Hello, I just would like to share this little tidbit of information that has just been released. A new University of Maryland report on international-policy opinions was released this past week with some very interesting results. It showed 75 percent of President Bush’s supporters still believe Iraq was either directly involved with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks or al-Qaida, and 63 percent believe clear evidence has been found to support the connection. Even after the recent Charles Duelfer report to Congress confirming, again, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction or serious weapons programs, 72 percent of Bush supporters believe Iraq had either weapons or a functional-weapons program.
The report went on to survey citizens’ perceptions of their candidates’ international-policy positions - from missile defense to the Kyoto agreement. It showed that, regardless of their personal opinions, Bush supporters only accurately knew their candidate’s position on two out of eight issues. Supporters of John Kerry were right on seven out of eight.

It shows that relatively the only supporters of Bush are ones that dont know him that well. Me, being a strong supporter of Kerry am not surprised of this evidence for the majority of the people that are going to vote for him dont watch the debates and things.

A few other interesting misconceptions American hold:

Most Kerry supporters think that only Cheney got Vietnam deferrments and Kerry simply decided to sign up for the war out of the goodness of his heart. WRONG: Kerry was awarded 4 deferrments, and only after the fifth (which he applied for to study in Europe - far away from 'Nam) was denied did he sign up for swift boat duty (which was designed to keep him far away from battle -- only later did the swifties get closer to the sh.t). So why dog Cheney for getting something that Kerry also tried to get but failed?? Exactly.

Also: Why do so many people buy into the DNC talking points that a draft will be necessary if we need more troops as a result of unforseen future conflicts like Korea or Iran??? The Dems don't want you to know that there are a handful of well-established and traditional methods of raising more volunteer troops. The first, and most obvious way is to eliminate the requirment that at least 50% of recruits have H.S. diplomas. They simply lift that requirement and accept more G.E.D. kids and they get MANY more eligible, willing troops. Also, there are many ways to tweak the benefits, and compensation structures to get more volunteers. A draft is simply unnecessary to raise additional forces.

And finally...Haliburton! Why did Haliburton get a "no-bid" contract on the reconstruction work in Iraq? It's not really true that the company got its work without competitive bidding. In the 1990s, the military looked for ways to get outside help handling the logistics associated with foreign interventions. It came up with the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP. The program is a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services might be needed quickly.

Halliburton won a competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 2001. So it was natural to turn to it (actually, to its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root) for prewar planning about handling oil fires in Iraq. "To invite other contractors to compete to perform a highly classified requirement that Kellogg Brown & Root was already under a competitively awarded contract to perform would have been a wasteful duplication of effort," the Army Corps of Engineers commander has written.

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the U.S. corporation charged with helping repair it.

SparkleMotion, first off I am going to say that I meant no offense with the post, you appear to be a well informed republican voter, however, I was merely stating how most of the Bush supporters are according to the study. I am sure that people know that there will not be a draft by now. And you cannot blame the democrats per se you can blame a portion of them but not all of them. And you must admit that although there is not official draft, that there is a sort of "backdoor" draft, in which soldiers repeatedly have to go to Iraq because of the lack of soldiers. Did you here about the man who filed a federal lawsuit because he retired but was still ordered to go to Iraq. Of course the democrats are going to talk about Halliburton being that is is Cheney's former company, you must see the irony in that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

quote:

---

Originally posted by SparkleMotion:
A few other interesting misconceptions American hold:

Most Kerry supporters think that only Cheney got Vietnam deferrments and Kerry simply decided to sign up for the war out of the goodness of his heart. WRONG: Kerry was awarded 4 deferrments, and only after the fifth (which he applied for to study in Europe - far away from 'Nam) was denied did he sign up for swift boat duty (which was designed to keep him far away from battle -- only later did the swifties get closer to the sh.t). So why dog Cheney for getting something that Kerry also tried to get but failed?? Exactly.

---

I don't think the deferrments are particularly relevant to the issues of the election, but I'm not willing to say that Kerry and Chaney are on the same plane because both received deferrments. In the end, be it bad luck or bad strategy, Kerry ended up in Vietnam. Chaney did not. At every turn, Chaney found a new way to avoid service: college, marriage, children. I think it's fair to "dog" him because, despite the fact that he didn't go, he can still challenge Kerry's service record. It seems quite hypocritical to me.

Do I think the Kerry camp overplays the Vietnam angle? Hell, yes. Do I think that people who got deferrments in Vietnam (including Chaney) are inherently bad people? No. But Chaney's own actions make me question his character. His comments, on the endorsement by the Washington Post of Kerry were that the endorsement didn't matter because the people at the Post weren't "friendly people." Huh? Slamming a guy's military record is OK, but being endorsed by a newspaper is "unfriendly"?
Why not just go all Ann Coulter on the Post and accuse them of treason for not supporting Bush...

Aside from my worries about the Bush administration's foreign policy, the erosion of civil liberties, and the collapse of freedom of speech, here's one of the scariest things I've seen in the recent past (along with the assaults on science being made by the Creationists):

Constitution Restoration Act of 2004

HR 3799 IH



108th CONGRESS

2d Session



H. R. 3799
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 11, 2004




Mr. ADERHOLT (for himself and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary







(a) IN GENERAL-

(1) AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.


I'm really not thrilled about living in a theocracy.

I'm also not thrilled with this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1322479,00.html

Maybe David Hager should stay off FDA advisory panels and stick to prescribing prayer for medical problems.

In the end, I'm sure Bush and Cheney (et al) think they are doing their best for the country. But I'm not really interested in having someone else's religion setting limits on my life. At rock bottom, that's the issue that matters most to me.

I totally agree that Bush imposes his religion on everybody. That is the main reason that he is against gay marriage and abortion, he is not looking out for "America the Diverse" he is looking out for his support group, conservative christians. I also agree that he is against science. On the national aids committee he supported a person who referred to homosexualality as a "Deathstyle". He is impeding on progress to the global warming crisis and says that more testing is necessary, when it is widely accepted by the scientific community. As everybody knows he promotes abstinence-only safe sex programs which do not help teenagers but do however increase the level of uneducated teens who have unsafe sex. The list goes on and on. BTW PE, did you see the bit that the Daily Show featured about Cheney calling "The Washington Post" "unfriendly"?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

Well, pE, there's no way in hell that resolution could ever affect your life, although I agree that if the more-liberal Supreme Court justices all get replaced by Conservatives, we might have a problem. That HR is completely unconstitutional, and there's no getting around that, at least not now.

I would hope that the American public has the common sense to "balance" our Fed Gov't, but I admit that at this exact time, "balancing" seems a dirty word. Remember "Checks and Balances"? Well, if all three branches of the government lean the same way, then we may very will tip over enough to completely screw our "wonderfully-conceived" country. I realize that the three branches MAY have all been tipped a certain way before, but as far as I can tell, we've NEVER fallen over yet.

Please vote for the best for YOUR country, and not because somebody pushes all your buttons or you're scared that things can get worse. I'll guarantee you that they can, but to paraphrase Lincoln, outsiders won't kill off this country; it will only happen from within. (He was an astute student of American/World history.)

How about some BUSHISMS! YAY! A few of my favorites:

"You've heard Al Gore say he invented the internet. Well, if he was so smart, why do all the addresses begin with "W"?"
Headline News, Miami., Oct. 28, 2000

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
—Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

On His Tax Break Plan Bush said:

"If most of the breaks go to wealthy people it's because most of the people who pay taxes are wealthy."

How does everyone feel about Bush recently. Like, since his second election and things like that. AND I'd like to ask how everyone feels about celebrities voicing their opinions. I will just say I enjoy these opinions from the educated more well read folks (Tim Robbins) to the flat out puppets like Ben Affleck who OBVIOUSLY doesn't think at all for himself. (I have had serious doubts in his participation in scripting "Good Will Hunting" the ass was probably at a toga party)

All the way down to Dennis Miller, a non-celebrity that holds faith in Bush, Adam Sandler the Quiet American, etc.

Okay, you caught me, I'm just trying to start this dead convo back up. Seriously though, I do think all the before mentioned is interesting.

I'm simply waiting for the next invasion (of Iran, or North Korea, or whover else he threatened in his Inauguration speech as "enemies of Democracy") and for the re-institution of the draft. I don't see how he can keep up the current war, much less another, on an all-volunteer army. I'm just glad I'm old enough not to be draftable.

I'm much more comfortable with his new Attorney General than the holier-than-thou head of the Thought Police, John Ashcroft.

quote:

Originally posted by philosopherEric:
I'm simply waiting for the next invasion (of Iran, or North Korea, or whover else he threatened in his Inauguration speech as "enemies of Democracy") and for the re-institution of the draft. I don't see how he can keep up the current war, much less another, on an all-volunteer army. I'm just glad I'm old enough not to be draftable.

I'm much more comfortable with his new Attorney General than the holier-than-thou head of the Thought Police, John Ashcroft.

Well, if he does want to do a draft. Obviously, ALL the American People would hate him than. Couldnt he be put out of office for something like that.

Going against democracy, lieng to the American people repeatedly and seriously going insane.

Well, you never know, Republicans may be stupid enough to still like him after that

quote:

Obviously, ALL the American People would hate him than. Couldnt he be put out of office for something like that.

It is doubtful he would be "Impeached" for instating a draft that is necessary for the numerous wars that Bush wants to partake in if Republicans have the majority in the Senate and Congress. I, too, am anticipating the moment Bush attempts to invade Iran or North Korea. And then gets us into an even bigger mess than we already are.

These are my complaints so far:

He wants to "Privatize" Social Security which I am against. Most people wouldn't have a clue how to invest and generally people who do fail as well. It isn't nearly as big as he is making it out to be and if they just tax all of the income over $90,000 then it would fund Social Security for another generation.

His "Big-ass" budget, I don't know, but last I heard America was in debt. I've heard numerous republicans tell me that "It doesn't matter we can just print more money!" but anyone with an idea about how economy works could tell you that this creates inflation.

In general politics, I was very disturbed when some state (I forget which) proposed a law to ban "Sagging." They wanted to be able to fine people for showing their underwear in public, men and women. Apparently all of the dinasaurs forgot about the "Flappers" and later Elvis.

And some extreme religious Floridians are trying to get our constitution ameneded to state that "Gay Marriage" is prohibited. Even though it is already a law. The reason behind this is so that a judge cannot find it "Unconstitutional" and then scrap it. These Christians are just getting better and better at making sure homosexuals don't get any rights.

EDIT: I forgot how I dislike every Conservative bashing Ward Churchill for stating his views. Do I agree with him? Hell no. Does he have the right to say it without having to demote himself or stop public speaking? Without a doubt. The day we stop letting people speak their minds is the day that America turns into dictatorship that votes for its dictator every four years.

And here is a funny article about the Underwear ban

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

I have strong feelings about the Ward Churchill fallout, but it's not entirely fair to lay that on Bush's shoulders...as far as I know, he's not said anything about the case at all. But the correlation between Bush Supporters and those who want Churchill ousted seems correct. And the fact that the Bush Network (umm..I mean Fox "News") has its own rabid dog (Bill O'Reilly) on the case seems to cement that connection. Churchill was one in a series of college professors who were "profiled" by O'Reilly for being anti-American. Others include a pro-Palestinian professor of Middle East studies at Columbia and an economics professor and Counterpunch columnist from Northeastern. I share Mike's rejection of Churchill's article...it strikes me as both incorrect and insenstive (bordering on ugly) but I fail to see how it even comes CLOSE to being grounds for a tenured Professor's dismissal. So much for academic freedom...toe the party line or risk your job?

The droopy pants issue is a joke, but other infringements are going on in other venues. There's a company in Michigan that gives its workers Breathalyzer tests to find out if they are smoking AT HOME on their own time, and fires them if they do, based on a strict anti-smoking policy. And a woman was fired in Alabama for having a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker.

Unrelated to the topic at hand, I admit, but bothersome in the light of other rights infringements going on these days.

quote:

And the fact that the Bush Network (umm..I mean Fox "News") has its own rabid dog (Bill O'Reilly) on the case seems to cement that connection. Churchill was one in a series of college professors who were "profiled" by O'Reilly for being anti-American. Others include a pro-Palestinian professor of Middle East studies at Columbia and an economics professor and Counterpunch columnist from Northeastern.

I hate Bill. I watch the show about once a week just so that I can have new reasons to hate him. I don't know how he can call his show news when he continually plugs things like his "The Factor for kids" and premium services on his website. The funny thing is that he has to nerve to call CNN liberal and he claims to be "Fair and Balanced." He is about as "Fair and Balanced" as a game at the fair. This is all off topic so I will stop now, but thanks for giving me an opportunity to express my disdain towards the worst "Reporter" on cable news.

You are both speaking out of ignorance. Pull your heads out of your asses and know that O'Reilly does NOT want the man fired. If you had any first-hand knowledge of the show, you'd know that. Churchill can suck my balls, but I'm glad he exists and has his job. The anti-America movement of the far left and the anti-tolerance movement of the far right both need attention so the centrists among us can scorn them. Calling children killed on 9/11 "little Eichmans" and calling women getting abortions murderers are equally appalling.

If you think you are either "original" or interesting by calling Fox News an arm of the Bush administration, etc. -- you're not. It's the most cliche'd "protest" I've ever seen on the net since 2000. There are more liberals on Fox News than there are conservatives on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS combined.

quote:

Calling children killed on 9/11 "little Eichmans" and calling women getting abortions murderers are equally appalling.

PE and I both stated that we do not support what he said, but he shouldn't be publicly scorned because of it. Nor do intend to be original, just stating my opinion of the mockery that is "The Factor" and "Fox News." I think that CNN, actually tries to be unbias most of the time, they show both sides of the story and do not criticize either. But if you watch "Fox News" you constantly see liberals being slammed.

quote:

Originally posted by RayRay:
You are both speaking out of ignorance. Pull your heads out of your asses and know that O'Reilly does NOT want the man fired.

First off, that quote above is why discourse with people like Bill O'Reilly is impossible. I disagree with you...so my head is up my ass. Clever. Shout me down.

Secondly, I never made the explicit claim that O'Reilly wanted Churchill fired. I said he profiled him. But I've watched the piece in full, and I don't see any evidence that O'Reilly was supporting him or his right to speech or academic freedom in any way. The people of Colorado, including the Governor, were the ones pushing the issue...but are you honestly telling me, from the tone and tenor of the piece, that O'Reilly wouldn't have loved to see the guy fired? It wasn't a story about academic freedom (because O'Reilly pushed that argument clearly on the piece about the econ professor from Nevada who was accused of making homophobic statements, and deservedly so)...it was a story about how Churchwill was an evil twat. If O'Reilly ever explicitly said anything to the effect of "he sucks but I defend his right to say what he said" (as you said, and as Mike and I said earlier) then I missed it.

PE, the "pull you head out of your ass" comment was not meant to be a diss...that's an informal kind of "wake up" expression we use out here. The key difference is this: The right to free speech must be preserved. I agree to this and so does O'Reilly (based on his coverage of this Churchhill story). At the same time, responding to somebody else's hateful speech is also to be encouraged. That's called the marketplace of ideas - free exchange of thought. If you, as a state employee, told me that Theresa Heinz's family got their seed money from the Nazi party, you shouldn't be fired, but your opinion should be vigorously challenged and you should be scorned. O'Reilly's shtick is to challenge people who make ridiculous assertions, from his perspective. Calling victims of 9/11 "non-innocent" or "little Eichmans" should be scorned. Simply because Ward has the right to say it and has the right to keep his tenured position does not mean that he should not be scorned for saying it. That's all O'Reilly was saying. And if he spewed venom in the process, do you blame him??? Do you think the victims of 9/11 were the equivalent of Nazis??? Don't let the extreme left make you believe that simply because they have the right to make ridiculous statements that they should also be above reproach. And don't let the intolerance of the extreme right do the same thing. The political backbiting going on since 2000 is ridiculous. I voted for Clinton both times and I voted for Bush both times. I don't belong to either party, and have views which are extremely unpopular with both parties. I watch CNN, MSNBC, AND Fox News. Independent thought, my friends!

I skimmed this thread. I don't really want to get that into the discussion.

What I would like to add is that although I am conservative (although I will never vote, and I couldn't give two shits for abortion or gays or any of the non-economic parts of the ideology), I don't and wouldn't go defending everything W does just because he's a republican president. If he cuts top-margin taxes, I say yay. If he fails to cut funding for social programs, I say boo. Although, in a broad sense, every decision is economic, I only (slightly) care about the strictly fiscal stuff.

In terms of his personality in public, on the other hand, I am a huge supporter of Bush. He is a badass dude. Stubborn, rich, southern, arrogant, vocab-challenged. If Kerry were the one who wanted to cut taxes and Bush were the one proposing socialized medicine, I'd want Kerry to win, but I'd feel bad that we'd have a "Giant Douche" be president instead of a "Turd Sandwich".

EDIT: O'Reilly is a fuckface, and his show sucks. Is Shepard Smith still on Fox News? That dude is so much cooler.

I'm also hard to pigeohhole when it comes to politics, religion, philosophy, etc. because I seem to be a nation of one. I do read newspapers on a daily basis, but I rarely watch TV "news" or any of the most popular shows. I know about the Churchill Incident because it's all over the op-ed pages, but franlky, I think it's overkill at this point. But no, each side tries to use it to their advantage, and in the process, more and more wild accusations are brought out into the light of day. That's about all I have to say, except that RayRay and I have probably lived in California our entire lives, so now you know what THEY say about us weirdos is true.