Rant: Evil Doer's Strike Again.

[Mephisto]

CNCRaymond said:
As to the spin doctoring that these men, the Swift Vets, are making things up, well I ask you, why would they? What do they possibly hope to gain? Nothing, they are just American veterans who happened to have served with Kerry and they are telling us that he is not the right man for the job.

Why would they? Maybe because they don't like Kerry? There are Veterans (also Swift) as far as I know that state the direct opposite of what the Swift Veterans tell you. Why would they make things up? Because they like Kerry and not Bush? Who is right I don't know but it is IMHO a bit far-fetched to say that either of the Vets are objective in their opinion, not subjective.

And if history has ever taught us anything, its to listen to our vets.

I'm no Amercian so can you give me an example where the Vets said something that was not done and that got awfully wrong? Anyway, just being someone who has been in a war doesn't make a person more reliable or wiser then other persons IMHO. I would trust my mother any day with her opinion but she surely isn't a veteran. I have seen my fair share of cruelty, suffering, blood and death as a Paramedic but this doesn't make me more reliable or wiser then other people who haven't. You see my point of view.

The majority of our military and are veterans, as well as their families, support Bush. This tells me two things, one he has their confidence, and Kerry does not, and two, they would rather have a man of proven character in office over that of a man who's character is in question.

Why is it that important that the President has the majority of vote from the military personal? How many people of the police, medical stuff, fire fighters and - most of all - persons who don't get their pay check from a government organisation - prefer Bush over Kerry and vice versa? Why is the job of these persons so important and - for example - not their social standing or something else? Why is the opinion of these persons more important then opinions of other persons? I'm just curios.

[Will]

To respond, no, I am not a "specialist" in either politics or military strategy or tactics. Just because I'm not a specialist doesn't deny me an informed opinion on the subject, and most of the information I've seen points to arrogance and overconfidence on the part of the civilian leadership of the military in the Bush Administration. Much of what I know about the military comes from my grandfather (a WWII and Korean War Army veteran) and my father (served in the Navy as a lab tech, stayed in San Diego for entire term of service). What I do know is that the top generals in the armed forces were asking for more troops to help out in Iraq, and the civilian leadership of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al., who believed our military to be invincible, denied the extra forces.

I'm really tired at the moment (it's 3:30am local time), so the following google (searched 'military strategy bush generals iraq') links haven't been checked up on much, but at a cursory glance they seem fairly legitimate except for the Last one:
CBS, Gen. Zinni
Washington Post, dissention in senior ranks
Newsweek, President must command
Sun Tzu & Iraq War

On to the rest of it...

Religious aspects: it is far more than "lesbian woman�s Groups and teenage girls" opposing the assult on Roe v. Wade by the religious conservative elements of the Republican Party, and to me the former group you mentioned smacks of the predjudice so prevalant among some Republicans (I know it's a generalization on your part, I hope you don't acually believe that it's a problem with the "queers"). The argument against "In God we Trust" and "under God" in the Pledge do have some merit, as they were only put in to differentiate the US from the "godless Commies" during the Cold War, and it is very close to a government endorsement of religion. Right now, the Supreme Court has decided that it is enough that "God" could concievably cover a wide range of religious beliefs, and thus doesn't imply government endorsement of a specific religion; there are some that say government endorsement of ANY religion at all is going too far, and thus they want the words removed (among the Groups wanting this is Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, headed by, I believe, a reverend). Personally, I don't have a problem with it as long as the words aren't forced (ie, requiring kids to recite, etc), and that's already not legal. But the other major issue that the religious conservatives have been piping up about is homosexual unions. I have yet to hear an argument against this that doesn't in some way appeal to a religious doctorine, and if you can point me to one that doesn't, I would be very appreciative.

Democrats, fearing personal responsibility, etc, etc... well, if it hasn't already been made clear, I don't exactly like the Democrats either; I just usually prefer them to Republicans because they tend to be "progressive". But I can't believe that you think the Republicans are for personal freedoms after the PATRIOT Act, Republicans pushing a second Version of said act, proposals for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual unions, national ID cards and databases, CAPPS I and II... the Republicans are just as Big Government and restricting of freedom as the Democrats, they just do it in different areas of life. You want a party that is for personal freedom AND personal responsibility, go Libertarian (I did).

The Swift Boat veteran ads... I don't know of any credible source that is actually defending the slander in those ads. I mean, how many of those veterans actually did serve with John Kerry (in the sense that most Americans would interpret serve, as in they knew Kerry in Vietnam, not they were in Asia at the same time he was)? I think it was two. And the doctor who "treated" Kerry, but is not mentioned anywhere in the military medical records for Kerry's injuries. The anti-Bush ads at least had some facts behind them, the swift boat ads were just a bunch of old guys with a grudge in my view. Which is why I said that I think all the veterans Groups endorsements and condemnations are highly suspect. I don't believe them one way or the other, they're too biased. And the veterans in America are largely split when it comes to Bush or Kerry, and I get the distinct impression (especially from my grandfather) that most veterans don't like either candidate, they only dislike one more than the other.

[Phoenix-D]

You want some 'real' evil doers, AT? Try this.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78

Summary: the central vote-counting program used by 30 states has a intentional backdoor. Anyone with knowledge of it and access to the machine can change the vote counts. This isn't a bug, it isn't a security flaw. Its a built in fraud subroutine.

[Atrocities]

Thanks Phoenix-D.

[rextorres]

the president of Diebold - Walden W. O'Dell - is a MAJOR Bush backer and he has vowed to deliver Ohio to Bush. I think the implications are pretty obvious.

[Mephisto]

I don't believe Bush or Kerry would ever rig an election.

[Will]

Mephisto said:
I don't believe Bush or Kerry would ever rig an election.

I don't believe either of them would personally allow anyone to get the impression that either is behind an election-rigging attempt. There is far too much risk involved, for a fairly insignificant gain (IMHO, anyone who actually wants to be President is insane).

I do believe that the fanatical supporters on either the left or the right are capable of rigging an election for their candidate. Which is why the Ohio comment by the president of Diebold is a bit scary... and would be just as scary if he promised Ohio to Kerry. Because then we won't really be a democracy anymore, representative or otherwise.

[CNCRaymond]

Keynote speaker backs Bush
but will be Dem 'til 'day I die''Times demand' a vote for Republican
�If they want to call me a leper or a traitor, that�s OK with me," Zell Miller (D)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5822356/

U.N.: Iran to resume uranium enrichment

They believe that since world opinion is against the US, they can resume their uranium enrichment and terrorist supportive activities with little or not worries about reprisal. JMHO

And I agree, no way in hell would either support rigging of votes. However, both sides are capable of doing things to get votes that many of us would find questionable, and if and when these instances are brought to light, whomever is responsible should be punished to the laws extent. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Burger.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Cheese.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Dogbone.gif[/img]

[Atrocities]

Ya know, M. Moore makes a compelling arguement with his movie. It does what it is designed to do very well. He points out facts that do make you think, that make you feel, that make you both angery and sad. If he were a lawyer, he would work for Insurance companies defending their guild as sin clients in court, twisting the facts to fit their case and ulitmately putting on the best case for his clients as he could. His movie does that, but it does it with the same intent an insurance lawyer putting on a case.

Now if you happen to sit on the jury, and all you are given is just the one side, Moores sides, you would do what any of us would, you would side with him.

Now if you happen to discover that there is more truth behind what you have been told, a lot more truth, then perhaps your decision would be based upon the whole big picture instead of only the left side of an incomplete frame.

Its a hard call, a very hard call, but in the end, it is a dog eat dog world, and the truth that you choose to believe in may ir may not be right or wrong, but it many seldom if ever be both.

Its a tough call, to vote between a liar, or a lair, both are in it for money, both are rich, and both are men of questionable character.

I will vote for Bush, not because of Iraq, or other, but because of the one thing that Kerry is against that Bush is for. A choice that I feel is more important to me than any other issue on the table. And that really has nothing to do with terrorism, economys, or wars.

In the end, it will be up to the electorial vote, not the popular vote, but the electorial vote, and they vote the way they are paid to. God help us. (Subjective belief, one that may or may not be accurate.)

Its time to make a choice, and each of us know that we will make the right one for us. Lets just hope that in the end, history will show that we chose wisely but it probably won't.

No I am not a big Micheal Moore fan, oh hell, I hate the fat bastard, but the truth is, his movie, although highly subjective and one sided, is worth seeing. Not for its anti Bush sentaments, but for its hidden, all though not dilibrately, story that war is a bad bad thing paid for by lives, human lives.

To that end, I stand corrected on my opinion, although I disagree with the movies one sided view of Bush, his administration, and the war, I can understand why it has earned the respect of many. I do not respect M. Moore, but I cannot argue with his film making genius. He would make a fine defense lawyer and or prosecutor. If only Californa had had him as their prosecutor on the O.J. case.

[Will]

AT, I'm glad that you finally saw it. You really don't have to agree with the man's politics to get something out of the movie. Besides the conspiracy theory bits, which have been getting the most knee-jerk reaction out of some conservatives, the central thesis of the film has recieved hardly any comment. This is an unfortunate theme through his films, I think. People get so worked up over his style of blindly going through any possibilities imaginable (eg. intro to Bowling for Columbine, where the shooters went bowling before going on the rampage, therefore bowling is evil... etc), that the actual Messages of the film get lost in an endless debate over the meaningless details.

You hit on one of what I think are two core Messages of the film, that war has a very high human cost, ignoring all the money that has been funneled into it. The images from the war are considered very shocking to many Americans, I think from the distinct American media practice of putting a facsade over everything. Any other country in the world would have seen, and did see, the pictures of the killed, wounded, and mourners in their media outlets. American media went for the "flashier" shots from a jet's undercarrige camera, or a splash screen of an American flag, or crowds cheering soldiers. The other stuff doesn't make people feel good, and it's a distinctly American belief that everyone should Feel Good, All The Time, No Matter What.

The other part of the message was where the true strength in America lies. It's with the Ugly American (referring to the engineer in the book of the same name), the working people who form the bulk of the armed forces, and the ones who have some kind of decency, helping others instead of just themselves. They are presented in contrast to the very rich Bush Administration officials, and the very rich corporate directors, who call the shots because they have the money, and thus, presumably, the power. Kerry fits in this group too, although IMHO, it's a bit different since he married into money rather than being born into it like most are.

You have the things that are important to you, I have things that are important to me, and those form our choices. And I hope with you that whichever one ends up "winning" truly is the best one.