Ahhhh... Nothing like the refreshing air of open debate... so intellectual, so elevating, so.... so.... uh... what the?...
Who farted?
Kerry wins First Debate hands down
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Dude of the Mis-West! Check out your favorite cowboy "LIVE" tonight atSimply Joel wrote:i can hear it now, Cheney doing his best Darth Vader....cowboyangel wrote:wheeeeewwwshhhhh!
tonight....live fire ceremony at brightpathvideo.com as Edwards thwarts the evil emperor (play Darth Vader music)
"Senator Edwards, I knew Luke Skywalker, and you are no Luke Skywalker."
http://www.brightpathvideo.com
if you don't want to see Luke go up against Darth
powerful mantras at work (ask your boss, he knows about this stuff)
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Um, back to that other debate:
The Falling Scales
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 5, 2004
Last week President Bush found himself defending his record on national security without his usual protective cocoon of loyalty-tested audiences and cowed reporters. And the sound you heard was the scales' falling from millions of eyes.
Trying to undo the damage, Mr. Bush is now telling those loyalty-tested audiences that Senator John Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" means that he "would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions." He's lying, of course, as anyone can confirm by looking at what Mr. Kerry actually said. But it may still work - Mr. Bush's pre-debate rise in the polls is testimony to the effectiveness of smear tactics.
Still, something important happened on Thursday. Style probably mattered most: viewers were shocked by the contrast between Mr. Bush's manufactured image as a strong, resolute leader and his whiny, petulant behavior in the debate. But Mr. Bush would have lost even more badly if post-debate coverage had focused on substance.
Here's one underreported example: So far, Mr. Bush has paid no political price for his shameful penny-pinching on domestic security and his refusal to provide effective protection for America's ports and chemical plants. As Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic: "Bush's record on homeland security ought to be considered a scandal. Yet, not only is it not a scandal, it's not even a story."
But Mr. Kerry raised the issue, describing how the administration has failed to protect us against terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush's response? "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises."
Oh, yes we do. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Mr. Bush's tax cuts, with their strong tilt toward the wealthy, are responsible for more than $270 billion of the 2004 budget deficit. Increased spending on homeland security accounts for only $20 billion. That shows the true priorities of the self-proclaimed "war president." Later, Mr. Bush, perhaps realizing his mistake, asserted, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." But he had already conceded that he isn't.
It's also not clear whether voters have noticed the collapse of Mr. Bush's cover story for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. In Coral Gables, Mr. Bush asserted that when Mr. Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam, he "looked at the same intelligence I looked at." But as The Times confirmed last weekend, the Bush administration suppressed intelligence that might have raised doubts in Congress.
The case for war rested crucially on one piece of evidence: Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes that, according to Condoleezza Rice, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But the truth, never revealed to Congress, was that most of the government's experts considered the tubes unsuited for a nuclear program and identical to the tubes used by Iraq for other purposes. Yes, Virginia, we were misled into war.
Now it's Dick Cheney's turn.
Mr. Cheney's manufactured image is as much at odds with reality as Mr. Bush's. The vice president is portrayed as a hardheaded realist, someone you can trust with difficult decisions. But his actual record is one of irresponsibility and incompetence.
Case in point: Mr. Cheney completely misread the nature of the 2001 California energy crisis. Although he has stonewalled investigations into what went on in his task force, there's no real question that he placed his trust in the very companies whose market-rigging caused that crisis.
In tonight's debate, John Edwards will surely confront Mr. Cheney over that task force, over domestic policies and, of course, over Halliburton. But he can also use the occasion to ask more hard questions about national security.
After all, Mr. Cheney didn't just promise Americans that "we will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators" by the grateful Iraqis. He also played a central role in leading us to war on false pretenses.
No, that's not an overstatement. In August 2002, when Mr. Cheney declared "we now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he was being dishonest: the administration knew no such thing. He was also being irresponsible: his speech pre-empted an intelligence review that might have given dissenting experts a chance to make their case.
So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush.
The Falling Scales
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 5, 2004
Last week President Bush found himself defending his record on national security without his usual protective cocoon of loyalty-tested audiences and cowed reporters. And the sound you heard was the scales' falling from millions of eyes.
Trying to undo the damage, Mr. Bush is now telling those loyalty-tested audiences that Senator John Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" means that he "would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions." He's lying, of course, as anyone can confirm by looking at what Mr. Kerry actually said. But it may still work - Mr. Bush's pre-debate rise in the polls is testimony to the effectiveness of smear tactics.
Still, something important happened on Thursday. Style probably mattered most: viewers were shocked by the contrast between Mr. Bush's manufactured image as a strong, resolute leader and his whiny, petulant behavior in the debate. But Mr. Bush would have lost even more badly if post-debate coverage had focused on substance.
Here's one underreported example: So far, Mr. Bush has paid no political price for his shameful penny-pinching on domestic security and his refusal to provide effective protection for America's ports and chemical plants. As Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic: "Bush's record on homeland security ought to be considered a scandal. Yet, not only is it not a scandal, it's not even a story."
But Mr. Kerry raised the issue, describing how the administration has failed to protect us against terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush's response? "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises."
Oh, yes we do. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Mr. Bush's tax cuts, with their strong tilt toward the wealthy, are responsible for more than $270 billion of the 2004 budget deficit. Increased spending on homeland security accounts for only $20 billion. That shows the true priorities of the self-proclaimed "war president." Later, Mr. Bush, perhaps realizing his mistake, asserted, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." But he had already conceded that he isn't.
It's also not clear whether voters have noticed the collapse of Mr. Bush's cover story for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. In Coral Gables, Mr. Bush asserted that when Mr. Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam, he "looked at the same intelligence I looked at." But as The Times confirmed last weekend, the Bush administration suppressed intelligence that might have raised doubts in Congress.
The case for war rested crucially on one piece of evidence: Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes that, according to Condoleezza Rice, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But the truth, never revealed to Congress, was that most of the government's experts considered the tubes unsuited for a nuclear program and identical to the tubes used by Iraq for other purposes. Yes, Virginia, we were misled into war.
Now it's Dick Cheney's turn.
Mr. Cheney's manufactured image is as much at odds with reality as Mr. Bush's. The vice president is portrayed as a hardheaded realist, someone you can trust with difficult decisions. But his actual record is one of irresponsibility and incompetence.
Case in point: Mr. Cheney completely misread the nature of the 2001 California energy crisis. Although he has stonewalled investigations into what went on in his task force, there's no real question that he placed his trust in the very companies whose market-rigging caused that crisis.
In tonight's debate, John Edwards will surely confront Mr. Cheney over that task force, over domestic policies and, of course, over Halliburton. But he can also use the occasion to ask more hard questions about national security.
After all, Mr. Cheney didn't just promise Americans that "we will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators" by the grateful Iraqis. He also played a central role in leading us to war on false pretenses.
No, that's not an overstatement. In August 2002, when Mr. Cheney declared "we now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he was being dishonest: the administration knew no such thing. He was also being irresponsible: his speech pre-empted an intelligence review that might have given dissenting experts a chance to make their case.
So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush.
"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Ok, so now after hangin wit me boys.....I'm shocked about 2 things.....
Fox (and I should have done this on the "Fox News" Thread.) is rebroadcasting the debate on the Fox news channel and 2.) Bush actually did pretty good even if he did have an ear piece/wireless.....thingie talking into his ear.
You know something......that really sucks.
This was a good debate.
Fox (and I should have done this on the "Fox News" Thread.) is rebroadcasting the debate on the Fox news channel and 2.) Bush actually did pretty good even if he did have an ear piece/wireless.....thingie talking into his ear.
You know something......that really sucks.
This was a good debate.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
buckethead alien
- Posts: 2456
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 8:07 am
- Burning Since: 1997
- Location: Wrong Island
With that said I offer the following quote:buckethead alien wrote: If it's the latter, then Bush probably got more out of last night than Kerry did by playing up the fear-daddy factor.
"I'm forty-seven. Forty-seven years old. You know how I stayed alive this long? Fear. Fearsome acts. A man steals from me, I cut off his hand. If he lies to me, I cut out his tongue. If he stands up against me, I cut off his head, stick it on a pike and lift it up for all to see. A spectacle of fearsome acts. That's what maintains the order of things. Fear."
-- William 'Bill the Butcher' Cutting
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
I'll go with dork on this. Ya Bush seemed more aggressive, but the aggression was backed up by empty words and hot button phrases out of the republican speech writers handbook. Does working class America actually believe Bush is gonna do something helpful for them???? what a fuckin delusion...Dork wrote:I'm watching CNN's post-debate discussion and they keep talking about how much more aggressive Bush is and how much better he's doing. He came across as defensive to me.
The one thing that stuck out for me - Bush vows that he will not appoint a pro-slavery supreme court justice. Good for him.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
I thought I would choke (on my own prescription meds) when I heard him say that he didn't want drugs shipped from Canada to kill us....as if the Canadians are all a bunch of lawless/criminal would-be malefactors determined to rip us off/kill us. Not that I've never mistated something myself but sheeesh. I felt 
for him and for us.
This is just another example of thr FEAR thing...
for him and for us. This is just another example of thr FEAR thing...
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Same here. And I was watching it with my friend visiting from Canada.birdbrain wrote:I thought I would choke (on my own prescription meds) when I heard him say that he didn't want drugs shipped from Canada to kill us....as if the Canadians are all a bunch of lawless/criminal would-be malefactors determined to rip us off/kill us. Not that I've never mistated something myself but sheeesh. I felt
This is just another example of thr FEAR thing...
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
Making the upcoming stolen election look legitimate?buckethead alien wrote:No TV here, but we listened on the radio. Bush certainly did a better job than in the first one. What's the point of debates anyway?
Bingo. Is anyone keeping score? What has the B.A. promised us besides protection from the insecurity they helped create?buckethead alien wrote:Undecided voters? Pumping turn-out? If it's the latter, then Bush probably got more out of last night than Kerry did by playing up the fear-daddy factor.
And why would anyone with half a brain expect them to deliver on it given the track record?
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Mister Jellyfish Mister
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:02 pm
- Location: Sparks, Nevada
- Contact:
What's is name
Art Bell did a good interview with the liberitarian candidate, what's is name, last night. I was shocked that he and the green party guy were not only barred, but arrested from the debate! I agreed with Art that the whole thing was heavily scripted and rehearsed.
Say what you like about Ross Perot, at least he mixed things up! Now, show me some charts and graphs...
Say what you like about Ross Perot, at least he mixed things up! Now, show me some charts and graphs...
Art cred: Georgie Boy 2011: www.mutantvehicle.com/georgie_boy.htm ; Ein Hammer 2010; Fluffer 2009; Zsu Zsu 2008; U-Me 2007; Mantis 2006; MiniMan and Pikes Of Paranoia 2005; Time Machine Mutant Vehicle 2004. www.MutantVehicle.com
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
as opposed to the Talban's stooge? or Hussien's stooge...stuart wrote:sure about that? didn't the CIA stooge win?Free Elections in Afghanistan...
and how about acknowledging women's right to vote among other rights achieved through NATO/US actions?
and now something a stooge might say....
''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
Senator John Kerry
sorry folks... but i believe terrorism is a wee bit more than a nuisance... of course, i only have 10+ years of anti-terrorism training, so what do i know, eh?
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact:
stuart, were you alluding to this news article?
Saudi Women Can't Vote, Run in Elections
By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Women may neither vote nor run in Saudi Arabia's first nationwide elections, the government announced Monday, dashing hopes of progressive Saudis and easing fears among conservatives that the kingdom is moving too fast on reforms.
Some women considered the move yet another indignity in a country where they need their husbands' permission to study, travel or work. But others said they wouldn't trust themselves to judge whether a candidate is more than just a handsome face.
The religious establishment had been lobbying against women's participation in the elections, diplomats said.
But an electoral official cited administrative and logistical reasons Monday for the decision to ban women from the municipal elections, scheduled to be held in three stages from Feb. 10 to April 21.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there are not enough women to run women's-only registration centers and polling stations, and that only a fraction of the country's women have the photo identity cards that would have been needed to vote.
Many women in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, have balked at getting the ID cards — introduced three years ago — because the photographs would show their faces unveiled.
Saudi women have limited freedoms. Without written permission from a male guardian, they may not travel, get an education or work. Regardless of permissions, they are not allowed to drive, mix with men in public or leave home without covering themselves with black cloaks, called abayas.
The decision was first announced by Interior Minister Prince Nayef in an interview published Monday. In his terse comment to a Kuwaiti newspaper, Nayef said only: "I don't think that women's participation is possible."
His remark was the first by a named top official on the issue. It settled a question that had been occupying Saudis since the government set the date for the elections in August. When the election law was published, it did not explicitly bar women from voting, which encouraged three women to declare themselves candidates.
"I am surprised," said Nadia Bakhurji, 37, the first woman to announce she planned to run. "I was optimistic and didn't think they would ban it."
Bakhurji said she hoped Nayef and the elections committee would "rethink their decision" and show transparency by saying why women have been banned.
She said that would give women the chance to "work hand-in-hand with them to solve these problems in time for elections," said Bakhurji, an architect and a mother of two.
"My concern is if they don't bring us on board now, we will be fighting for something that should be a given right," she said.
Not all Saudi women agreed. Taking a break from shopping at the food court of a Riyadh mall, Nour Ahmed and her five female friends split evenly on the issue.
"Women are capable of voting and making the right choices," said Ahmed, a 22-year-old marketing graduate. "Why aren't men and women equal in this issue?"
"We aren't," countered her friend Sarah Muhammad. "We have so little interaction with men that we will vote with our emotions, choosing candidates for their looks and sweet talk rather than for what they can deliver."
Rima Khaled, 20, said Saudi women are not used to playing a role in public life, and many social and traditional restraints should first be removed before they can.
"What's the point of voting?" she asked. "Even if we did vote, we would go home to the men in our lives who will have the last say in whatever we do."
Saudi Arabia's only electoral experiences were some municipal polls held in a few cities in the 1960s. They did not cover the whole country, and their electoral rules and registration procedures did not conform to international standards. Women did not vote.
Registration for the new elections begins in November. Voting will start Feb. 10 around the capital, Riyadh. Voting in the eastern and southwestern regions will follow, starting March 3. Voters in northern parts of the country will go to the polls April 21.
The elections are part of the government's measured response to calls for political and social change. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with an unelected Consultative Council, which acts like a parliament. Political parties are banned and press freedoms are limited.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States spurred calls for the Saudi royal family to modernize the country's political landscape. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers involved in Sept. 11 were Saudis.
Saudi Women Can't Vote, Run in Elections
By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Women may neither vote nor run in Saudi Arabia's first nationwide elections, the government announced Monday, dashing hopes of progressive Saudis and easing fears among conservatives that the kingdom is moving too fast on reforms.
Some women considered the move yet another indignity in a country where they need their husbands' permission to study, travel or work. But others said they wouldn't trust themselves to judge whether a candidate is more than just a handsome face.
The religious establishment had been lobbying against women's participation in the elections, diplomats said.
But an electoral official cited administrative and logistical reasons Monday for the decision to ban women from the municipal elections, scheduled to be held in three stages from Feb. 10 to April 21.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there are not enough women to run women's-only registration centers and polling stations, and that only a fraction of the country's women have the photo identity cards that would have been needed to vote.
Many women in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, have balked at getting the ID cards — introduced three years ago — because the photographs would show their faces unveiled.
Saudi women have limited freedoms. Without written permission from a male guardian, they may not travel, get an education or work. Regardless of permissions, they are not allowed to drive, mix with men in public or leave home without covering themselves with black cloaks, called abayas.
The decision was first announced by Interior Minister Prince Nayef in an interview published Monday. In his terse comment to a Kuwaiti newspaper, Nayef said only: "I don't think that women's participation is possible."
His remark was the first by a named top official on the issue. It settled a question that had been occupying Saudis since the government set the date for the elections in August. When the election law was published, it did not explicitly bar women from voting, which encouraged three women to declare themselves candidates.
"I am surprised," said Nadia Bakhurji, 37, the first woman to announce she planned to run. "I was optimistic and didn't think they would ban it."
Bakhurji said she hoped Nayef and the elections committee would "rethink their decision" and show transparency by saying why women have been banned.
She said that would give women the chance to "work hand-in-hand with them to solve these problems in time for elections," said Bakhurji, an architect and a mother of two.
"My concern is if they don't bring us on board now, we will be fighting for something that should be a given right," she said.
Not all Saudi women agreed. Taking a break from shopping at the food court of a Riyadh mall, Nour Ahmed and her five female friends split evenly on the issue.
"Women are capable of voting and making the right choices," said Ahmed, a 22-year-old marketing graduate. "Why aren't men and women equal in this issue?"
"We aren't," countered her friend Sarah Muhammad. "We have so little interaction with men that we will vote with our emotions, choosing candidates for their looks and sweet talk rather than for what they can deliver."
Rima Khaled, 20, said Saudi women are not used to playing a role in public life, and many social and traditional restraints should first be removed before they can.
"What's the point of voting?" she asked. "Even if we did vote, we would go home to the men in our lives who will have the last say in whatever we do."
Saudi Arabia's only electoral experiences were some municipal polls held in a few cities in the 1960s. They did not cover the whole country, and their electoral rules and registration procedures did not conform to international standards. Women did not vote.
Registration for the new elections begins in November. Voting will start Feb. 10 around the capital, Riyadh. Voting in the eastern and southwestern regions will follow, starting March 3. Voters in northern parts of the country will go to the polls April 21.
The elections are part of the government's measured response to calls for political and social change. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with an unelected Consultative Council, which acts like a parliament. Political parties are banned and press freedoms are limited.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States spurred calls for the Saudi royal family to modernize the country's political landscape. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers involved in Sept. 11 were Saudis.
-
Simply Joel
- Posts: 3483
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 9:08 am
- Location: Land of Lincoln
- Contact: