Bush or Kerry

[McHale]

oh crap. I just read that someone thinks Michael Moore is insightful! Man, check out the numerous websites that debunk his movies. He's a dopey zero that manipulates facts to put forth an agenda. Next I'm gonna hear that Barbara Streisand and one of the Baldwin's are dignitaries!

It is by the very definition of freedom that a whole society chose to disallow certain froms of Nazi-Greetings and or activities, particulary the so called Hitler-Gruss.

If you don't have the feedom to say whatever you want in public, you don't have true freedom of speech. Here in America, you can hold a sign that calls Bush a baby killer *AND* Hitler. You don't go to jail. You don't even get beat up. You are seen as the nut that you are and that's it. How many other countries allow you to complain about the government, your leaders, and allow you to burn your own flag?

As for patrioism, personally I do not have that at all, I am a human being in the first hand, and by pure coincidence I was born in germany

Not to be a jerk, but maybe you don't have patriotism because you have nothing to be patriotic about. Germany isn't the land of opportunity. They will always have the reputation they aquired from WWII. Regardless of how beautiful Germany is and how friendly everyone is there, I wouldn't consider moving there. When you were in school and at a sporting event. Did you vote for both teams?

It is a fact, obvious to all, that America have lended a helping hand to the most needing nations; if it was in USA's best interest.

This may be the dumbest statement in this thread. Under Bush, the USA has contributed more towards AIDS research and prevention than any other country ever has. After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we could have secured our borders and retaliated, but we didn't. We joined our allies to win the war. What would we have gained had we won Vietnam? When the Russian sub imploded under the Ocean, why did America help retrieve the sub? Would we have gotten something out of that? France, Germany, and Russia have NEVER gone out of their way to help any other country unless they were ready to invade them. Man, the list goes on and on where we have helped with nothing to gain.

Most non-Americans hate America (but strangely enough want to be just like Americans through clothes, music, sports, etc). That's fine. That's how jealousy works. And those Americans who hate America are living in a real tiny world where they fail to see the big picture. They're always free to move away but they don't. I wish they would.

The job of the American president is not to subscribe to the theory of globalism. His job is to do what's best for America. And everyone's lucky it's someone like Bush. After 9/11, the rest of the country wanted to nuke every country with the possibility of harboring terrorists. I'm still at the top of that list. If I had my way, I'd close the borders, let France defend themselves from now on, force every nation to pay their debts back to us one way or another (which would more than cover what we owe the UN), and just sit and watch the mayhem. Of course, England gets a pass. They are the one nation who helped when they could help.

-Mc

[Odinmoon]

Americans through clothes, music, sports, etc).

Sorry I don't play baseball. I don't wear a baseball cap. Most of the music I listen to comes from Europe. And my clothes are designed and made in Australia. Matter of fact the only thing I get from America is fox news. Yuck. As for aides research. we do our own. And by the way if it wasn't for Australia you would not of landed your men from the moon safely. So if you would like to close off your borders. Well all I can say is goodluck.

[rob]

After 9/11, the rest of the country wanted to nuke every country with the possibility of harboring terrorists. I'm still at the top of that list. If I had my way, I'd close the borders,

Now that is the kind of statement that fuels anti-American sentiment. And it is this kind of "mentality" that Bush preys on and uses fear to further his own agenda. It's the new cold war.

Of course, England gets a pass. They are the one nation who helped when they could help.
-Mc

It's more than just England by the way.

[sewa]

Here in America, you can hold a sign that calls Bush a baby killer *AND* Hitler. You don't go to jail. You don't even get beat up. -Mc

Interesting... then how do you explain this?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 40MB81.DTL

[chinard]

oh crap. I just read that someone thinks Michael Moore is insightful! Man, check out the numerous websites that debunk his movies. He's a dopey zero that manipulates facts to put forth an agenda.

Dude, there's also websites that also try to prove that the holocaust never happened. Just because you read it somewhere doesnt make it true.

I take M. Moore with a grain of salt, but there is a huge chunk of what he presents that is not editorialy biased.
Take for example that scene where bush just sits there reading "my pet goat" for 7 mins after he is informed that the nation is under attack. That wasnt moore making stuff up, that was actual news footage.

Kerry is no pick either but at least he's not bush. A ham sandwich could be running against bush, and i'd still vote for the ham sandwich.


"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor

[cnegrad]

Just because you read it somewhere doesnt make it true. I take M. Moore with a grain of salt, but there is a huge chunk of what he presents that is not editorialy biased.

If your point is that you shouldn't believe anything unless you have proof that it's true, why do you believe Michael Moore? He's just another manipulative person in the media, just like CNN & Fox. Of course it's helpful that Moore's movie promotes your beliefs, true? And of course the stuff that Moore unequivically got busted on is the part that you "take with a grain of salt", right? The rest is the part that you claim "is not editorialy biased." Yeah, right. If you're really going to be intellectually honest, you've got to completely disregard ALL the content of someone who's got an obvious agenda. You can't just pick and choose what to believe as it suits you, whether we're talking about Moore, Limbaugh, Carville or Hannity. (Unless of course YOU have an agenda too, but then I'd have to disregard your "facts" too.)

bush just sits there reading "my pet goat" for 7 mins after he is informed that the nation is under attack.

So what? He didn't want to start the whole school panicking, that's all. What's important is how he's responded to the 9/11 tragedy, unlike Kerry; who'll go to his precious United Nations asking for permission to open negotiations with the enemy.

A ham sandwich could be running against bush, and i'd still vote for the ham sandwich.

Of course you have no stake in this election and suffer no consequences, as you're not an American. So if Kerry's anti-military stance results in the United States getting attacked, what do you care? Of course, the moment terrorism hits your country, Canada will be asking for our support and we'll be there for you....

[chinard]

If your point is that you shouldn't believe anything unless you have proof that it's true, why do you believe Michael Moore? He's just another manipulative person in the media, just like CNN & Fox. Of course it's helpful that Moore's movie promotes your beliefs, true? And of course the stuff that Moore unequivically got busted on is the part that you "take with a grain of salt", right? The rest is the part that you claim "is not editorialy biased." Yeah, right. If you're really going to be intellectually honest, you've got to completely disregard ALL the content of someone who's got an obvious agenda. You can't just pick and choose what to believe as it suits you, whether we're talking about Moore, Limbaugh, Carville or Hannity. (Unless of course YOU have an agenda too, but then I'd have to disregard your "facts" too.)

My only position is that everybody on all sides is distorting facts for their own ajenda. I present no "facts" here, but i can spot BS from a mile away
and i have to ask myself who seems to be lying less.

I wouldnt consider myself a moore fanboy but i do appreciate his position in being the devils advocate here. Certain questions need to be raised about the damage the current administration is doing to the U.S. and the rest of the world.

So what? He didn't want to start the whole school panicking, that's all. What's important is how he's responded to the 9/11 tragedy, unlike Kerry; who'll go to his precious United Nations asking for permission to open negotiations with the enemy.

Now this i have a problem with.
When a president goes against the decisions of the untited nations and invades another country, doesnt that make him a tyrant?
The united nations is supposed to be the "sanity check" to make sure that we dont go blindly attacking other countrys when it might not be warranted.
Such is the case here with iraq.
They did not attack the US, there is no evidence that they were behind 9/11, they are not al-queda, they dont even LIKE al-queda, and there were no WMD's. The joker is not the riddler!
Hussein is a completely different type of villan here.
Bin laden? kill the bastard, but at least get the right guy! HE's still at large, and al-queda has had 2 years to regroup while we spun our wheels in vein in iraq.

Of course you have no stake in this election and suffer no consequences, as you're not an American. So if Kerry's anti-military stance results in the United States getting attacked, what do you care? Of course, the moment terrorism hits your country, Canada will be asking for our support and we'll be there for you....

But there is where you are wrong, Canada Military is directly joined to US military. We're neighbours. Where you send soldiers to die, our soldiers have to also go to die.
And dont give me this stance that kerry would mean we'd be attacked. That is just campaign hype.

In regards to the poll. I hit none of the above. None of them are fit to lead.

[londonlad]

[cnegrad]

They should call it Brainwashing. I'm frankly amazed at how strongly those of you in other countires feel about this election.

[Morbius]

With all due respect, Cnegrad...to my knowledge the US has not paid their membership-fee's at all. I could of course be mistaken, but that's what we get to know on this side of the puddle.
Now, how long would you be considered a member of a club, when you didn't pay any fee's?

Hi Wings! And with all due respect back at ya, and just for the record:

This from Sept 9th government report on U. N.

U.S. Financial Contributions to the UN

The United States is the largest financial contributor to the UN and has been every year since its creation in 1945. We provided more than $3 billion in contributions, both cash and in-kind, to the UN system in 2002. (In-kind contributions include items such as food donations for the World Food Program). The United States funded 22 percent of the UN regular budget, as well as more than 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Additionally, the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities, mostly for humanitarian and development programs.

The United States is a generous supporter of key UN programs, funding:
* 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries.*
* 17.1% of the United Nations Children’s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 162 countries.*
* 14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate poverty and encourage democratic governance.*
* 25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use of nuclear material for weapons.**
* 22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to improve standards of health.**
* 25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in another country.*
* 25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure safe, efficient and economical air travel.**
* These programs operate strictly on voluntary contributions.
** These programs operate on a combination of assessed and voluntary contributions.

And yes, the U.S. IS CURRENTLY in arrears in payments, but keep in mind that MANY 'member' countries are, too.......AND the U. S. is footing 22 to 25% of the U.N. TOTAL operating budget.

Just fyi for you all....



Morbius

[londonlad]

They should call it Brainwashing. I'm frankly amazed at how strongly those of you in other countires feel about this election.

What you mean those of us in other countries who have soliders sent off getting blown up in far flung places in the name of a 'War on terror'?

Or perhaps those of us in other countries who are now living in a hugely more dangerous climate due to Bush and his administration.

It would be better for the whole world to get someone who has half a brain as US president,.
He's nothing but a thick as pigs*it cowboy wannabe flag waver.

[cnegrad]

i have to ask myself who seems to be lying less.

Fair enough, but you're not addresing Kerry's positions at all. Is that because you feel that he's equally wrong for the job as Bush? If not, please tell me anything you know about Kerry that you consider to be a truthful position worth considering, other than, "he's not Bush".

Now this i have a problem with. When a president goes against the decisions of the untited nations and invades another country, doesnt that make him a tyrant? The united nations is supposed to be the "sanity check" to make sure that we dont go blindly attacking other countrys when it might not be warranted.

Under ideal circumstances, I could see your point. But the key words in your statement are "supposed to be". The UN is supposed to be unbiased and free of corruption and it's not. Well the UN is no longer what it's supposed to be, and as such cannot be allowed to dictate our foreign policy. The UN must find a way to purge itself of it's corruption before it can ever be trusted again.

Such is the case here with iraq. They did not attack the US, there is no evidence that they were behind 9/11, they are not al-queda, they dont even LIKE al-queda

The Iraq war is a separate but related issue from Bin Ladin. The Iraq war was a pre-emptive strike against a dictator that had WMD capability and according to foreign intelligence was in fact preparing WMD's. Since 9/11 the US has been willing to take pre-emptive action against terrorism. I realize that this is a very controversial stance, but it exists nonetheless. Why Bush gave Hussien so much lead time to get rid of the WMD's I've never understood. I suppose it was to allow the UN sanctions to prove themselves impotent yet again. Weren't there something like 16 separate UN sanctions against Hussien over many years that were never enforced by the UN? (Forgive me if I got the number wrong.) Why didn't the United Nations DO SOMETHING? How many sanctions does a dictator have to ignore before the United Nations DOES SOMETHING? Remember that this is post 9/11 and we can easily see what apathy to terrorism can do. It was time to act pre-emptively. We sought international approval. and we got it from a large number of countries. While we didn't have UN approval, we didn't act unilaterally either. And despite your arguments to the contrary, there were supposedly financial links between Hussein & Al Queda. Of course neither you nor I were there to know for sure, so we'll never know for sure, will we?

al-queda has had 2 years to regroup while we spun our wheels in vein in iraq.

How so? Why are you assuming that because we've been involved in Iraq that we've stopped looking for Bin Ladin? And I share your fear that Al Queda will regroup, but I fear that it will be Kerry's pro-UN, anti-military stance that will allow it to happen.

But there is where you are wrong, Canada Military is directly joined to US military. We're neighbours. Where you send soldiers to die, our soldiers have to also go to die.

I was unaware of this. And frankly I don't understand it either. Why is this the case?

And dont give me this stance that kerry would mean we'd be attacked. That is just campaign hype.

Kerry's election would not necessarily mean that we'd definitely be attacked. But his stance on the UN and foreign policy show an apathy that would certainly leave us open to attack.

In regards to the poll. I hit none of the above.

This isn't an option for me. Better the candidate I know than the one I don't.

[cnegrad]

londondad,

What you mean those of us in other countries who have soliders sent off getting blown up in far flung places in the name of a 'War on terror'?

If you don't agree with US policies and don't want your country to align itself with ours, your recourse exists within your own electoral system; not ours.

Or perhaps those of us in other countries who are now living in a hugely more dangerous climate due to Bush and his administration.

I confess that I know little or nothing about your country's response to terrorism. But do I recall correctly that not too long ago you were on the receiving end of terrorism both from the IRA and other sources? How does your country deal with terrorism? I ask this not to challenge you, but to gain information. What is your country's answer to terrorism? My greatest fear is that the world will end up in a situation as fragile as that in Israel; where one can't even expect to get back from the pizza shop in one piece.

[chinard]

Fair enough, but you're not addresing Kerry's positions at all. Is that because you feel that he's equally wrong for the job as Bush? If not, please tell me anything you know about Kerry that you consider to be a truthful position worth considering, other than, "he's not Bush".

But i never said i supported Kerry either. From what i can see he doesnt stand for anything at all except that he is "not bush" and thats a position that unfortunately might cost him this election.
I still cant get past the fact that he looks like Squidward from Spongebob Squarepants.
I do however kinda feel sorry for him for being at the recieving end of an extremely dirty campaign. Hell, i've seen new york elections that were more civilized.

Under ideal circumstances, I could see your point. But the key words in your statement are "supposed to be". The UN is supposed to be unbiased and free of corruption and it's not. Well the UN is no longer what it's supposed to be, and as such cannot be allowed to dictate our foreign policy. The UN must find a way to purge itself of it's corruption before it can ever be trusted again.

Gotta disagree there.
The entire point of having groups like this is completely lost the minute you go above it because it doesnt agree with your agenda.
Its not a matter of ideals, its a matter of principles.

al-queda has had 2 years to regroup while we spun our wheels in vein in iraq.

How so? Why are you assuming that because we've been involved in Iraq that we've stopped looking for Bin Ladin? And I share your fear that Al Queda will regroup, but I fear that it will be Kerry's pro-UN, anti-military stance that will allow it to happen.

But they did stop looking for bin laden. I've even heard bush say he's "not concerned" with bin laden's whereabouts in interviews.
My point was iraq was not a threat. They were bluffing, and even the U.N. arms inspector that finally got in there didnt find sqat!
But that wasnt the answer that bush was looking for so he decided to invade anyways.

Korea.. now that is more of a threat. I just read today that there was a mushroom cloud sighted from what they suspect might be nuclear testing.
Of course there is no oil in korea, so who cares, right?

But there is where you are wrong, Canada Military is directly joined to US military. We're neighbours. Where you send soldiers to die, our soldiers have to also go to die.

I was unaware of this. And frankly I don't understand it either. Why is this the case?

Quite simple. Canada is a nation that is very loyal to our allies.
The US is our big brother and we are obligated to fight along side the US even when we do not agree with the cause.
They dont call us america jr. for nothing

[londonlad]

If you don't agree with US policies and don't want your country to align itself with ours, your recourse exists within your own electoral system; not ours.

The thing is, no it doesn't.
Believe me people in this country are very unhappy at the constant siding with the US. But the current opposition to the government (The Conservatives) would be even worse.

I confess that I know little or nothing about your country's response to terrorism. But do I recall correctly that not too long ago you were on the receiving end of terrorism both from the IRA and other sources? How does your country deal with terrorism? I ask this not to challenge you, but to gain information. What is your country's answer to terrorism?

Well, we certainly didn't go and bomb it!!
Things are pretty peaceful now, dialogue was the winning formula.
I appreciate that cances of 'talks' with Osama would be pretty remote, but I'm not sure the same could have been said for Iraq.
Iraq offered no threat to America, or anyone else for that matter. Bush had to flex some muscles after 9/11 and Iraq was an easy target.
No one could get in or out of Iraq without the US and the UK knowing about it, so how was Saddam supposed to have used Nuclear Bombs against anyone?
At the height of conflict during this war, I saw an interview with a General (a General!!) of the US army. When asked how his troops felt about up rooting to fight in a far off place he said "well, after 9/11 we all feel like we have a duty to America, we're just trying to get back the bad guy"
This perfectly highlights the confusion over the war, the was a General for goodness sake!!

You mention Israel, and that is a perfect analogy.
Palestinian suicide bomber - Israel bombs a town.
Palestine uses more force next time - Israel retaliates with worse bombing
etc etc on and on, over and over, escalating.

US bombs Muslim country - Muslims crash planes into Twin Towers.
US Bombs to a greater degree Muslim country - Muslims go mad left right and centre, Spain, Russia, France. UK will be next I am sure. They'll get back round to the US too, mark my words.

All Bush's War on terror has done is pour petrol onto the flames.