More support for Kerry [Archive] - Antsmarching.org Forums

pedelen99

10-12-2004, 12:02 AM

In case people missed it, here's another link people should read, signed by 162 economics and business professors from around the country:

http://www.openlettertothepresident.org/

Some of the higher points:

"If your economic advisers are telling you that these deficits can be defeated through further reductions in tax rates, then you need new advisers."

"We don’t know where the breakpoint is for the U.S., but we would rather not find out"

- Phil

ss10mets

10-12-2004, 12:09 AM

Another great link... thanks! I don't understand how people can honestly support Bush. Maybe they don't like Kerry but Bush is not doing in my opinion his job.

eric_dmbfan03

10-12-2004, 12:55 AM

That Open Letter site is pretty cool. Too bad there's no contact list or anything. But it sounds legit.

mwjorgens

10-12-2004, 01:21 AM

pedelen99

10-12-2004, 03:27 AM

saygoodbye12

10-12-2004, 06:34 AM

While we're posting links, this one should be read:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20041011/wl_nm/iraq_un_nuclear_dc

Here's the opening of the article:

"Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday"

The incompetence is staggering...

- Phil
Wait, I thought Saddam had no WMD's and had no chance to make any WMD's. Now you're telling me he had all this material and we're just letting it all slip away.

I can't wait for this election to be over. At this point, I almost don't even care who wins.

bseitz

10-12-2004, 01:57 PM

Wait, I thought Saddam had no WMD's and had no chance to make any WMD's. Now you're telling me he had all this material and we're just letting it all slip away.

Saddam must not have even know he had it lying around since he decided to give up all of these programs in '91 we've been told. I'm sure it was just an oversight. Or maybe it was planted by the Jews.

I can't wait for this election to be over. At this point, I almost don't even care who wins.

That's exactly what the incumbents want; voter apathy.

jrock5730

10-12-2004, 02:38 PM

Its amazing how people believe in what Bush says, it truly is.

mray10

10-12-2004, 02:46 PM

notice the list of those who signed the open letter. all educated people. wish we could get some pubs that shared somethign in common with them. i wish we could drop political affiliations for what was accurate or morally right. which would mean the end of political parties, especially the ignorant party, sorry, republican party.

You advocate the end of the two party system? (Or just the downfall of Republican conservatism?)

The problem with dropping "Political affiliations for what was accurately or morally right" is that there are many different truths and many different morals in this country. Would it really be better to have 17 potential candidates for President, any one of whom could actually win? Sure, you might get a chance to vote for a candidate who truly matched your beliefs, but the end result would be a Presidents elected by maybe 15% of the voting populace. How does that serve anyone?

One of the reasons liberals so resent Bush is not simply that he lost the general nationwide election, it's that, even after recieving a minority of the popular vote, he has governed as if he had a massive mandate.

The two party system sucks in a lot of ways, I'm with you there. But I'm much more comfortable voting for a candidate who most closely matches my views and has a legitimate chance of winning. Nevermind the chaos that city, state and federal legislatures would become without party affiliations ...

bseitz

10-12-2004, 02:55 PM

Its amazing how people believe in what Bush says, it truly is.

Not nearly as amazing as how people believe anything the Clintons say (ah.. did not have... sexual...relations...)

mray10

10-12-2004, 02:59 PM

Not nearly as amazing as how people believe anything the Clintons say (ah.. did not have... sexual...relations...)

I really don't think anyone believed Clinton when he said that.

jrock5730

10-12-2004, 03:06 PM

Not nearly as amazing as how people believe anything the Clintons say (ah.. did not have... sexual...relations...)

Are you from this country??? I have to ask because you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

bseitz

10-12-2004, 03:20 PM

Are you from this country??? I have to ask because you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Typical ad hominem attack. Examples?

bseitz

10-12-2004, 03:21 PM

I really don't think anyone believed Clinton when he said that.

All the nitwits in his Cabinet apparently did....

jrock5730

10-12-2004, 03:28 PM

All the nitwits in his Cabinet apparently did....

So 12 or 13 people. Wow, thats soooo many people. You are the nitwit my friend.

pedelen99

10-12-2004, 03:33 PM

Typical ad hominem attack. Examples?

Ah, the master of ad hominem attacks demonstrates he knows what he is talking about. :lol :lol

jrock5730, I learned early that it's best to ignore bseitz. He's been around less than a month and has never posted outside the political forums. He's either just trying to stir things up by saying idiodic things, or he's a whacko... every now and then I see a glimmer of intelligence, so I'm betting on the stirring things up just to piss you off theory.

Either way, there's no reason to fall for it - just ignore his racist & anti-semetic ramblings and don't give him a forum.

- Phil

jrock5730

10-12-2004, 03:43 PM

Ah, the master of ad hominem attacks demonstrates he knows what he is talking about. :lol :lol

jrock5730, I learned early that it's best to ignore bseitz. He's been around less than a month and has never posted outside the political forums. He's either just trying to stir things up by saying idiodic things, or he's a whacko... every now and then I see a glimmer of intelligence, so I'm betting on the stirring things up just to piss you off theory.

Either way, there's no reason to fall for it - just ignore his racist & anti-semetic ramblings and don't give him a forum.

- Phil

Thanks for the warning, I could go on forever with this guy. He is obviously here for nothing because he is defending both sides of the fence.

pedelen99

10-12-2004, 03:47 PM

Wait, I thought Saddam had no WMD's and had no chance to make any WMD's. Now you're telling me he had all this material and we're just letting it all slip away.

I can't wait for this election to be over. At this point, I almost don't even care who wins.

If you read the article carefully, the material that has disappeared was tagged and monitored by the UN when they shut down Iraq's nuclear program years ago. We're not talking about bomb components here, we're talking about the tools that would be needed to make a bomb out of those components - they talk about milling machines and electron-beam welders, among others. This is multi-use equipment, and the reason the UN was monitoring it is so their use couldn't be converted from legitimate purposes to bomb-making.

So, this isn't proof he had WMDs or was making WMDs. It's that the UN was monitoring high tech equipment to make sure that he didn't - an apparently successful effort, by the way... until now, when the US prevented the UN from continuing that monitoring.

- Phil

dylanquirt

10-12-2004, 03:55 PM

Not nearly as amazing as how people believe anything the Clintons say (ah.. did not have... sexual...relations...)

lying about a blowjob and lying about a war are two completly different things. We (the public) should've never asked Clinton about his sex life.....

ss10mets

10-12-2004, 04:06 PM

Copy of an e-mail I recieved if anyone would like to read... sign up on the website it gives if you have half a brain and realize this has more to do then just this Presidential race...

Dear Media Reformer,

This week, Sinclair Broadcasting, the largest owner of local television
stations in the U.S., ordered its 62 stations to preempt regular programming to air an
anti-Kerry documentary just a few days before the election.

Sinclair's mission is clear: sway the election in favor of an administration
that lets companies like Sinclair get even bigger. It's great for Sinclair's
bottom line -- terrible for our democracy.

This is not about 'liberal' or 'conservative.' It's about corruption, the
threat to democratic discourse, and the manipulation of elections. Together, we can
stop them.

Stop Sinclair now: visit http://www.freepress.net/sinclair?z=

The website features a simple, 3-step action, along with a new report
detailing Sinclair's shady business dealings.

A few months ago, Sinclair forbade its ABC affiliates from airing a Nightline
tribute to American soldiers slain in Iraq, saying it was anti-war propaganda.
After 9/11, the company demanded that their stations express allegiance to the
Bush administration on the air.

At the same time, Sinclair gives over 97% of their political contributions to
GOP candidates, and they force their stations to air -- as part of their 'local'
news -- ultra-conservative commentary from Sinclair's chief lobbyist, Mark
Hyman.

Whether Sinclair does this in support of conservatives or liberals is not the
issue. The issue is a billion-dollar corporation shunning journalistic standards
in order to advance its political agenda. It is a threat to the integrity of
our democracy and it must be stopped.

Sincerely,

Robert McChesney
Free Press

Do the right thing... Republican or Democrat

pedelen99

10-12-2004, 04:22 PM

A boycott of Sinclair advertisers is being organized at:

http://www.boycottsbg.com/default.htm

So far several local advertisers plus Sylvan Learning Center on a national level have pulled their advertising, and we're in the first day.

- Phil

bseitz

10-12-2004, 04:26 PM

So 12 or 13 people. Wow, thats soooo many people. You are the nitwit my friend.

Do you realize the stupidity of that comment? Just 12 or 13 people?

bseitz

10-12-2004, 04:43 PM

Ah, the master of ad hominem attacks demonstrates he knows what he is talking about. :lol :lol

jrock5730, I learned early that it's best to ignore bseitz. He's been around less than a month and has never posted outside the political forums. He's either just trying to stir things up by saying idiodic things, or he's a whacko... every now and then I see a glimmer of intelligence, so I'm betting on the stirring things up just to piss you off theory.

Either way, there's no reason to fall for it - just ignore his racist & anti-semetic ramblings and don't give him a forum.

- Phil

I'm not trying to do anything but get involved in the debate on this forum. I know liberals have an extremely difficult time defending the things they claim to believe, but that's your problem. Neither of you has yet to make a substantive response to any point I've ever raised. Just change the subject or start calling names (see above). Like it or not, I'm here to stay (now that you've pissed me off!).

jrock5730

10-12-2004, 04:47 PM

Do you realize the stupidity of that comment? Just 12 or 13 people?

Your right, it was 21 people you were talking about, my bad. Damn, I must be stupid if I was 8 people off.

bseitz

10-12-2004, 04:51 PM

lying about a blowjob and lying about a war are two completly different things. We (the public) should've never asked Clinton about his sex life.....

Lying to a Grand Jury is a crime. The fundamental pillar of our justice system is the ability to compel people to tell the truth even when it's very painful to do so. Imagine the chaos in our courts if every witness was free to lie without fear of prosecution. The system would collapse. Clinton represented the highest office in the land and should therefore be held to an even higher standard of conduct that your typical citizen. Like it or not, he was put on the stand and he chose to put his hand on the Bible and lie through his teeth.

Was everyone, Kerry and Edwards included, lying when they all said that Saddam had WMD's and intended to use them? Being wrong and lying are two different things.

jrock5730

10-12-2004, 04:53 PM

I'm not trying to do anything but get involved in the debate on this forum. I know liberals have an extremely difficult time defending the things they claim to believe, but that's your problem. Neither of you has yet to make a substantive response to any point I've ever raised. Just change the subject or start calling names (see above). Like it or not, I'm here to stay (now that you've pissed me off!).

Uh oh, he's mad. We should have a pitty party for you. Why get mad? Mad that you have no clue as to what you are talking about? If so, I understand.

bseitz

10-12-2004, 04:54 PM

Your right, it was 21 people you were talking about, my bad. Damn, I must be stupid if I was 8 people off.

Man, you are stupid. It wouldn't be any different if only 1 believed him. THESE PEOPLE ARE CABINET LEVEL OFFICERS, YOU MORON!!

bseitz

10-12-2004, 04:55 PM

Uh oh, he's mad. We should have a pitty party for you. Why get mad? Mad that you have no clue as to what you are talking about? If so, I understand.

Examples?

jrock5730

10-12-2004, 04:56 PM

Lying to a Grand Jury is a crime. The fundamental pillar of our justice system is the ability to compel people to tell the truth even when it's very painful to do so. Imagine the chaos in our courts if every witness was free to lie without fear of prosecution. The system would collapse. Clinton represented the highest office in the land and should therefore be held to an even higher standard of conduct that your typical citizen. Like it or not, he was put on the stand and he chose to put his hand on the Bible and lie through his teeth.

Was everyone, Kerry and Edwards included, lying when they all said that Saddam had WMD's and intended to use them? Being wrong and lying are two different things.

You sure do worry about the past alot. You must be a woman. No offense ladies in the forum.

jrock5730

10-12-2004, 04:59 PM

Man, you are stupid. It wouldn't be any different if only 1 believed him. THESE PEOPLE ARE CABINET LEVEL OFFICERS, YOU MORON!!

I will no longer argue with a person that has a brain the size of a nat. :twak

ss10mets

10-12-2004, 05:13 PM

Stop arguing about petty stuff... this is a real problem that people should be concerned about from both parties and all beliefs as Americans.

nubby

10-12-2004, 05:43 PM

mray10

10-12-2004, 06:08 PM

Bush is a hypocrit. He made a girlfriend have an abortion, but he's pro-life. He's for the war against drugs and yet he's an alcoholic, ex-cocaine user. He says he's for the environment but cators to special interest companies like loggers whom want to go into national parks and "thin" the forests to prevent forest fires.

What he's best at is framing arguments and issues so that he can't be wrong. In Friday night's debate, Bush said the quality of the air is better now than it was when he's elected. And he's right -- sort of. His comment is based on six principal air pollutanat defined in the Clean Air Act (ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulates, sulfur dioxide, lead). The amount of those 6 pollutants in the air has been going down steadily since 1970, so it's not like Bush really did something impressive.

However, all of science agrees that carbon dioxide is the primary man-made cause of global warming. But it's not on the list. And, curiously, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has gone up for at least 10 years running. So, that implicates Clinton a little since it was climbing during his tenure, but under Clinton the EPA declared that carbon dioxide is in fact a pollutant, which is the first step to having it be regulated by the Clean Air Act. Under the Bush administration, the EPA changed their ruling so that carbon dioxide is now not a named pollutant. However, even the EPA Web site admits human activity is causing a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and a scientific consensus recognizes that Global Warming is the result.

So, he changed the rules so that there was less regulation of what pollutants are in the air, but then says that the air is cleaner. You have to admit he's (*coughKarlRovecough*) clever.

nubby

10-12-2004, 06:12 PM

mray10

10-12-2004, 06:28 PM

No I wouldn't call it clever because people realize he's playing symantics. It's like calling him clever for what he said in my quote. He's right but that doesn't mean what he was saying had any relavence.

Do you really think everyone realizes?

Do most people watching the debate Friday night know that when he says the air is better he's being selective with the truth? Do they know that when he talks about Dred Scott he's saying he'll appoint a SC justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade?

No, he's the President. Many people who like him do so specifically because they feel like he's an honest, straightforward good old boy. He's not. And Kerry has to hammer that home over and over and over for three weeks or he's going to lose the election.

nubby

10-12-2004, 06:39 PM

Ok I guess I am a little more optimistic when it comes to the general intelligence of our country. Maybe I'm wrong.

mray10

10-12-2004, 06:44 PM

Ok I guess I am a little more optimistic when it comes to the general intelligence of our country. Maybe I'm wrong.

Nothing wrong with optimism. :)

JanelleM

10-12-2004, 06:48 PM

I can't wait for this election to be over. At this point, I almost don't even care who wins.
Couldn't agree more. Realized yesterday I just want this over with regardless.

mray10

10-12-2004, 06:50 PM

Couldn't agree more. Realized yesterday I just want this over with regardless.

I agree. This election season is making it hard to enjoy October.

What I'm really afraid of is that after the election it will only be worse, given the closeness of the race and the liklihood of court challenges and other crap ...

nubby

10-12-2004, 06:55 PM

Ya I can't wait for the election to be over with either. I mean who gives a shit about the way we run our life? Who cares if the president we select will be the one that holds our lives in his hands? Who cares that the person we elect is the most powerful man in the world? It just needs to be over.

bseitz

10-12-2004, 07:32 PM

You sure do worry about the past alot. You must be a woman. No offense ladies in the forum.

Past is prelude. You can learn a lot from the past. But I guess when you're embarassed by the past, it's convenient to "move on".

Why would you assume I'm a woman?

bseitz

10-12-2004, 07:33 PM

I will no longer argue with a person that has a brain the size of a nat. :twak

Sucks getting your ass kicked by a nat (sic)...

MattJ

10-12-2004, 07:44 PM

Past is prelude. You can learn a lot from the past. But I guess when you're embarassed by the past, it's convenient to "move on".

You can learn a lot from it, if you don't mind being a flip-flopper, right?

bseitz

10-12-2004, 07:45 PM

Bush is a hypocrit. He made a girlfriend have an abortion, but he's pro-life.

Your evidence for this is? Kitty Kelly? Or is this just an article of faith among the Bush-haters?

He's for the war against drugs and yet he's an alcoholic, ex-cocaine user.

I didn't realize the war on drugs included alcohol. Ex-cocaine user? Again; you're evidence? BTW, having libertarian tendencies, I agree that the "War" on drugs is a waste of time and resources.

He says he's for the environment but cators to special interest companies like loggers whom want to go into national parks and "thin" the forests to prevent forest fires.

I gues you've missed the millions of acres that have burned to the ground in the last 20 years or so because the tree-huggers would rather destroy the forest than have "BIG LUMBER" clean it up and actually make a profit. Even the government acknowledges that it's policy of putting out every naturally occurring fire has left the forests cluttered with tinder and at severe risk for destruction. Fire is part of nature, but of course government bureaucrats know better than Mother Nature, right?

bseitz

10-12-2004, 07:55 PM

However, even the EPA Web site admits human activity is causing a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and a scientific consensus recognizes that Global Warming is the result.

I don't have the specific citation handy, but I remember reading that when Mt. Pinatubo (?) and Mt. St. Helens last erupted, each put more "greenhouse gasses" into the atmosphere than all man-made sources combined in the entire history of civilization. Seems like getting rid of the dreaded SUV would be like pissing in the ocean. And why is it that the Kyoto Protocol exempted the entire developing world including countries like China and Brazil if the real goal was to reduce these emissions? Shouldn't we all be kicking in for the benefit of mankind?