Election '06

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Killer Joe, Oct 16, 2006.

  1. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    That's true, but I don't think we're in a "formal state of war" at this time with Iraq. There's some "Declaration of War Powers" that the president may invoke to send troops off to wherever - Bush Jr. did it with Iraq and Afghanistan and I believe Bush Sr. used it during the Gulf War. That way, presidents can get around getting Congress's approval and still send troops to fight somewhere.

    Ah, but Bush picked and surrounded himself with his administration. So I think it still falls on him...
  2. Killer Joe Active Member

    Here's what I DON'T want: I don't want the democrats to win any congressional seats because the republican base decdided to punish their party leaders and not show up to vote. I want a good ol' we beat 'em cause we stand for what the majority public wants.

    Yes, a win is a win, but I want it to be a win for the positive not a win out of negativism. :(
  3. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    Hear, hear KJ!

    My above example is just a bit of off-the-top-of-my-head knowledge of how the press will sensationalize any public official. If I really wanted to (sorry, but I don't) I could google each president and I am sure to come up with something really scandelous! However, I think that people put way too much weight to the power of the presidency. There is a system of checks and balances, and while on the whole it appears to merely grind the system to a screeching halt, it does actually work after a fashion. The main problem is that when most people complain, they are just complaining, and have no solution in thier mind that would accomplish their stated desires. Let's face it, the presidency is no easy job, and there is no way a moron could attain it. I love it when people try to call a politician stupid. They can make stupid decisions, and mistakes, however, they themselves are generally pretty intelligent. That was kinda the point of my above comment. None of these guys are stupid, and some of them were merely a subject of a violent media attack.

    Example, Dan Quaile....when he added the e to potato...do you know why?...I actually do. He was at a school where kids were demonstraiting their spelling and a little girl (I think it was a girl) was spelling potatoes....yes plural...and she stopped at o. Quaile then prompted her with "e" and thus the media blows it out of proportion. Another example....Bush lands on an aircraft carrier and the media states that he informed America that the war was over. In actuallity, the carrier on which he landed had just finished up an unrelated mission, and had a banner on the deck that said Mission Accomplished. It had not one wit to do with Bush's speech.

    I am not saying that the media blows everything out of proportion, however, some journalism is pretty sensational.

    As far as the "War" in Iraq. I personally do not know what could/would have happened if we had not gone. We leave Saddam in power? North Korea builds thier nukes and sells it to Saddam? (Shudder), or the world just keeps on spinnin round and round with little or no difference.... No one can answer these questions. Nor should we be so worried about them. The fact is we are over there, and it is stated (by more than just our country) that if we just completely pull out, the country will fall into a full anarchaic state. Weapons of Mass Destruction? There/not there/never was/were and gone...who cares? Lets focus a little more on the now, and use the past as a guide to the future, and our voting rights.

    Basically I guess what I am saying (and not directing at anyone at all) is quit your whining and complaining and get out and VOTE, and maybe even write a congressman or 50. Whatever it is, just do something.

    **And just so you know, it can make a difference. When I was in the 4th grade, and in Boy Scouts, I wrote a letter to the sherriffs office asking why my county did not have a 911 system. He actually wrote me back thanking me and guess what. 2 years later a 911 system was actually implimented. Even a child can make a difference, it just takes a bit of effort.**

    Tag Guard
  4. Limited Yes, but we won't care

    Wow.

    Don't you think that if the President chooses a ship to deliver the speech, if there was an banner left from another mission, they'd make the effort to remove it if it wasn't applicable? Or, at the least, conveyed something that they didn't disagree with?

    Consider also these quotes from his speech (I actually took the time to read the entire thing):

    "major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
    "In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it."
    "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on."
    "The use of force has been and remains our last resort. Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
    Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. "

    As you can see, Bush refers to the 'mission' and it being 'accomplished' but in the text you'll find nuances like major combat operations and that the mission continues.
    The problem I have with the banner, is that the kind of sign is undoubtedly interpreted as a summary. Someone holding a speech in front of a sign that says "Drink Milk" is going to tell you you need to drink milk and probably going to give you good reasons for it.

    This is of course accepted political behaviour. You can provide your view on the events and say you feel that the mission was accomplished.

    But if people comment on the banner later on, and say that it portrays a dishonesty (because the mission in Iraq was far from over), the President seems to find it necessary to turn to excuses to say that banner implied a different mission than the one discussed in the speech. And that the banner wasn't their idea (it supposedly was the Navy's) and all they did was produce it.

    If they could just admit they underestimated the resistence and admit that declaring their mission accomplished was done prematurely (and incorrectly), it wouldn't create the lack of respect this action has.
  5. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    All that stuff is meaningless, Iraq, bribes, sexual misconduct, influence peddling, lying to congress and the people of the US........
    The the no good, intrusionistic, holier than thou Republican majority leader rammed through a bill in the middle of the night and took away my internet poker....... :D

    No, really this is just another example of bad legislation and lack of leadership from the top to the bottom.
    I also would like to see another major party compete against the two polorized ones we have now. A moderate party would do well if the idiots in this contry (that's us voters), would take a second to think about the issues we vote for people on. Should you vote for some moron just because he/she agrees with you on one issue, like anti-abortion or pro-choice? Is that enough? Or because he's Republican or Democrat?
    Unfortunately more and more, I find myself voting against idiots than for good legislators. It can be frustrating.
    BTW folks, campaign ads are worthless, if you want to learn something about a canidate do alittle research on the internet about thier voting record or things they have published, your local library has access if you don't..........

    OK, my rant is over, but I have to find something to fill my internet poker time........ My online ATM is gone....... :mad:
  6. EricBess Active Member

    Without trying to remove anything from your point, I do get a bit frustrated with people who try to compare Clinton's actions with Bush's and feel that it is obvious that Bush's were the "greater evil" or "worse for the country". I can say that I don't know whether war with Iraq was justified based on the information at hand or if it was just revenge and/or a mistake.

    I do know that what Clinton did was to trivialize values such as morality and honesty. I personally think that eroding a country's values from the inside is potentially more harmful in the long run.

    Before I get flamed, I repeat that I'm not trying to trivialize war. It's fairly significant. But I do dare say that there's a lot more information we don't know about why that happened than the other.

    I've heard people argue that Clinton just did what a lot of people do, and that's true, but a lot more people will start justifying themselves with the argument, "well, the President did it". How many families have been destroyed by this attitude? I really have no idea.
  7. Killer Joe Active Member

    I'll take that about Clinton and in the long run thing's like immorality, lying, misleading the country, revenge, staying the course (when there is none) are all values that can degrade a country's morality.

    I guess "technically" it was Clinton who started and is responsible for the Iraq War since a movie told me HE DID NOTHING to stop 9/11 from happenning.

    Not to belittle anyone's points but a spade is a spade and no one, not even Karl Rove, can say otherwise, although Rove told a reporter yesterday in an interview that the Repulicans are not only going to win all of their seats back but take more (or something like that).

    1981: Bush (Vice-Pres)
    1998: Bush (Pres)
    1992: Clinton (Pres)
    2000: Bush (Pres)
    2008: Clinton (Pres)

    Geezsh, can't we get any other family to run!?
  8. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Spoken like a true Republican.

    KJ: No way Bill is getting another term in office in 2008. Oh, you mean Hillary.... not a chance dreamer.
  9. Killer Joe Active Member

    You're probably right since she supports the war effort :rolleyes:
  10. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    Hillary would be a horrible choice for the Democrats to place in the running. There are several other options that are more politically connected, and whose views tie in more closely to the democratic agenda.

    Unless Jeb Bush, gov. of Florida runs, the Bush family is pretty much out of options. Therefore it appears that we will have a new "family" in the white house. We still have 2 years of Bush, and I think opinions may be radically different in 2008.

    BTW, Jeb Bush will never be able to run for president, cause no one will vote for anyone named 'Jeb'! Sorry, had to put a little humor here.

    And as for what EricBess has said, I have to agree with him pretty much whole-heartedly. (oops, did I reveal too much of a Republican tendancy?). It kinda goes along with what I said before about the media, the way they taint thier news stories to lean one way or the other (most of the time towards the left, but not always..) I still think there should be imposed limitations on the media. Not on what they can print, but on the sources themselves revealing too much (or even not enough).

    Ok bring on the bashing!...

    Tag Guard
  11. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Boom, Boom, Boom....... Bombs away is your punishment....... :eek:
  12. Killer Joe Active Member

    State runned media? So I am entitled to only hear and see what "The Powers that be" want me to hear? maybe I'm too much of an American to agree with that idea.

    If the media was not there to bring on the Monica Lewinski scandal or break news of the Clinton's real estate troubles then I KNOW a certain right wing party would NOT hear of that.

    Let the media do what they like to dodo; deliver "Biased" news.

    Michael J. Fox is faking it!? Give me a break. But don't put a gag on Rush, he's too funny :D

    On a different point I would think that republicans would welcome Hillary as the Democratic candidate for 08 Prez. It would give their party an auto-win, right? I mean, correct? ;)
  13. Limited Yes, but we won't care

    Dude, you are really scaring me.

    The entire concept of living in a free country is that people have the right to question their government. Free press is one of the most important tools the public has of addressing issues concerning government.
    Of course some (most) media is going to be biased... against the party currently ruling. The public is more interested in scandals and screw-ups so this is what the newscasts focus on. And in a time where the president and the congress are Republican, the media is going to move its viewpoint a step to the left. It is then up to the government how they will handle the pointing out of mistakes:

    Deny the mistake. Present evidence to refute accusations made and let the public decide who's side they are on. This leads to a loss of respect for either the media source or the government, meaning that this system will slowly discredit faulty media sources and faulty governments alike.
    Admit to the mistake. To err is human and the people understand that running a country is difficult. Take this time to point out the things you have accomplished and let the people decide how they feel about you governing them.

    But here's the thing. The Bush administration seems to shift the blame to the media. Not addressing the issue brought up, but claiming the media is 'undermining' the government by doing its job.

    Lastly, I have been wondering about something. I've seen the newsclips in which the New York Times was berated for publishing an article on the wiretapping of American citizens. But if the NY Times can found out about it.. wouldn't the terrorists also know about this? Isn't this giving the NY Times a lot of credit? If somebody could explain this to me, it would be appreciated.
  14. TomB Administrative Assistant

    Dude, YOU are really scaring me...You seem to understand what America is supposed to stand for a lot better than many Americans do...:(
  15. Limited Yes, but we won't care

    Sounds like more people need to watch the Daily Show ;)
  16. Killer Joe Active Member

    I would like to watch the Daily Show but I never seem to be home when it's on.

    btw, I recently took this 30 question test at Political Compass. com and my result was:

    You are a SOCIALIST!

    I don't really know what that means but it sounds like a scary title, this is the title given to 'fair minded' people? I'm definitly more libertarian than authoritarian but I always thought I just left of center.

    w-e-i-r-d :(
  17. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    I scored as a Social Libertarian/Authoritarian, Like the Daili Lama and Gandhi...

    Did this site have a biased against using the letter "Z"?
    civilised
    penalise
    legalised


    Anyone who thinks that the government know better haow you should live your life and that the media should be muzzled, scares me a lot. I may follow the leader, but I will fight to retain my right to question everything they do.

    Like I tell my kids, if you get caught doing something wrong, that just tells me you're to stupid to not get caught, so don't do those things and you won't get caught. And what you did was wrong.
  18. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I just read somewhere about some rating that some group puts out, rating the free speech aspect of countries. The US fell and is somewhere in double digits.

    The number 1 country from last year fell due to the outroar of the Mohammad cartoons earlier this year (which would be Denmark?).

    I can't remember where I saw this though; otherwise I'd try to provide a link.
  19. turgy22 Nothing Special

    They're probably British, ot worse yet, Canadian. Those people hate the letter "z".

    Tag Guard
  20. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

Share This Page