OK now, Time for the GOP Convention

[maplesyrup]

N.Y. police arrest two men in alleged bomb plot

Jeez, what a sorry bunch of morons, excuse me Ms Parrish, idiots, the US Administration, are!

[maplesyrup]

Article

Nightmare scenario for Bush in New York this week - 100,000 people demonstrating against what Bush represents.

[kaper1999]

the protest was way much bigger than 100000.

[Guest eureka]

I made the mustake of watching a bit until I felt like throwing up. What a commentary on a sick nation. Guiliani lying in every sentence and an audience ignorant of the past, lapping it up. Even Mccain whp had seemed to merit some respect lied profusely while attempting to justify the unjustifiable - pre-emptive war.

This performance raises the question of whether North Korea or Iran could be faulted if they were to launch an attack on the US. And, I an sure that Japanese revisionists are liking what they hear to explain their reasons for Pearl Harbour.

What a convention that seems unconcerned about the politics of America and all that matters is the phony "war" on terror and the glorification of American militarism and unilateralism.

[takeanumber]

Yup.

You arn't supposed to launch pre-emptive wars.

The comparison between the Japanese and the Americans are extremely similar.

Except the Japanese, when it came to China, were 40,000 worse.

In fact, Japanese actions in China make Pearl Harbour seem tame, and make the dropping of the atomic bomb look weak.

The US is far more humain, IMO, but yet again, the standard is higher for them.

[Black Dog]

"Democrat" Zel Miller and Cheney spoke today. Didn't see the Veep (I was in my secure, undisclosed loation), but Millers speech was a vitrioloc tirade that reminded nme of Orwell's "two minute hate" and was laden with hyperbolic ad hominems and foaming-at-the-mouth proto-fascist rhetoric that will no doubt play to the Bubba vote, but could turn off moderates and undecided voters. Miller went on to attempt to challenge "Hardball's" Chris Matthews to a duel. i'm serious.

Cheney took a more moderate stand, but kept the focus squarely on Kerry, which speaks volumes about the G.O.P's confidence in their incumbents record. And what a record it is.

ANOTHER RECORD. We have already lost more American soldiers (488) in Iraq in 239 days of this year than we did in 287 days last year (482), when there was a war on and before our mission was accomplished.

The grind of the numbers is so relentless. Price of oil — pressing $50 a barrel. Poverty rate — increased again, third year in a row. Number of Americans without insurance — increased again, third year. Part of the “vibrant economy” Bush touts daily now. And the news from Iraq just keeps getting worse and worse.

Then, to liven things up, someone from Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith’s office is accused of passing classified information to the Israelis via the lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Be interesting to see whether Laurence A. Franklin, the alleged spy, gets as much publicity as Clinton’s former NSC adviser Sandy Berger did for allegedly taking notes on classified documents for his 9-11 Commission testimony. The Justice Department has announced no charges will be filed against Berger, and the matter is closed.

Some days it’s hard to figure out what the Bush administration thinks it’s doing. They started their convention in New York City by announcing a new formula for distributing public housing funds that will cost New York City billions of dollars and benefit primarily Texas and California. You just never know about timing with this bunch: The Census Bureau jumped the gun by a full month reporting the new, highly unfortunate numbers on both poverty and health insurance. This put the announcement in the August congressional recess, with many newsies on vacation — poverty up by 1.3 million, uninsured up by 1.4 million. Median income stagnant. Children hardest hit — 12.9 million children living in poverty.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, George W. Bush’s top donors — the Pioneers ($100,000) and Rangers ($200,000) have delivered a total of $76.5 million this campaign. According to Texans for Public Justice, 69 percent of the 544 elite donors are CEOs and business executives. Seventeen percent are lobbyists. One hundred of them are connected to the corporate scandals Bush now lists as among the economic factors to which he had no connection. (Ken Lay was his largest single donor in 2000.) And 146 of the big-time donors received government appointments.

Unnumbered weirdness by John Ashcroft (it’s too hard to keep count): The Department of Justice has asked the Government Printing Office “to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the department has deemed ‘not appropriate for external use.’ Of the five publications, two are texts of federal laws. They are to be removed from libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library,” according to the American Library Association. All the documents concern either federal civil or criminal forfeiture procedure, including to how to reclaim items that have been confiscated by the government during an investigation.

[Hawk]

All I hear is a bunch of Bush-haters trading cards from the first few posts of this topic, its pathetic yet typical. So let me address your 'points'

1.

Jeez, what a sorry bunch of morons, excuse me Ms Parrish, idiots, the US Administration, are! 

The only true idiot is the administration that lets the catastrophe happen before they act. If someone that openly expresses total hatred of you threatens to kill you (seriously) and proceeds to plan where he will stab you and you wait till he actually does then you are the fsking idiot. Yet that is exactly what you are saying governments should be doing, pre-emptive actions are meant to be done prematurely to PREVENT nasty things from happening, not as retalliations for acts already commited =p

2.

Nightmare scenario for Bush in New York this week - 100,000 people demonstrating against what Bush represents. 

100,000 / 300,000,000 = 3.3 x 10^-4 % of the American population protested, whoa I am certain this will cost him the election =p

I mean seriously, 500,000 disputed votes in Florida barely touched him, and since then his popularity has skyrocketed from what it was. Just the hardkore leftists and leftist elites are left, and the elites happen to control the media and higher education which leads to the whole 'enlightened' dogma with which the Left attempts to demean the victim of their hatred with personal attacks and heart-throbbing lies (Michael Moore anyone?)

[Hawk]

Cheney took a more moderate stand, but kept the focus squarely on Kerry, which speaks volumes about the G.O.P's confidence in their incumbents record.

Let me guess, 'its vietnam omg omg omg we have casualties'

News flash (not left-wing news): 4 times as many CIVILIANS were killed by a handful of terrorists than years of American wars against 2 nations which harboured those terrorists.

Now why dont you take a chill pill, stop splurting out the negative Liberal tribe that is so very overused. Consider how many lives have been saved as a result of overthrowing two dictators who were funding terrorists and massacring their own people, stop thinking just of yourself and of your hatred for America and start thinking of human lives. The lives of 500 soldiers in exchange for the lives of countless people who are no longer going to be victims of terrorism funded by Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. I believe in people, and in looking at the true results rather than fabricated doomsday predictions that always end up wrong (yet they are always ready with another one =p)

[yoyodyne]

I mean seriously, 500,000 disputed votes in Florida barely touched him, and since then his popularity has skyrocketed from what it was. Just the hardkore leftists and leftist elites are left, and the elites happen to control the media and higher education which leads to the whole 'enlightened' dogma with which the Left attempts to demean the victim of their hatred with personal attacks and heart-throbbing lies (Michael Moore anyone?)

Well, 100K people would have swayed the vote in Florida. In fact, had everyone in Florida who wanted to vote been allowed to vote, we'd have a different incumbent president, now wouldn't we?

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=33&row=1

The only true idiot is the administration that lets the catastrophe happen before they act. If someone that openly expresses total hatred of you threatens to kill you (seriously) and proceeds to plan where he will stab you and you wait till he actually does then you are the fsking idiot. Yet that is exactly what you are saying governments should be doing, pre-emptive actions are meant to be done prematurely to PREVENT nasty things from happening, not as retalliations for acts already commited =p

Interesting choice of examples for your argument...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3617289.stm

It seems as though if the President were spending more time reading his PDBs and less time playing golf, perhaps 9/11 wouldn't have even happened, hmm? Following your logic, the PDB illustrated the "open expression of total hatred" and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq were the "retalliations for acts already committed." From me filling in those blanks, I'm guessing that you can draw a conclusion as to who the idiot might be.

News flash (not left-wing news): 4 times as many CIVILIANS were killed by a handful of terrorists than years of American wars against 2 nations which harboured those terrorists.

While this may be true, Bush's war on terrorism doesn't appear to be going terribly well:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/.../powell.terror/

In fact, many believe that the war on terror has only created more terrorists:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...MNGTS7E5RK1.DTL

I'm not sure that you really want to go into the "true results" of what Bush has done to the US up to this point. A net loss of a million jobs, 5 million more people living in poverty, 50% of the tax cuts going to the top 1% of the wage earners while the wealth of the bottom 40% gets cut in half. It's not really where to start on what Bush is doing wrong, it's where to stop.

[Black Dog]

Yet that is exactly what you are saying governments should be doing, pre-emptive actions are meant to be done prematurely to PREVENT nasty things from happening, not as retalliations for acts already commited =p

Except that the doctrine of "pre-emptive" war (especially against countries that are not threats to the U.S) is a clear violation of international law, not to mention basic common sense. As for the success of the Bush doctrine on terrorism, it's hard to swallow the line that Americans are safer under Bush, given the almost weekly warnings and threats from the administration itself.

I mean seriously, 500,000 disputed votes in Florida barely touched him, and since then his popularity has skyrocketed from what it was. Just the hardkore leftists and leftist elites are left, and the elites happen to control the media and higher education which leads to the whole 'enlightened' dogma with which the Left attempts to demean the victim of their hatred with personal attacks and heart-throbbing lies (Michael Moore anyone?)

I mean seriously, you're just wrong. Bush's popularity slipped after the election, spiked after 9-11 and has been stagnant or declining since Iraq emerged as a fiasco.

It's only now inching up to above 50 per cent, thanks no doubt to hatred and personal attacks perpetuated by the likes of the Swift Boat Veterans, Miller and the G.O.P attack dogs in the mainstream press.

Let me guess, 'its vietnam omg omg omg we have casualties'

News flash (not left-wing news): 4 times as many CIVILIANS were killed by a handful of terrorists than years of American wars against 2 nations which harboured those terrorists.

Because American lives are the only ones that count, right? Never mind that the U.S. bombing and invasion of Afghanistan killed more civilians than dies on 9-11, while the Iraq death toll has been enormous. (Also, Iraq had no connection to 9-11).

Furthermore, according to Global Securitty.org, "total U.S. dead in Iraq is reported at 1012 as at end of August (244 days of 2004 with 530 dead versus 482 dead in 2003's 287 days despite end of official war and return of "sovereignty").

Of at least equal concern is US casualties totalling 6987 as at end of August including a big jump of 1112 in the most recent month alone. Note that the wearing of bullet-proof vests means that many of these would have been deaths in earlier combats such as Vietnam. The vests have reduced deaths but greatly increased total incapacitation wounds such as brain injuries and limb loss. (Note that Pentagon has been trying to "spin" the number of wounded by only reporting "hostile" wounded since 1 April 2004).

If you assume that the 6987 wounded cannot return to fight and nor can the 4416 reported non-battle injury evacuations, the US loses 21.47 soldiers per day to injury (and 36 per day in most recent month) on top of the 1.9 average deaths per day (total 23.37 per day equals 8530 per year that this continues, more if rates escalate as they are currently). Too many years at this rate and the US military is severely depleted, not to mention the increased vet costs and resultant family impact back home.

Note also that most recent deaths have not been in Najaf, implying there is a largely unreported but much more effective uprising elsewhere in Iraq (Al-Anbar district seems to be where most deaths are still occuring). "

That's more than 7,000 killed and maimed in Iraq alone, a country which, once again, presented no threat to the U.S..

Now why dont you take a chill pill, stop splurting out the negative Liberal tribe that is so very overused. Consider how many lives have been saved as a result of overthrowing two dictators who were funding terrorists and massacring their own people, stop thinking just of yourself and of your hatred for America and start thinking of human lives. The lives of 500 soldiers in exchange for the lives of countless people who are no longer going to be victims of terrorism funded by Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. I believe in people, and in looking at the true results rather than fabricated doomsday predictions that always end up wrong (yet they are always ready with another one

Iraq is in turmoil. Americans and even more Iraqis are still dying on a daily basis. More than 11,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed in less than a year. Do you think their family and relatives give a damn about democracy, when scenes like these are part of day-to-day life in "liberated" Iraq? What kind of feelings do you think these people have for the U.S.? Do you actually think invading countires, slaughtering their people under the guise of liberation is going to turn the tide of opinion in the U.S.'s favour? Of course not.

It's no secret why Bush and the RNC have steered well clear of his record. On both foreign and domestic fronts, Bush has been a failure.

[Black Dog]

Ahem. Anyway, getting back to the Two Minute Ha...er, Republican Convention, anyone catch the Bush Twins' speech? So good.

As if the sporadic "dancing" exhibited by the delegates weren't proof enough of the Republicans' inherent lack of coolness or soul, the Twinkies' giggling, Paris Hilton-esque address sealed it.

(EDIT)

This just in: Miller's accusations (some of which were trundled out by Bush later) that Kerry vote drepeatedly to cancel certain weapons systems and "weaken the U.S. military" are based on an e-mail hoax.

So sayeth Snopes.

[Guest eureka]

The sad part of this is that people like Hawk believe what they are saying or writing. What a commentery on the state of political analysis, information and commentary.

His beliefs have been adequately rebutted but I would be curious to know which two nations he refers to as harbouring terrorists. The numbers also do not add up since at least 13,000 innocent Iraqui civilians have been killed and uncounted numbers permanently injured. This is only the victims of American violence and does not consider the vast numbers who have suffered death or sicknes, or will in the future as a consequence of deprivations now being suffered.

[I miss Reagan]

"We hate Bush!" "We hate Bush!" altogether now "We hate Bush!" We hate Bush!"

[Black Dog]

"We hate Bush!" "We hate Bush!" altogether now "We hate Bush!" We hate Bush!"

And your point is...?

Doesn't say much for your cause if that's the best response you can manage.

[I miss Reagan]

Sorry I'm just seeing a lot of stats that have to do with the atrocities of war. A lot of civilians died in Afganistan a war ascribed above as a "US" war. Well Canada is there too. A lot of Germans died in WW2 while we were liberating Europe. War sucks.

[Black Dog]

Hmm...then let's talk numbers. As political commentator and historian Juan Cole pointed out today, Bush simply fails the CEO test.

Let us imagine you had a corporation with annual gross revenues of about $2 trillion. And let's say that in 2000, it had profits of $150 billion. So you bring in a new CEO, and within four years, the profit falls to zero and then the company goes into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. You're on the Board of Directors and the CEO's term is up for renewal. Do you vote to keep him in? That's what Bush did to the US government. He took it from surpluses to deep in the red. We are all paying interest on the unprecedented $400 billion per year in deficits (a deficit is just a loan), and our grandchildren will be paying the interest in all likelihood.

And what if you had been working for America, Inc. all your life, and were vested in its pension plan (i.e. social security)? And you heard that the company is now hemorrhaging money and that the losses are going to be paid for out of your pension? What if you thought you were going to get $1000 a month to retire on, and it is only going to be $500? Or maybe nothing at all? Because of the new CEO whose management turned a profit-making enterprise into an economic loser? Would you vote to keep him on?

Honestly though, I don't know why I bother. Bush and Cheney could have stood on stage biting the heads off pigeons and spitting them in the crowd and you'd probably applaud their tough stance on bird poop.

[I miss Reagan]

The analogy sounds good a first until you bring into it 911. Oh and fighting two wars. Ya that turns the simple analogy into something quite complex.

[Black Dog]

The analogy sounds good a first until you bring into it 911. Oh and fighting two wars. Ya that turns the simple analogy into something quite complex.

I would expect a leader woth his salt would be able to steer his nation through the turbulent waters post-9-11, instead of involving America in a costly and prolonged war and occupation at a time when the economy was in tatters.

Meanwhile, Bush's economic policies are still the cause of much of the ongoing economic woes as Bush's tax cuts may have done great things for the Pioneers and the rest of his wealthy core constiuency, but bugger all for anyone else. Honsetly, you can't expect me to believe that 9-11 and war alone put the U.S.into the whole by nearly $500 billion?

[I miss Reagan]

Well I need not tell you that I am of the proven Reaganomics school of thought. I think the fruits of W. Bush's tax cuts are beginning to come forth with a slow but steady return of economic growth. 911 was a world changing event and cost the economy and government a massive amount.

[ceemes]

Well I need not tell you that I am of the proven Reaganomics school of thought. I think the fruits of W. Bush's tax cuts are beginning to come forth with a slow but steady return of economic growth. 911 was a world changing event and cost the economy and government a massive amount.

Reagonomics or the trickle down theory has been disproven all too often.

Indeed, Bush Sr. spent much of his time in office reversing most of Reagon economic programmes in order to stop the hemoraging of red ink it was producing. Clinton continued dismantling Reagon economic policies and practises and created the biggest surplus the US had ever seen.

Bush in 3.5 short years after bring back the discredited Reagonomics system has racked up a record deficit, lost millions of jobs, lowered actual income and basically FUBAR'ed the US economy. It will take at least 6 to 8 years to repair it.

No matter how you look at it, economically, foreign policy wise, war of terror, national security, what have you, the Bush Administration has been a complete and utter disaster for not only the US, but the for the entire world.

Sadly, only approx. 6% of the worlds population can vote on November 2. and a little less then 3% of the worlds populations wants the Crawford Village Idiot re-elected.

[yoyodyne]

I think that trickle down economics is like any pyramid scheme: if you are in early, it works. Otherwise, you are boned. In the case of trickle down, if you are in the top 1% of earners and you get the big tax break, it works really well, because now you've got a big chunk of extra money to invest overseas or hide away in your Cayman corporation.

That's the problem with the trickle down idea. It assumes that the money is going to trickle down >into the United States<. Funny how Bush forgot about offshore tax dodges. If the jobs aren't staying here, why should the tax money?

It amazes me that nobody seems to know that the huge tax rebates of Bush went mainly to really rich people. 33% of them so far went to the top 1%, and by 2010, 50% of them will go to the top 1%. I can see why the top 1% votes for him, but why would the bottom 99% vote for him? How much of that 33% is trickling down onto the bottom people? According to all of the figures out there, not very much.

Here's one of the best summaries of what Bush has FUBARed for everyone so far:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...&articleId=8344

I'm not one of those people that thinks that the government should be responsible for everything. But some of his "privatization" ideas for Social Security just frighten me. Why? Because everyone seems to feel as though the government owes them something. No matter how much of a died-in-the-wool libertarian Repub you are, the government owes you a retirement. If you privatize social security, that means that you are giving Bush and his cronies (cough... Ken Lay... cough) the chance to bilk many, many people out of their retirement funds AGAIN.

Not only that, but there's a lot of people that are going to invest their funds in stupid things, like fur-bearing trout farms or somesuch. When these people discover they've got nothing, the government is going to have to bail them out... AGAIN. Why not just leave it in the Social Security pot, dole it out as it's been doled out in the past, strongly encourage people to invest in IRAs and 401Ks, and just leave it alone (other than the little thing of dealing with the defunding of it in the next few years that Alan Greenspan has been screaming about, but never mind that now).

As far as I'm concerned, IRAs and 401Ks ARE private Social Security anyway, and the real Social Security is just a nice bonus or cheap insurance in case you get severely hurt. Whenever privatize comes out of Bush's mouth, it means that the little guy is going to get screwed yet again.

And please, 911 was world-changing. But it's just an excuse for running up the deficit with tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world (an estimated $1 trillion to the drug companies over the next few years), and military actions in places that had nothing to do with 911.

And the scary thing is that Bush isn't listening again to the terrorism experts about coming attacks, because it would cost his big donors money. The chemical industry is wide open for attack, with the potential for killing hundreds of thousands of people... but we won't push anything, because that would cut into profits. The airline industry pushed back against spending $1K per plane reinforcing the cockpit doors before 9/11, so it happened and cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars. Is this the guy you want around for another 4 years?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The presidency of George Bush, and the pre-eminent position of the Repug party simply defy my ability to comprehend. I simply cannot understand how any voters accept the lies and depravities foisted on them.

Observing from Canada, if Bush wins this election it will be like watching someone cut off their hand while in thrall to an evil hypnotist and not being able to stop it.

WAKE UP! SNAP OUT OF IT!! YOU'RE CUTTING OFF YOUR HAND!!!

[yoyodyne]

I'm here in the US watching it happen, kind of watching a car crash in slow motion. I talk to normally rational people about who they are going to vote for, and in this area of the US (plains states, Nebraska specifically), it's almost always Bush. When I ask why, the answer is generally something along the lines of one of the following:

"Well, Kerry would be worse."

"We can't afford to have a Democrat in the White House, they spend too much money."

"My political beliefs just align better with Bush."

Sadly, whenever I try to challenge these statements, it's like trying to discuss religion with deeply religious people. The discussion runs something like:

Me: "So who are you voting for for president?"

Bush voter: "I'm voting for Bush again. We just can't afford to have a Democrat in the White House. Clinton just spent money like he was out of control!"

Me: "You do realize that there was a budget surplus coming out of Clinton's era. Really it was Reagan and Bush I that had deficit budgets for 12 years and it was during Clinton's time that we went from deficit spending to surplus."

Bush voter: "Um... well, I'm voting for Bush."

Me: "It's funny how the Republicans spun the whole thing and blamed the Democrats for the huge budget deficits when it was really Reagan's trickle down economics that didn't trickle down. It also had to do with his and Bush's tendency to borrow money against the future instead of doing the responsible thing and raising taxes."

Bush voter: "Well, I'm still voting for Bush."

It's at this point that I give up. I think that it all comes down to repetition. The Republicans say things often enough and no matter how insane it is, eventually people start to believe it. Combine that with the hugely powerful influence of corporations on politics, and I'm not sure that there's really much of a democracy left in the US.

Is there any hope of making a difference, of swaying opinions, or does it really have to get way, way worse before it gets better? Why doesn't anyone listen? And why is it so easy for those in other countries, like my friendly neighbors to the north to see how messed up things are, and yet there are 50 million people who are ready to vote Bush in again for another 4 years?

[I miss Reagan]

Why doesn't anyone listen?

Has it ever occurred to you that people listen but do not agree with your point of view? Why is it that you Dems/Libs feel like you need to shove your views down the throats of those who disagree with you. You try to make those voting for Bush sound dumb. My experience is the opposite. When I ask those I know why they are voting for Bush I get responses such as "nobody could have handled 911 as well as Bush", "he is the most competant for defending the US", "he's tough on terrorism and brings the fight to their turf not ours", "under Bush the economy is already improving after some of the most devestating events in our country's history".

[Guest eureka]

The other day, I talked to my son - by phone. Interestingly, he, his wife, and a group of Americans had recently had dinner with Kerry's sister. Not that he knows the Kerry's or is in those circles. The sister is traveling overseas talking to Americans working there and trying to win that vote for Kerry. He thinks that she is a very "down-to-earth woman with good ideas and common sense. Just a pity that the Dems are not getting the message across at home.

That is just an interesting aside.

This election is all about, beneath the surface, a fundamental shift in wirld politics as well as domestic. It is one that the American administration knows but cannot cope with. I don't know whether the Democrats would be better at it but I suspect they would.

What has happened is that America as the world's sole superpower now is finding itself in a position of hegemony that has not been seen since the more limited one of Imperial Rome. It is a role that it is philosophically unprepared for and one that runs counter to human nature. It overrides the checks and balances that are so important a philosophical factor in the creation of America itself.

Internationally, too, there must be a check on any one power. During the Cold War there was. Now there is none.

The consequence of this is that Europe will be at odds with America and may well feel itself forced to develop itself into the necessary check on america. Economically it is already..

Unilateralism is a concept that the world will not tolerate. It is this more than the idea of premptive or preventive war that is the sticking point in relations now.

Given the technological developments in war potential, I suspect that we must allow for such wars or actions in the future. But, we cannot have any one power deciding who is to be the target. National objectives and interests will overpower reality and need as we have seen with Iraq.

The Security Council as now constituted will not suffice.

Who then, if my thesis is correct, can we turn to. I still favour the United Nations. Tot be this, however, that body will need teeth and abilty.

I would be interested in ideas on this. Or should it be a separate thread?