I knew this campaign would get ugly...

**Dexter Rutecki** · 09-09-2004, 04:50 PM

In that case, I would argue Clinton didn't know he had just gotten a blow job. He just thought he'd had another very realistic dream about a young fat chick.

**freshies** · 09-09-2004, 04:50 PM

either way, these actions are the REAL impeachable offenses....not lying about gettign a BJ

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 04:58 PM

Really? You guys have no morals huh. How do your wives/girlfriends feel about that?

**freshies** · 09-09-2004, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Really? You guys have no morals huh. How do your wives/girlfriends feel about that?

1080, I am not saying what Clinton did was OK, but in the context of lying about a BJ vs lying to Congress and the American people to launch a war that had been planned by the neo-cons all along, and then using 9/11 as a pretext for their war, and to date having the blood of 1000 American soliders on your hands.....come on. If anything warrants an impeachment hearing, its what GWB has done.........

**TomK** · 09-09-2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Idris
I know this is not realy my place, but from the outside looking in it's getting kind of scary...

if it was my place to choose however the veiw is very scary, from a european perspective you have the choice of an Unknow Quantity wanting to do good but wavering a little(JFK), or a very scary so far right wing its not even funny (JB)...

Idris, your perspective is illuminating and appreciated as an outwide view. It's good to see ourselves through a different set of perception filters.

Personally I think the US is in a very scary place also.
I see too many echos of 1925-1940 and the rise of totalitarianism in all it's various guises in our own government to be comfortable with the status quo. Pre-emptive actions end up being a stupid move, no matter how "justified" they may seem.
Santayana & Ben Franklin were NOT stupid idiots (as much as many people in power would like us to believe).

The problem as I see it is that as bad as Bush & Co are on the right, Kerry & Co are hoping to be on the left, but at least it'll take another 4 years of pendulum swinging the other way so I'm leaning towards "throw the bums out".

In a utopian moment, I've often wanted a "none of the above" option on a ballot where if "none of the above" wins, none of those candidates can re-run for that office ever again. That would send a clear message to the politicians, but that's the last thing they want.
Unfortunatly, that's not an option we have, so we'll end up with one extreme or the other instead of a government close to the middle.
I'd also like to have a "chinese menu" option. I'd like this and that from the Republican platform, and that and this from the Democratic platform, and a few sprinkles of something else from the fringe parties like the Libertarians. Unfortunately, we dont get that choice either, so folks tend to vote for the core issue that pushes their biggest button and hope for the rest to work it's way out.

Anyway, I'm off for a bike ride and some reading to relax.
Snow's a-coming in a few months, the autumnal rains have started here in the PNWet.

**Buster Highmen** · 09-09-2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Really? You guys have no morals huh. How do your wives/girlfriends feel about that?

My wife thinks it's ridiculous that it got as much poilitical attention as it did. She thought it was a private matter to be settled in their family.
But the moral innuendo is just stupid.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 09-09-2004, 05:14 PM

My wife doesn't want me hanging around with Monica Lewinsky, but says it's OK if I misrepresent a casus belli.

**tuffy109** · 09-09-2004, 05:15 PM

JFK cheated on his wife plenty of times. we just didn't have people (the media) prying into every aspect of the president's lives back then.

**mr_gyptian** · 09-09-2004, 05:22 PM

Buster, out of curiosity did moveon dot org put a Nazi quotes in a pinch hyperlink up?

"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us"

Here is the quote in its entirety. Cheney is blatantly saying he does not want a future terrorist attack to be retaliated against with a law enforcement action. Sending the FBI to Yemen to hang out in the US Embassy to be placated by the Yemeni government is not going to work, it did not in the past. Part of the Bush Doctrine is that terrorist acts are to be treated as acts of war.

Taking Kerry's acceptance speech as it were you can rightfully assume he will use a law enforcement approach(a proven failure). He will wait until we are attacked(an attack made easier by the aforementioned law enforcement approach) to fight back. Thirdly he will wait until such, heh, world powers as Russia, France, and Germany say we can fund, staff, and lastly(most importantly) fight whatever war wherever it may be.

Speaking of that if I was an Ayatollah in Iran right now I'd have my real estate agent check out some spider holes for me.

That's where we're going next, right?? I mean, Bush can atleast spell Iran.

**Buster Highmen** · 09-09-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
Buster, out of curiosity did moveon dot org put a Nazi quotes in a pinch hyperlink up?

No. They have a hard time keeping up with you.

"Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us"

Here is the quote in its entirety. Cheney is blatantly saying he does not want a future terrorist attack to be retaliated against with a law enforcement action. Sending the FBI to Yemen to hang out in the US Embassy to be placated by the Yemeni government is not going to work, it did not in the past. Part of the Bush Doctrine is that terrorist acts are to be treated as acts of war.

Taking Kerry's acceptance speech as it were you can rightfully assume he will use a law enforcement approach(a proven failure). He will wait until we are attacked(an attack made easier by the aforementioned law enforcement approach) to fight back. Thirdly he will wait until such, heh, world powers as Russia, France, and Germany say we can fund, staff, and lastly(most importantly) fight whatever war wherever it may be.

Speaking of that if I was an Ayatollah in Iran right now I'd have my real estate agent check out some spider holes for me.

That's where we're going next, right?? I mean, Bush can atleast spell Iran.

Again, you're ignoring the published platform. It says there that he won't wait until we're attacked with regard to terrorist groups.

But then again, you'll "rightfully assume" anything that supports your loony agenda.

The original point of the post was to illustrate how absolutely desperate Cheney is to discredit Kerry. Thanks for contributing to the evidence that you are anxiously attempting to do the same.

**DaveTV** · 09-09-2004, 05:40 PM

Speaking of that if I was an Ayatollah in Iran right now I'd have my real estate agent check out some spider holes for me.

So when you join the Army, MrG, you can give us trip-reports from IRAN - the TENTH MOUNTAIN DIVISION is looking for skiers..

- Or maybe you're a chickenhawk like your hero..?
http://irregularoo.com/chw.gif

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 05:53 PM

Dave, that sticker thingy is pretty funny.

**Plakespear** · 09-09-2004, 06:09 PM

Just FYI- if the VP dies, resigns, quits, etc., the Speaker does not become the VP. The Speaker only becomes the President if the Prez and VP both leave office at the same time. Otherwise, the President nominates or appoints a new VP (not sure if this requires congressional approval or not). Nixon chose Ford after Agnew left- Ford was not the speaker.

A commentary on voting for Nader, or any other 3rd party canidate:

I'm guessing that AK generally votes Republican. NY generally votes Democrat. In 2000, I was living in NY, and voted for NAder. Why? I knew Gore would carry NY, and was hoping that my vote would help Nader get 5% so the Greens would qualify for Federal Election money.

Would I have voted Nader if I lived in Florida? Probably not. I live in a swing state now, and will not be voting for Nader.

However, Rusty's one vote, in a state where the outcome is already known, is important. If enough people in the non-swing states vote for 3rd party canidates, it will show the two major parties that the people are getting upset with their bullshit. It's not about winning elections, it's about sending a message.

**divegirl** · 09-09-2004, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Plakespear
However, Rusty's one vote, in a state where the outcome is already known, is important. If enough people in the non-swing states vote for 3rd party canidates, it will show the two major parties that the people are getting upset with their bullshit. It's not about winning elections, it's about sending a message.

Plake, I respect your opinion, (and didn't read the last few pages of this thread...) however I don't know if "sending a message" is more important at this point than voting either Republican/Demo. Even though I'm registered Green Party, and think Nader a wonderful candidate, there is no way in hell I'm voting for him. The point is to get Bush out of office, not send a message about being fed up with both parties bullshit. Would a bunch of people voting green, only to split the Demo/Green divide, send more of a message than having Bush back in office? Any other election I may vote green, but in this particular case, that's not going to send any message if Bush and his cronies are back in office. They'll laugh all over the Green Party. Vote Kerry!

**shamrockpow** · 09-09-2004, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by divegirl
Plake, I respect your opinion, (and didn't read the last few pages of this thread...) however I don't know if "sending a message" is more important at this point than voting either Republican/Demo. Even though I'm registered Green Party, and think Nader a wonderful candidate, there is no way in hell I'm voting for him. The point is to get Bush out of office, not send a message about being fed up with both parties bullshit. Would a bunch of people voting green, only to split the Demo/Green divide, send more of a message than having Bush back in office? Any other election I may vote green, but in this particular case, that's not going to send any message if Bush and his cronies are back in office. They'll laugh all over the Green Party. Vote Kerry!

I can understand the "Non-swing state" arguement 100%. I even did a vote trade with my buddy in NH in 2000. The thing I'm really scared about this year is that the election becomes a mess the day after and ends up in the courts again. Somehow, even though it's not provided for in the constitution they give it to Bush based on his big win in the popular vote. Likely to happen? No. But certainly possible when you reflect on the blatant partisanship shown by the court (both sides) in 2000.

**yogachik** · 09-09-2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Really? You guys have no morals huh. How do your wives/girlfriends feel about that?

No one died when Clinton got that blow job and lied about. 1,000 men and women have died (with more everyday) because Bush/Cheney lied. You really want to get into a discussion on MORALITY? Give me a break.

**Will** · 09-09-2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by Idris
again from the outside looking in.....this is what is seen by many of how news organizations stack up

CNN - Plain and simple right wing news media

THREAD HIJACK!

- Quick question, do you get "CNN International" or regular (American) CNN?

In my mind, the difference between CNN International and CNN USA is equal to the difference between CNN USA and Fox.

Regular CNN (what Americans see unless they have fancy cable or are in yurp) doesn't so much trend "right" in my mind. It trends dumb. It trends towards sensationalism, celebrity, and blind nationalism. It trends towards, "our politicians said it, so it must be true. Independent thought or analysis is so passé."

CNN international is sort of the smarter older brother. A little wiser, a little less sensationalistic, a little more balanced. It's not great, but it is better. Whenever I hear Europeans complain about CNN (rightly so) I wonder which version they're watching.

**Ski Monkey** · 09-10-2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
I honestly believe we are in a "when not if" situation if we do not continually chase these terrorists, eventually eradicate them and change the nations that support them.

Can we kill(eradicate) all the terroists and the nations that support them in the world?

**1080Rider** · 09-10-2004, 09:17 AM

One more thing to think about since the assault weapons ban was brought up. When bush wins again (he is pulling away ever so slightly) and we have a pure fascist state (as y'all are predicting) aren't you going to be a little upset that the only thing you can fight back w/ are shotguns and hunting rifles? That 2nd amend really does have a purpose. Just food for thought.

**tuffy109** · 09-10-2004, 10:33 AM

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...sh_pajl102.jpg

**1080Rider** · 09-10-2004, 10:36 AM

???? What's that tuffy? Kind of funny but pretty facked up.

**SLCFreshies** · 09-10-2004, 10:52 AM

OP-ED COLUMNIST
How Many Deaths Will It Take?
By BOB HERBERT

It was Vietnam all over again - the heartbreaking head shots captioned with good old American names:

Jose Casanova, Donald J. Cline Jr., Sheldon R. Hawk Eagle, Alyssa R. Peterson.

Eventually there'll be a fine memorial to honor the young Americans whose lives were sacrificed for no good reason in Iraq. Yesterday, under the headline "The Roster of the Dead," The New York Times ran photos of the first thousand or so who were killed.

They were sent off by a president who ran and hid when he was a young man and his country was at war. They fought bravely and died honorably. But as in Vietnam, no amount of valor or heroism can conceal the fact that they were sent off under false pretenses to fight a war that is unwinnable.

How many thousands more will have to die before we acknowledge that President Bush's obsession with Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for the United States?

Joshua T. Byers, Matthew G. Milczark, Harvey E. Parkerson 3rd, Ivory L. Phipps.

Fewer and fewer Americans believe the war in Iraq is worth the human treasure we are losing and the staggering amounts of money it is costing. But no one can find a way out of this tragic mess, which is why that dreaded word from the Vietnam era - quagmire - has been resurrected. Most Washington insiders agree with Senator John McCain, who said he believes the U.S. will be involved militarily in Iraq for 10 or 20 more years.

To what end? You can wave goodbye to the naïve idea that democracy would take root in Iraq and then spread like the flowers of spring throughout the Middle East. That was never going to happen. So what are we there for, other than to establish a permanent military stronghold in the region and control the flow of Iraqi oil?

The insurgency in Iraq will never end as long as the U.S. is occupying the country. And our Iraqi "allies" will never fight their Iraqi brethren with the kind of intensity the U.S. would like, any more than the South Vietnamese would fight their fellow Vietnamese with the fury and effectiveness demanded by the hawks in the Johnson administration.

The Iraqi insurgents - whether one agrees with them or not - believe they are fighting for their homeland, their religion and their families. The Americans are not at all clear what they're fighting for. Saddam is gone. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The link between Saddam and the atrocities of Sept. 11 was always specious and has been proven so.

At some point, as in Vietnam, the American public will balk at the continued carnage, and this tragic misadventure will become politically unsustainable. Meanwhile, the death toll mounts.

Elia P. Fontecchio, Raheen Tyson Heighter, Sharon T. Swartworth, Ruben Valdez Jr.

One of the reasons the American effort in Iraq is unsustainable is that the American people know very little about the Iraqi people and their culture, and in most cases couldn't care less. The war in Iraq was sold as a response to Sept. 11. As it slowly dawns on a majority of Americans that the link was bogus, and that there is no benefit to the U.S. from this war, only endless grief, the political support will all but vanish.

(This could take awhile. In a poll done for Newsweek magazine this week, 42 percent of the respondents continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.)

We've put our troops in Iraq in an impossible situation. If you are not permitted to win a war, eventually you will lose it. In Vietnam, for a variety of reasons, the U.S. never waged total war, although the enemy did. After several years and more than 58,000 deaths, we quit.

We won't - and shouldn't - wage total war in Iraq, either. But to the insurgents, the Americans epitomize evil. We're the crazed foreigners who invaded their country and killed innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, by the thousands. We call that collateral damage. They call it murder. For them, this is total war.

President Bush never prepared the nation for the prolonged violence of this war. He still hasn't spoken candidly about it. If he has an idea for hauling us out of this quagmire, he hasn't bothered to reveal it.

The troops who are fighting and dying deserve better.

**natty dread** · 09-10-2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Really? You guys have no morals huh. How do your wives/girlfriends feel about that?

Yet another valuable, enlightening contribution to this thread by 1080 rider.

**mr_gyptian** · 09-10-2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Ski Monkey
Can we kill(eradicate) all the terroists and the nations that support them in the world?

Each individual, no. There will always be the Unabomber/Mcveigh element that for all intents and purposes. A groups ability to organize and pose a threat to other people's, yes. Stop nations from supporting terrorist groups, yes.

I realize you are trying to set me up for Bush's quote the other day saying that eradicating the terrorist threat is impossible. Read literally he is right. explored as I did in the above the terrorist threat can be.

again I'll go back to piracy on the seas. while there are instances of it going on throughout the world. The extent of what was going on a century or two ago, as far as disrupting shipping lanes/lines has been completely desimated.