Anyway, you guys stare at this thing every now and then. It DOES change, FYI.
Bah. I don't listen to polls. Not after what happened in June. Pfft. Conservative majority... HA! Seriously, their methodology is completely outdated. Polls are irrelevant. Yes, John Kerry might be trailing George Bush among voters over 40 who stay home during the day, but I have a feeling that John Kerry is probably doing pretty well with voters under the age of 35 who have jobs and primarily use mobile phones.
Anyways.
John Kerry is telling the truth about what's happening in Iraq, and if there's one thing the Bush Boys don't like, it's truth-telling. Last week an editorial in the Washington Post said that recent accounts of events in Iraq are "bland to the point of dishonesty." (Have a look at it in the Iraq thread.) Wrote the Post, "Not only has Mr. Bush not said how, or whether, he intends to respond to the worsening situation - he doesn't really admit it exists. This duck-and-cover strategy may have its political advantages, but it is also deeply irresponsible and potentially dangerous." Bush's two-faced approach to Iraq is indeed dangerous. First he said there were weapons of mass destruction, and there weren't. Then he said there were connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, and there weren't (even the State Department didn't think so). And now he says that democracy is on the way in Iraq, and everything is just peachy-keen there. News flash: it isn't. September is the fifth worst month for American soldiers in Iraq, with 63 service members killed there since the end of August. Overall more than 135 foreigners have been kidnapped - several have been beheaded this month alone. But Bush is clearly living on his own little fantasy planet. Last week he said, "I saw a poll that said the right-track/wrong-track in Iraq was better than here in America." You know, I'm not sure what's more disturbing about that statement - Bush pretending that Iraqis think they're heading in the right direction, or Bush being proud of the fact that Iraqis are more confident about the future of Iraq than Americans are about America. Still not delusional enough for you? On Fox News last week, Bush was asked whether he would still put on a flight suit and make the Mission Accomplished speech. 900 dead soldiers later, Bush's response was "absolutely." And The Great Leader of the Free World also brushed off a recent CIA National Intelligence Estimate which claimed that scenarios in Iraq ranged from "sh*tty" to "wow-that's-sh*tty," saying that just a "handful" of terrorists are operating in Iraq (despite Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi saying last week that terrorists are "pouring in"), and that the CIA was just "guessing." Oh, well, gee - guessing? I feel so much better.
Also, last week Bush told a bald-faced lie about John Kerry at several campaign appearances. Bush claimed that, "Incredibly, this week, my opponent said he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." Except that's not what John Kerry said at all. What Kerry actually said was this: "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in and of itself, a reason to go to war." Hmm. But while we're on the subject of preferring dictatorships, you might be interested to know that the man Bush installed as Prime Minister of Iraq and invited to the White House and Congress last week, apparently used to be an assassin for Saddam Hussein, and helped Saddam get into power in the first place. Not only that, but his medical degree was allegedly "conferred upon him by the Baath party," and he was recently accused of personally executing several Iraqi insurgents. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, "he threatens martial law; he warns he might shut down sections of the media; he suggests he might delay elections. His Justice Minister is bringing back the death penalty; his Defense Minister warns he'll chop off insurgents' hands and heads." So if you're looking for free and fair elections in Iraq, you'll probably have better luck looking in Florida. And that's saying something.
But you'd better think twice if you want to tell the truth about Ayad Allawi and the situation in Iraq - because if you do, look out! Dick Cheney is on the rampage, and it's not a pretty sight. Cheney blasted John Kerry last week for the heinous crime of truth-telling, saying he was "appalled" by Kerry's "lack of respect" for Allawi. What's that, Dick? You've brought Saddam's former assassin over to act as a prop for your election campaign, and Kerry isn't allowed to mention that you're telling fibs about every single aspect of the Iraqi misadventure? Get off your high high horse. Cheney went on: "John Kerry is trying to tear down all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive to our effort in Iraq and in the global war on terror." What bullsh-t. I'm not going to even get into the fact that he is once again trying to link the war in Iraq to the war on terror. Here's the truth, Dick: you and George f--ked Iraq up but good, and now you're too lazy (or, I daresay, incompetent) to fix it. So rather than tell the truth about what's happening over there, you're endangering the Americans, the Iraqis, and the rest of the world by lying, spinning, and creating bizarre fantasies about the situation there. This is how you got yourself into Iraq in the first place, and this is the only way you know how to deal with it. Douchebag.
Heh, nice one Cycle, but with more cursing than I'd use. Ah well, each to his own. 
Quote:
And The Great Leader of the Free World also brushed off a recent CIA National Intelligence Estimate which claimed that scenarios in Iraq ranged from "sh*tty" to "wow-that's-sh*tty," saying that just a "handful" of terrorists are operating in Iraq (despite Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi saying last week that terrorists are "pouring in"
, and that the CIA was just "guessing." Oh, well, gee - guessing? I feel so much better.
That's interesting, considering the American intelligence services weren't "just guessing" when they reported an immediate threat to America from Saddam's infamous weapons of mass destruction, were they?
George W. Bush likes to think of himself as a "war President," who is "resolute," "steadfast," and "decisive." He also likes to compare himself to historical figures. His favorite is Winston Churchill who led Great Britain through the horrors of World War II.
I believe a comparison to a historical figure is appropriate but I think he is much more like a famous American military leader - General George Armstrong Custer.
Like George W. Bush, George A. Custer was born to a privileged family. He used his family's political connections to get into West Point, an institution of learning he was not otherwise qualified for. While at West Point, George did not distinguish himself among his 34 classmates.
His carefree attitude and joking demeanor did not sit well with the rigid requirements of military school life. He was often punished and, at one point, received enough demerits to be expelled. Someone was watching out for young George though and his demerits were mysteriously removed from the record, allowing him to continue.
Cadet George Custer graduated from West Point 34th out of 34, last of his class. He was nearly court-martialed for neglect of duties while still at West Point awaiting his commission but again, somehow, skated by without punishment - a now recurring theme in George's life.
Despite his poor grades and inability to grasp basic military requirements, George was given a plumb assignment in the military during the Civil War. The units he commanded suffered unusually high casualty rates even by the standards of the time due to George's arrogance, brazen aggression and disregard for his men's safety.
In late 1867 Custer was court-martialed and suspended from duty for a year for being absent from duty but he used his connections to, once again, skirt punishment and regain his standing in the military. General Phil Sheridan used his military power to excuse young George's youthful mistake and brought him back into a position with more power and authority.
George was a master of military politics and somehow worked his way up to Brigadier General at the age of 25, the youngest man ever to attain that rank. Gen. George was placed in command of a contingent of men to seek out "renegade" Indians who were holding up the "progress" of miners and other business venturers from gaining profit off of the unexplored lands. The Natives were portrayed as vicious savages intent on killing innocent American civilians though the majority of them just wanted to live their lives in peace in their homelands.
George's fate and historical fame were both wrapped up in an expedition to destroy the Lakota, Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians in Montana because of the wrongful association of all of the tribes in that area with the attacks by one tribe and chief, Crazy Horse. The US Government, in all of its wisdom, decided to round up, imprison or destroy all of the Native people in that area and they relied on their young, brash, arrogant commander to do it.
Riding with his men and two other brigades, the plan was to use overwhelming force to destroy the less well-armed and organized Indians. Young and boastful, George knew that this mission would ensure his fame, fortune and political future for all time and led his men into battle in spite of the intelligence he was getting from the field.
Though he was warned in advance by scouts that the Indians had a much larger force than was originally thought, he continued his march.
Though allied units commanded by far more experienced leaders fell behind and were not with him, he pushed forward, resolute.
Though he split his forces into three separate units, weakening them, he rode ahead, confidently. Though he went into battle with underwhelming force, he did so convinced of his ability to bring forth a glorious victory for his country and himself.
Convinced of his own superiority and leadership skills, George pushed valiantly forward into one of the greatest military blunders in US history. The Indians, formerly opponents of each other, united against the vicious attacks of the U.S. military and thousands of former enemies combined their forces to attack George and his troops.
General George Armstrong Custer led all of his men, cocksure, to slaughter. Not one soldier under his command survived his confident, resolute, and blindingly wrong blunder.
The amazing thing is, there are still George defenders who claim he was a great leader and military mind. In spite of evidence to the contrary, he will always, in some minds, be considered a brave patriot whose confidence, resoluteness, and conviction in his decision-making outweigh the ultimate result of his foolish choices.
But while there are many historical similarities between the two Georges, there is one glaring difference.
One George led his men into battle and faced the bullets and arrows of the enemy, donned the uniform and fought for his country, led his men from the front, and stood behind his choices personally and was forced to accept their fatal outcome.
The other is the President.
Well.....even his secretary of state disagrees with him.
Then again, Colin Powell tends to be a little more realistic when he's not under orders by Bush to do something, like gloss over facts. I would prefer Powell as president over most anyone else today, mainly because he is more qualified, efforts to have to please his boss aside.
Unfortunately, he had to drop out in '96 because of threats of assassination. 🙁
Personally, I hope Bush wins. Kerry's lies too much and he's way too double-standard. He claimed to have gotten so many medals in Vietnam, but a couple of the medals he said he has, don't even exist! Besides, alot of POWs from Vietnam don't like Kerry since he said they deserved to be POWs during the war and that didn't really do much for them. The guy also just keeps saying he's against stuff, but voting for it! And alot of other countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China don't like Bush, which is a good sign. I actually don't think either candidate is that great, but Bush seems to be the lesser of two evils. And for anybody who believes everything the media feeds you, you're an idiot.
Kerry's lies too much and he's way too double-standard.
Oh my god. Kerry lies too much? Have you been in a coma for the last four years, or are you just drunk?
He claimed to have gotten so many medals in Vietnam, but a couple of the medals he said he has, don't even exist! Besides, alot of POWs from Vietnam don't like Kerry since he said they deserved to be POWs during the war and that didn't really do much for them.
Calling all stuck-in-the-past dumbasses... this is the 21st century calling... Vietnam happened 35 years ago. How is it relevant now?
The guy also just keeps saying he's against stuff, but voting for it!
Maybe he changed his mind. People are allowed to do that, you know. It's a sign of maturity to be able to say that you're wrong.
And alot of other countries like France, Germany, Russia, and China don't like Bush, which is a good sign.
Yep, it's a real good sign when your allies and trading partners hate you.
And for anybody who believes everything the media feeds you, you're an idiot.
You do realize you're echoing the American media, right?
pacmanimator who fed you your info, the library of congress? if not, then it is the media, it might be better for you in the future to be more polite when you make comments.
neither candidate is evil like conservatives like to brand people they hate, president clinton once made a wise comment about that, he said that policies and the ability to make right decisons should be questioned not anyones morality.
president bush seems to enjoy using the word flip flop and many of his supporters agree with him that kerry is indecisive, and the only claim they make is that he supported the war in the beginning and then he changed his mind, well when i ask these supporters to show some evidence then they stare at you like you were speaking a dead language.
let us see who really is irresponsible, when george w bush became president he rejected the previous administration's planned project to create a department of homeland security not because he didn't care about the security of america, but because he thought that paying back some of the weathiest 1% that financed his campaign was more important than the countries security at that time, because creating a new agency would cost a lot of money and he didn't want any amount taken away from the money he was reserving for his tax cut to pay back his friends.
after september 11th he was forced to create the homeland security department and he still signed the huge and expensive taxcut and tax relief that only benefits the rich. he also went to war with iraq and promised that the spoils from the iraqi invasion will pay for the war and he would obviously reward some more friends who don't care about the lives the war will take away and destroy but the money.
his war plan fell through, he went back to congress to ask for more money and by then it was obvious that the funds that had been spent and the extra that was needed would not be paid back to america, some members of congress including republicans suggested that some of the money bush wanted should be taken from his tax-cut project and then the government would borrow the rest from the treasury, meaning that money would be borrowed from bonds, our social security tax, etc those are some of the places that government take money from when there is a deficit. anyway bush refused the offer and again put his friends' financial interest before the nation's security. kerry happened to be one of those lawmakers who thought these decision (that bush rejected) was reasonable, bush accused those lawmakers(that included kerry) of ignoring the needs of soldiers in iraq.
and i don't hear republicans calling those other republicans flip floppers, and understand why kerry is having a hard time defending himself now, the election is close at hand, this is the final stage for campagning, and he is running neck in neck with bush, if bush were a responsible war president he would have a 75% vote approval. he is the worst president in the nations history from every point of view.
In light of the success of my legendary Oscars Drinking Game, I've created a new drinking game, a simpler one this time. It's called the Fox News Covers the US Presidential Debate Drinking Game. Grab a bottle of vodka and some shot glasses, bring a friend, pick one of the two candidates, point your TV to Fox, and whenever one of the things on this list corresponding to your candidate happens, take a shot.
Print the list out for easy reference!
Heh...very funny...if Fox is so "fair and balanced" why is it beating the other news stations in ratings? Do people believe it or is it somewhat true?
Fox is not fair and balanced. Rupert Murdoch was once quoted saying "My company [NewsCorp, which owns Fox] reflects my thoughts, my views, my opinions." Or words to that effect.
The point is that Rupert Murdoch is a man with a serious right wing political bias. He wants Bush in power, ergo his company and all the networks and newspapers it owns also want Bush in power.
The only exception I could possibly think of is Sky News in the UK. Murdoch does own that, but under British law televised news cannot be openly biased in favour of any political party. So, unlike The Sun (a British tabloid NewsCorp owns), Sky News can't insult politicians who disagree with Bush. Last year (or the year before, possubly) The Sun referred to Jacques Chirac (French president) as a 'monster' and portayed him in the same light as Saddam Hussein because he disagreed with invading Iraq. Sky News wouldn't get away with that.
However, I've not seen Sky News for a long time and when I did I was too young to recognise political bias and had no interest in politics anyway. I'd need to see it again with the critical eye of a media student to personally know how closely it sticks to the law over here.
Okay...but you didn't answer my question to why it is beating the other news stations, including good old CBS that used fake documents to discredit Bush...(You had so many other options...why fake papers?)...in ratings...
Well, remember, Fox also has American Idol. Oo
Yes, and The Simpsons.
Yeah, but even The Simpsons is right wing in principal, I mean look at the number of jokes made aimed at Clinton compared to the zero aimed at George W. Sure, they had one episode dedicated to Snr. But in an early episode "Lisa Goes to Washington" they make him appear like the world's greatest president.
That said, they did do that HILARIOUS skit on Fox News which included the following quotes on the ticker "87% of Democrats are gay" - "Einstein + Brad Pitt = Dick Cheeny?" and so forth.
So even if the show is bias, it's very aware of that fact and makes jokes out of it.
Okay...but you didn't answer my question to why it is beating the other news stations, including good old CBS that used fake documents to discredit Bush...
Remember, CBS was unaware of the documents' fakeness at the time.
Er, I don't want to get at you Cycle, but there's no definite proof of that.
There's also no definite proof that they were aware of the documents' falsity. Considering they were a fairly respectable establishment until this happened, I'm going to assume that they were unaware of this.
Foxnews attempts to be fair and balanced, and they succede to a large extent. Other networks don't make balanced reporting a part of their mission statement.
I like "Hannity and Colmes" as they beat the issue from both sides. Bill O'Reilly is obviously conservative, just as Dan Rather is rabidly Democrat. Both Bill and Dan have done a good job of reporting the facts and conducting interviews over the years. You can't complain about one without complaining about the other.
Jimro
I'm still pissed off at that one Fox News reporter spending his half an hour slot saying how the BBC are propagandists when the Hutton Report was released.
Heh.
In a way, ALL reporters, to an extent, are propagandists. :p
Okay, getting back on-topic, let's sum up.
George W. Bush is wrong on Iraq. He doesn't even have a plan. If he had any idea what he's doing, he'd do what Paul Martin and Ujjal Dossanjh did to fix the Canadian healthcare system last month: sit down at a conference with all the coalition leaders and the people in charge of the Iraqi Governing Council and hammer out a plan to fix the problems. A plan that focuses on goals and deadlines to have things like plumbing and power and communications and healthcare working again, the means to achieve them, and ways to discourage any of the parties involved from deviating from this path.
George W. Bush started the Iraq war in the first place and dragged the whole world into this mess. He said that there were weapons of mass destruction and they were pointed at us. When it turned out there weren't any, he changed his story and said that Iraq supported al-Qaeda. That, too, turned out to be false. Again, he changed his story and said that the war was actually to overthrow the evil Saddam and "liberate" the Iraqi people. While the alleged evilness of its leader is never a viable excuse to invade a country anyways, either way they're doing a bloody poor job of this "noble liberation" (see above). The fact of the matter is, over fourteen thousand people are dead because George Bush and other officials started a war that violated the UN Charter, and used bald-faced lies to do so. That alone should be more than enough to recall them from their offices right now, if not have them stand trial for war crimes.
George W. Bush is wrong on foreign policy. The United States' worldwide approval ratings have never been lower. Most sociologists and political scientists agree that the Bush Administration's actions and screw-ups have led to more and more people, Muslims especially, choosing to support terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. A worldwide poll conducted by the CBC, the BBC, CNN, and several other networks, showed that only 24% of non-Americans would vote Bush. 38% of the respondents didn't even know who John Kerry was. The same poll also showed that 27% of the respondents believe that America is a "force for evil in the world"; this is up from 16% in 2001. Further, Bush and his cronies have justified certain violations of international human rights treaties by saying that if the enemy does it, it's okay if you do it too. Bush also refuses to cooperate with the UN (words like "innefective" and "beaurocratic" spring to mind), but when he recently came crawling back to mooch money from them, he made a blanket statement that basically said "give me money or you're aiding the terrorists." He wants us to cooperate with him after basically giving the Finger to it back in 2003. Cooperation is mutual, Bush.
George W. Bush is wrong on terrorism. In fact, he's not doing anything to aid it at all. Instead, he's now trying to link his "efforts" in Iraq to it. If I'm not mistaken, bombing Iraq led to an increase in terrorist activity. Anyone who thinks that the war in Iraq was in any way related to the war on terror is a mindless sheep, a fool, and a moron. Where's bin Laden? Nobody knows. If they hadn't wasted their time, money, and people's lives in Iraq, they might have caught him by now.
George W. Bush is wrong on the economy. Bush believes that cutting taxes to rich people and corporations while simultaneously spending hundreds of billions of dollars on unnecessary wars, ballistic-missile defense systems that may or may not work (and aren't really necessary either), and lobbing more people out into space for the sole purpose of diverting the public's attention from his colossal failure in Iraq, is a sound economic policy. Brian Mulroney tried something similar back in the 80s. He left behind the largest deficit in Canadian history. George Bush, likewise, has quietly racked up the largest deficit in the history of mankind. He also presided over two million lost jobs. Bush is bankrupting America and its citizens as we speak.
George W. Bush is wrong on social isssues. He is doing everything he can to delay the approval of stem-cell research, has gone on record saying that he is against abortions, and doesn't support the legalization of same-sex marriage. Members of his party put the infamous USA PATRIOT Act through Congress, an act whose excessively-broad wording and ridiculous handing-over of power to the government would make it possible for someone whose name sounds like "al Quaeda" to be thrown in jail indefinitely, without a trial. It also allows federal agencies to tap your phone line without a court order and without informing you. I don't know about you guys, but I always thought the US was supposed to stand for social progress, not clear violations of its own constitution, not to mention international human rights standards.
George W. Bush is wrong on education. Need I remind everyone of the No Child Left Behind project, which Bush has completely abandoned? Consider, if you will, that 700 000 children in the United States fell into poverty in 2003 alone, bringing the total to a staggering 12.8 million, equivalent to more than half the population of Australia. Further, in his 2005 budget, Mr. Bush proposed a funding freeze for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. This grant gives federal dollars to states in order to provide for child care assistance. But as a result of this freeze, White House analysts predict that by 2009, the number of children receiving assistance will drop by 200,000. A study by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities shows that number to be closer to 365,000. This is all in addition to the approximately 100,000 children who lost coverage in 2003, and the estimated 550,000 children who remain on waiting lists across the US. As if that weren't enough, the 2005 budget also froze funding for Head Start, and called for a shift from federal to state programs, which have been shown to have less accountability and lower quality standards. The budget also freezes enrollment, a move that prevents 40 percent of those eligible for Head Start and 97 percent of those eligible for Early Head Start from ever enrolling.
George W. Bush is wrong on healthcare. I return to my point about social issues where I noted that Bush wants to restrict stem-cell research and abortions. Stem-cell research can and will save lives, and might even hold the key to a cure for cancer. Rising insurance costs and falling employment rates have left millions of Americans without health insurance. Meanwhile, Bush seeks to make it illegal for people to seek drugs from Canada -- drugs that they otherwise couldn't afford because of greedy drug companies viciously capitalizing off of their misfortune, demanding immense sums of money for their products. Does George W. Bush care about the health of sick Americans? No, he cares about the profit margin of rich Americans.
George W. Bush is wrong on the environment. He did not sign the Kyoto accord, instead opting -- almost promising -- to come up with his own policies for lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, he's forced the EPA to relax the standards for factories that dump chemicals into the atmosphere. A study of just 51 power plants subjected to review found that the toxins put out by these plants caused the premature deaths of 5,500 to 9,000 people each year. These 51 plants are also responsible for as many as 170,000 asthma attacks annually.
And this doesn't even cover half the reasons why I think Bush is the worst possible candidate to lead the United States. Look at his track record as a president. Sure, John Kerry doesn't have one, but no track record is, in my opinion, a lot better than a colossally bad one. Choose wisely.
John Kerry is wrong on Iraq. He's been on both sides of the fence, several times.
John Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq. And voted against body armor, weapons upgrades, etc.
John Kerry is wrong on foreign policy. America has never been respected abroad for anything other than economic and military reasons, I don't see any change in the future about this.
John Kerry is wrong on terrorism. He would talk and ask instead of doing and fighting.
John Kerry is wrong on education. He was part of the congress that failed to appropriately fund the No Child Left Behind act.
John Kerry is wrong on healthcare. Do you really expect two lawyers to pass tort reform?
Jimro
Cyke, when you have the time I'd like to see the rest. Even though I'm strongly against Bush and his policies, I'm getting morbidly curious. 0_0
EDIT:
Quote:
John Kerry is wrong on foreign policy. America has never been respected abroad for anything other than economic and military reasons, I don't see any change in the future about this.
At one time as a young Canadian I considered America a friend, then three years later I no longer see America as a friend with the gross mistreatment of its allies.
How has the US mistreated it's allies?
Jimro
John Kerry is wrong on Iraq. He's been on both sides of the fence, several times.
So what?
John Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq.
He's just one of the 70% of Americans who believed Bush's lies. That's probably why he voted for it.
John Kerry is wrong on foreign policy. America has never been respected abroad for anything other than economic and military reasons, I don't see any change in the future about this.
I still have a fierce respect for the things the United States historically stands for -- liberty, social progress, independence, democracy -- but not for what they've done in the last four years.
John Kerry is wrong on terrorism. He would talk and ask instead of doing and fighting.
"Doing and fighting"... I'm sorry; does that mean bombing countries that have nothing to do with said terrorists, like Bush did in Iraq?
Oh let's see... top level officials throwing immature insults at France and Germany. (The New York Post front page depicting Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schrder as the "Axis of Weasel", but that's another issue)
Or how about I hit this closer to home, like the softwood lumber dispute. Free trade: free for America, costly for everyone else.
All Bush did was insult Kerry, it appears. And Kerry took notes of almost everything Bush said. Unlike Bush.
At least Kerry said he had a real plan. That, and he wasn't trying to clamor to get that last word in like a little baby.
I think it's time to unleash Robot Nixon!
Brilliant movie Cyk! I think the moment Arnie shouted "TERRORISM!" swinging his arm forward was about the time I was laughing too much to keep watching.
Gotta love those parrots!
Quote:
How has the US mistreated it's allies?
Bush refused to sign the Kyoto agreement. Bush called the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys", which is interesting considering America invented the cheeseburger. Bush put tariffs on South American steel and Canadian timber. Bush began the invasion of Iraq without informing America's first ally (the UK) until several hours later. Some "best friend in the whole world".
But I know that everything I've just said is irrelevant as far as any Bush supporter is concerned. If anyone can read half of Cycle's posts and still support Bush then they're never going to change that.
Anyone who saw how Bush reacted to criticism last night, and still thinks he's a great leader who listens, I really must wonder about them.
Canadian softwood lumber.
When the canadian provinces stop subsidizing logs by setting the price they sell to mills (instead of fair market value), then Canada will have a legitimate complaint. Until then, NAFTA and GATT have not been violated. Read the dang agreement before going off on a tirade.
South American steel? South America does not have any countries in GATT or NAFTA. What is your complaint?
Jimro
EDIT: What the NYT puts on it's front page is their own business. I don't like everything the Guardian says, but that's their business.
As for "Cheese eating surrender monkeys", that's from "The Simpsons".
Jimro
Quote:
When the canadian provinces stop subsidizing logs by setting the price they sell to mills (instead of fair market value), then Canada will have a legitimate complaint. Until then, NAFTA and GATT have not been violated. Read the dang agreement before going off on a tirade.
Then the United States should stop subsidizing its farmers it that's the case.
to jimro,
Quote:
John Kerry is wrong on Iraq. He's been on both sides of the fence, several times.
John Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq. And voted against body armor, weapons upgrades, etc.
false he voted for the removal of saddam with the aid of the international community, bush went to war and condemn the international community. when bush's war plans fell through, he went back to ask for more money, even after creating a tax cut plan that would continue to shower the richest 1% with the taxes they had paid in the past and ensure that they continue to pay less taxes.
a majority of lawmakers including republicans, who are calling kerry a flip flopper now, had voted alongside kerry for the war, again voted with kerry that the president will only receive more funds if he agreed to take some of this money out from his huge tax cut program and the government will borrow the rest from the treasury for him (bush). bush refused and blamed those lawmakers for the accusations jimro posted that i quoted above.
the president shamefully refuses to take a cent from the money he set aside for the richest americans, but he want the life savings i.e. the social security savings (a public retirement fund) and the taxes paid by the poorer majority to fund the war.
clinton made all these money for america and bush is handing all of it out to only his rich friends. hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of iraqis are dead in just a year and a few months (from the bush iraqi invasion), way more than saddam could ever have accomplish in his lifetime mathematically and the rich friends are the only ones benefiting right now from the war, they are making millions off of the misery of another nation.
When the canadian provinces stop subsidizing logs by setting the price they sell to mills (instead of fair market value), then Canada will have a legitimate complaint.
The provinces own the logs, they can sell them for whatever the hell price they want.
Colin Mochrie: "I'm sorry our wood is cheaper and better than yours. It's like... say you flooded our market with thousands of great TV shows, cheaper than we could produce. We know you'd never do that."
Cycle,
You are correct, the provinces do own the logs. And not selling them at fair market value gives Canadian mills a huge advantage. NAFTA and GATT both recognize the necessity of government subsidies and has sections appropriate to them, including what to do when one governments subsidies threaten to wreck anothers economy for the item being subsidized.
As for farming subsidies.
Obviously there is no way for Canadian and American farmers to compete with Mexican farmers, labor costs alone dictate such. But Mexican farmers don't have to meet the stringent standards of the FDA or Canada's equivelent.
The US tariffs on Canadian lumber are perfectly legal within the framework of NAFTA and GATT.
Jimro
I still don't understand how it's wrong for someone to charge less for something than someone else. Like many wholesalers in the Vancouver area, I am able to sell individual computer parts for up to 50% less than big chain stores like London Drugs and Future Shop. Sure, it's not "fair" for those big, lumbering conglomerates. But there isn't exactly a law against not forcing your customers to take out a second mortgage to pay for the 600% overhead on minor hardware purchases.
The US tariffs on Canadian lumber are perfectly legal within the framework of NAFTA and GATT.
The World Trade Organisation disagrees.
Cycle,
Both you and the megastores get the same wholesale price. Canadian lumber mills aren't paying the same wholesale (fair market value) price.
I've read through the results of the NAFTA and WTO challenges, and both are fraught with technicalities which I do not yet fully understand.
Working on it tho.
Jimro
It seems to me that by Jimro's point of view, if you ever buy something at up to 60% less from Amazon, you're being mean to the big companies.
If Amazon can sell things with that high a discount and still make a profit, there's either something very wrong with the way they're being priced, or we're all being took.
Or perhaps, as Amazon can cover an entire country from one office, rather than having to franchise themselves across the country, and as they have such a gigantic market available to them, they can bulk buy without fear of overstocking items.
Amazon is a massive brand and spreads through the entire world, it has all the publicity it could ever dream for, as it is open to such a market, has lower costs than franchises and can bulk buy on a national scale, they are easily able to lower prices to that sort of level.
They'll still need warehouses to stock things in. Many, many warehouses. And there's the cost of postage to consider, whenever someone buys enough to qualify for free postage.
And they do employ some people.
And there are silly costs as well.
But yes, they don't have hundreds of shops to franchise. And whatever happens, they can't sell the products for less than they bought them for.
Having missed it due to an unfortunate LAN party scheduling mix-up, I finally finished downloading the entire debate via a very slow BitTorrent stream. God, I love the Internet.
Remarks...
The two candidates hadn't even gotten a word out before John Kerry stamped his mark of authority on the debate. After Jim Lehrer's introduction, Bush bounded across the stage in an attempt to "win the stride" - that is, to get into his opponent's space and intimidate him, as Ronald Reagan did so effectively to Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Unfortunately it backfired when tiny Bush ran smack into man-mountain John Kerry, who pulled Bush in close to contrast the height difference between them. Kerry leaned down to whisper in Bush's ear, leading to the first great moment of the debate - Bush literally having to tear his hand out of Kerry's grip before retreating all the way back across the stage to his podium.
It honestly appeared that George W. Bush's only preparation for the debate was to repeat the phrase "mixed signals" and "mixed messages" over and over again in front of a mirror. Funny thing is, when it came to the crunch he even f---ed that up, at one point accusing Kerry of sending "mexed missages."
The purpose of all this, was, of course, to paint Kerry as indecisive. See, according to Bush, you can't be a strong leader if for one second you stop to consider your options. Staying the course is always preferable to discussing alternatives, even if that course is leading you towards the edge of a very tall cliff.
In fact, it's absolutely preferable to drive off that cliff - as long as you're resolute and steadfast while you're doing it. Unfortunately this gambit failed dismally as Kerry came across far steadier and stronger during the debate than Bush, who looked wobbly, defensive, and weak. Oh well.
But let nobody ever accuse Bush of being inflexible! See, while Kerry maintained strong and consistent positions throughout the debate, Bush appeared to be making up new policies as he went along.
First, he took on Kerry's suggestion that it would probably help the United States if the rest of the world thought it was credible. While rambling on about the International Criminal Court - which he actually appeared to be quite frightened of - Bush said, "I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense."
This, of course, was after Bush had spent a good portion of time boasting about the "alliances" that he had put together with the United Kingdom, Australia, and, uh, that's it. Oh - Poland. I almost forgot about Poland. So which is it, Mr. President? Making sure you have strong alliances by ensuring that you remain credible in the eyes of the world? Or making sure you have strong alliances by not giving a damn about your credibility? Make your mind up.
But that wasn't all - Bush also insisted that Iraqi president Ayad Allawi "doesn't want U.S. leadership ... to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people." But then, after yet another verbal thrashing from Kerry about the perils of blind certainty, Bush changed his mind. In fact, you might say he flip-flopped. "I fully agree that one should shift tactics, and we will, in Iraq." He said. Oh, you will? Gee, don't tell Ayad Allawi. He doesn't want US leadership to send mixed signals.
The debate gave Bush a splendid opportunity to come up with yet another new excuse for why the war in Iraq is not exactly a success. And it's a good one! See, apparently they achieved victory too quickly.
"Because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around," said the President. "In other words, we thought we'd whip more of them going in. But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operations, we moved rapidly. And a lot of the Ba'athists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought we would - they would stay and fight. But they didn't. And now we're fighting them now."
Now we're fighting them now, indeed. Mind you, it's odd that Bush thought they would stay and fight, considering that just last week CNN reported that "Two classified reports prepared for President Bush two months before the Iraq invasion warned the war could prompt an insurgency in which rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government would work with existing terrorist groups, sources said."
Want more? "The January 2003 reports from the National Intelligence Council (NIC) said an invasion would increase support for hard-line politicized Islam and result in a divided Iraqi society prone to violent conflict, the sources said Tuesday."
Don't blame Bush though. It's not his fault if he didn't read those reports.
Of course, the biggest news of the night came when George W. Bush acknowledged that - hold on to your hats - he knows who attacked America on 9/11! Of course, he needed a bit of prompting from Senator Kerry, but there you go.
Ever since 9/11 the Bush administration has done all it can to confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. This might have worked on the lazy mainstream media, who happily drilled it into the minds of the American people for two years, but it wasn't going to work on John Kerry.
When Jim Lehrer asked Bush about more preemptive military actions, Bush waffled about Iraq and then foolishly threw in his favorite piece of campaign spin: "I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running - when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people."
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
"Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate," responded Kerry. "In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, 'The enemy attacked us.' Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us. And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains. With the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist."
Well, you could have used Bush to clandestinely open an envelope, he was steaming so much. And when Kerry was done, Bush barged in for a 30 second rebuttal - his mouth running way, way ahead of his brain. "Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us," he fumed. Then, realizing how ridiculous he sounded, he trailed off with a lame, "I know that."
I almost felt sorry for the poor guy. It can't be a nice feeling, having a big plate of vos fesses, la carte handed to you in front of 60 million people. But then I remembered the whole "ordering the deaths of 13000 innocent civilians" thing, and I looked away in disgust.
Harl, you'd be suprised about the difference in price between a warehouse in the middle of nowhere and a shop in the middle of a high-street in a crowded city. It's INSANE the amount companies have to pay to get a space on Oxford Street. That's why certain stores have been closing down since I was a kid, infact 3 shops on the same franchise, I've yet to work out how they've had continuous closing down sales for over a few years, there has to be a loophole somewhere >.>
Anyway, this isn't Business Studies (one of the few lessons I did pay attention to in school) it's a political debate, which brings me to my next point... *DIVES OUT OF THE WINDOW*
Rumsfeld: No Link Between Saddam, al-Qaida
And then, mere hours after he says this, he says otherwise.
Can the people in this administration make up their damn minds? -_-;;;
And yet they continue to criticise Kerry for 'flip-flopping'?
Bloody hypocrites.
Quote:
It honestly appeared that George W. Bush's only preparation for the debate was to repeat the phrase "mixed signals" and "mixed messages" over and over again in front of a mirror. Funny thing is, when it came to the crunch he even f---ed that up, at one point accusing Kerry of sending "mexed missages."
What made it even more ironic was how he said (during the debate as well as other times) that the President needs to be someone capable of speaking clearly.
It seems to me that by Jimro's point of view, if you ever buy something at up to 60% less from Amazon, you're being mean to the big companies.
If Amazon can sell things with that high a discount and still make a profit, there's either something very wrong with the way they're being priced, or we're all being took.
Harley, Amazon pays for their books for about the same price as Barnes and Noble. The price the customer pays isn't up for debate.
If Canada subsidized canadian booksellers by setting cost of books below fair market value, then Canadian bookstores would pay less than Amazon and B&N. That's what we were talking about.
Jimro
I thought we were over that comment now, Jimro. How about commenting on Eon's post the way you normally do?
By claiming he's wrong and acting as if he's said something which insults you.
Latest news that I know (which means it probably isn't very recent at all):
Bush has decided that the best way to lower oil prices is to set up more drilling in the USA, and to also ignore the fact that we're going to run dry in about twenty years anyway, whether or not Iraq sells oil cheap.
Not of course that it matters to him, since he'll probably be dead by then.
So vote Bush, who thinks that the best way to solve a problem is to ignore it!
