rambling.
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Clarification:

I'm poor, but fortuntate that my husband picks up the slack, but my income would be considered probably near the bottom. I have health insurance through my husband. Without that I'd be a disaster. Yes. And I certainly don't claim poverty.

There is one thing: in every country there is "entitlement", a sense of "entitlement" to products to services. How can everyone receive these things equally. It's not quite possible. We aren't all equal, we aren't all capable of being professionals, etc. But I'd say, in the US, there is tremendous opportunity for moving up the social ladder. Many who come from other countries say this. And they say they can't do this in their own country.

But you in the UK and we in the US both pay for social services to protect those who can't take care of themselves. We do have welfare, disability, headstart educational programs. We pay for them through income taxes. You guys pay for them through taxes on goods and services. Nothing is free.

Neither system is perfect. And many here in the US resent having 25% of their income taken away in taxes, more taken away for healthcare, more for social security, etc., etc. My husband is in that bracket, but he isn't wealthy at all. And he pays for many services he doesn't/we don't use -- public schools, social security not for himself, but for those who are on it now, or welfare programs.

This is too complicated to go in to, but I just wanted to say, I don't think either program is better or worse really, and they both have faults.

But I also wanted to say I'm not impoverished by any means. There IS poverty here, yes. And there is also abuse of social programs. This is true in the UK as well.

ACH, I'm tired of typing, wish we could talk, though I've never come to an agreement with a Brit, LOL. Not that we both didn't try. We have grown up with a different set of ways of looking at the world. Neither more right or wrong. Simply imperfect.

*Where were you in L.A. that you saw squalor? I have seen in Britain areas I would consider similar -- lower class neighborhoods, or "blue collar" or lower, that are dirtier, rougher. Just curious.

Anyway, I'm not impoverished, but I'd like to have a higher income. And I'd rather have my DP go away, then I think I'd have many more opportunities to contribute to society.*

Best,
D


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

dreamer, i took the metro train from LAX to Hollywood, and rather strangely the overground stretch of the journey goes through south central. And I have been many places in Britain and I can assure you nothing here Ive seen compares to the bleak sights of that place. It looked like Beirut on a good day!! Hollywood was really nice though...it's quite strange there, it felt like walking in a village rather than a major city cause it's so peaceful and unlike English cities there arent hordes of people thronging the pavements (sidewalks, if you must). I could easily live there...it was quite funny walking down Hollywood boulevard and hearing english people asking me for spare change (obviously failed actors)...I felt like I was back in Brighton!
But of course LA isnt the only problem...thats just what ive seen first hand. There was an article on the news tonight about voting moods in mississipi and it was showing the kind of deprivation there...people with absolutely NO chance of healthcare and a lot of people with no chance of getting employment cause they cant afford a car to get to where the work is. Like I say, whatever faults Britain has, and I speak as someone from a very poor background myself, this kind of extreme poverty could never happen here. Britain is not ideal...but it manages to be the fourth largest economy in the world despite having a pretty decent welfare state, National health service and until recently free higher education. The 3 'richer' countries are the US, Brazil and Japan....I dont know too much about Japan but the extremes between rich and poor in the other two countries are shameful...particularly Brazil. I think if the US wants to live up to it's image of being the head of western civilisation, then it needs to actually become more civilised and move away from that cruel, ultra- capatilist, everybody for themself and bollocks to your fellow countryman attitude that successive governments perpetuate. I'm sure Kennedy believed that.

g


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear Gavin,
I see your point, and I don't have easy answers and am at present getting tired. I wish I knew about politics.... like 100% MORE about it. 

I still think I'm voting for Kerry, strapping myself in, and waiting for the ride ahead.

Briefly re: Mississippi, it's ironic as that was chosen as an example of the U.S. It is indeed the poorest state in the U.S.!!! And South Central, well it was the powderkeg for the Rodney King riots. That was a terrifying day. Good grief, well, you didn't see the best of L.A. Dear Lord. But it's a strange city... you can see wealth for 10 blocks, then go through a lower class neighborhood for 5 miles, then see fancy buildings for a while, etc., etc.

And also, the fate of some States and cities occurs at that level ... there is a particular problem in a particular place that causes severe financial disruption. When I grew up in Detroit (the suburbs), it was a wonderful town. Motown, home of Ford, Chrysler, General Motors. Things changed when the auto industry began to fail. Downtown Detroit is a shell of itself -- if you used certain areas of downtown Detroit as an example of the whole US, that would be very misleading. This town has its problems, big ones. There are other great cities that stand for successful planning and leadership from the ground up -- local, city, state, etc.

And yeah, there are some rough looking places in the US, in all big cities certainly, there are BAD areas. How they got they way is a complex matter, I no longer have brain matter for. There are homeless, disenfranchised people to be found everywhere. It's a cold world. I wish it weren't so.

I wish I knew more about politics and I don't. It is interesting to hear how other countries see us, think of us. As I said, I don't think I've ever paid more attention to world affairs, or really taken a good look at politics everywhere until 9/11.

Well, Nov.2 is around the corner. At this moment, I vote Kerry.
Pray for us will ya?

Peace,
D :shock:


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

Just to briefly step in here...

one of Gavin's points was "I think if the US wants to live up to it's image of being the head of western civilisation, then it needs to actually become more civilised and move away from that cruel, ultra- capatilist, everybody for themself and bollocks to your fellow countryman attitude that successive governments perpetuate."

I couldn't agree with you more. I think the first way we should begin this is by not pouring money in to other countries to aid them in all their social, economical and environmental catastophies. In doing this, I believe you could visit our country and not have to see these problems that we take care of in other countries therefore depleting our own monies for our own people.

Just a thought...  
terri

We really need to have an all about us and a to hell with you attitude with the world.


----------



## GavinD (Aug 10, 2004)

exactamundo Terri! Yeah but the US government only ever aids other countries for its own ends...if it REALLY wanted to be fair to other countries it would level out the playing field of trade and stop having such unfair tarrifs...it's like the old adage about charity, you dont stick an ambulance at the foot of a cliff when you can put a fence up at the top. And that also applies to domestic welfare....instead of relying on the philanthropy of the rich to offer charity to the poor, make it set in stone that the poor will be assisted by the government, that no man woman or child in a 21st century western country should be without adequate FREE healthcare, incapacity benefit or whatever welfare is needed. If one of the candidates was offering that sort of thing I'd say go for that one, but if not i'd go for the one more likely t be concerned with those kinds of things. The issue of terrorism is important, but it's not the be all and end all. Britain suffered terrorism for over 30 years and I dont ever remember the conservative or Labour party making that a campaign issue.

Dont worry Dreamer, I will pray for you, because although I said 'vote Kerry', to be honest i just see him as the lesser of two evils. I wish I could stand for president. I just hope it's a fair election whatever. It makes me chuckle to think that there'll be UN officials overseeing the Iraqi elections to make sure they're fair...perhaps they should send some to Florida too!!

g


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

my strict republican NRA gun toteing father is voting for kerry!!!!

ahh but much too late for celebration it seems.. cause i won the bet with him! that bush would bring out osama right before the election!

you were right janine!!! yeeeehawwwwwww!!! old bushy didnt let us down! osama put out a 'brand new' tape today. i put brand new in quotations because anybody with half a brain knows that the tape is most likely months if not years old. oh.. and how convinient for bush that the tape is of osama calling bush out. he set it up so perfectly for bush to come right out all over the news to compare d!ck size. which he did! the obviousness of all this is much too comical. so im sorry to break this ... but i really dont think kerry has a snowballs chance in hell.

4 MORE YEARS!!! (for haliburton)

4 MORE YEARS!!!! (gotta keep that oil flowin)

4 MORE YEARS!!! (of genocide and mass mindf#ck)

WERE ALL GOING TO HELL!!!! :twisted:

i still blame frodo. :evil:


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

Apperently 48% of Americans have a conscience


----------



## Mies (Oct 13, 2004)

most of our "democratic" politicians think/thought it should('ve) be(en) Kerry. Not because they like him so much, but because there is no way to work with Bush.

There are lots of examples, to name a few: when the war against terrorism began at 9/11, european countries were asked to send military troups to Iraq. Some countries refused, we were one of them. Next thing we knew, a picture was published of American soldiers, who died in WWII, saying: look how easily they have forgotten us. it was brought before the United Nations counsil, who advised against warfare at that point, so bush decided to go on with it anyway. What are the UN for, actually?

We are all aware of the risks and dangers of global warming. Bush simply refused to approve and respect the Kyoto agreement.

To be short: he has a tendancy to just do whatever he likes. He thinks he can because the US are very powerful, and he doesn't need the rest of the world anyway. Politically as well as ethically, with no respect for any existing agreements. Because of that, lots of relationships with european countries were almost blown away.

This morning I heard that one of the things on his to-do list is to improve these relationships again. I sincerely hope he means it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2004)

Bush is in the White House again.

I don't get it.
The reason why Bush was re-elected must be religious.
Because nobody can possibly be so stupid to vote for Bush because he is so brillant a president. He messed up almost everything that could be messed up. It is a fact that Bush is inadequate when it comes to mundane politics.

So it seems that America nowadays is much more conservative than ever before. I don't get that. Nothing good comes out of religion when it is woven into politics.

Screw their fucking god. Nobody needs them idiotic saints.
God is an Asshole. He should be banned from earth.


----------



## Mies (Oct 13, 2004)

President Bush is visiting a school just as they're about to discuss the meaning of certain words. The teacher asks Bush to lead the discussion about the word "tragedy". Bush asks if anyone can give an example of a tragedy.

A boy says: "If my best friend crosses the street and he's being hit by a car, and he dies, that's a tragedy."
"No," says Bush, "that's not a tragedy, that's an accident."

A girl tries: "When the schoolbus, with 50 students in it, drives off a cliff and everybody gets killed, that is a tragedy." 
"No," says Bush, that's a big loss". Evrybody is sitting down, really quiet, looking at Bush.

In the corner there's this skinny little boy. Very shy, he says: "When an American Air Force1 plain, with mr and mrs Bush on board, is being hit by a terrorist bomb and gets destroyed, that's a tragedy. "

"Fantastic," says Bush, "You are right. Can you also explain why it's a tragedy? " 
"Well" says the little boy, " because it isn't an accident and it certainly isn't a big loss..."


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2004)

Man I didn't vote for Bush or Kerry (though I voted) but the day after the election all I could do was smile nervously. Look where I'm from...the most purple state in the union, but one that went to Bush. (shrugs). I don't care.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

I forget so easy...FUCK SHIT CUNT ASS FUUUUUUCK GODDAMNIT SHIT KNOB FUCK SHIT OPRAH CUNT EMELIO ESTEVEZ MOTHERFUCKER!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2005)

OK, Ziggy :lol: You don't mind if I call you Ziggy, do you?


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2005)

Call me whatever you like Privateer from Ohio. I forgot how to give a fuck a long time ago.


----------



## terri* (Aug 17, 2004)

oh, i forgot what i was going to say.


----------

