Selling: Bush in 30 seconds DVD

[spryfly]

Here are Bush's new campaign slogans:



Taken from America's #1 newpaper:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4015&n=1

lol....very fitting to the discussion

[aviationwiz]

Hahahahahahahaha, I was waiting for that come. Well, first of all, before you said rich, now you are saying middle class, quite a difference, but I must continue on to a specific quote.

OK, here we go.

It is not me who is anti everyone else, it is you who are anti America........

Hahahahaha. Yes, I am very anti-america. I hate America soooo much, I get behind political campaigns to elect our leader, the leader that I believe in. I have views to help the good of the average american worker, and I am anti-america, yes, yes, I am very anti-america for caring about America.

I was just telling my class what it means to be an American, to be politically active, to give out your views out into the open, not to listen to your leaders blindlessly and agree with them always, disagree if you do, agree if you do, don't pretend though. And most of all, NEVER call someone anti-america because they are being politically active.

Man, that reminds me of right after 9/11 when people were saying that if you didn't agree with Bush you were anti-american.

COME ON! As an American citizen, I have the right to disagree with my leadership, I have the right to throw out my views into the open for consideration by others, and they have the right to disagree. I DO NOT have the right to call someone anti-american for being politically active, and NEITHER do you.

[leg4li2ed0pe]

You write, "Ultimatley the reason I can't stand Nader is that he supports a socialist agenda." I don't really like nader. he has a big ego and is may help bush win. He has this crazy idea that two canidates attacking bush are better than one...he doesn't seem to understand how elections work. That being said, his socialist agenda is something I don't mind. Socialism done right works, and people are alot better off than they are in capitalism.

I never said kucinich was a senator.

You may not fall for one party all the time but you do seem to take what is said by some canidates without questioning it. You said, "With the mess Bush has made of Iraq, their is a good chance that Kerry may win. If he does, I beleive that we are in store for something much worse than 9-11. " This could easily have appeared on the bush campaign website. This is EXACTLY the message they are trying to send. But I ask you have you really thought about it. Bush has made us pretty much the most hated country in the world. Now, do you think its going to help stop terrorism by making more people hate us? Sure we can keep going and bombing places but as bush supposedly said he wanted to "stop swatting flies." Well I'll tell you what, afganistan was just swatting flies. Killing Osama Bin Laden would be just swatting flies. If you want to stop terrorism against the united states you have to make people stop hating the united states. I don't know that kerry could do this either, but he certainly would do alot less damage than bush has.

As you found out the "tabloid" I read the saudi stuff in was the washington post. Bob Woodward, one of them most respected journalists in the country wrote a book about it. It was written with the cooperation of the president and many in his cabinet. Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general Richard Myers has said thats about how it happened.

I will agree with you that the UN has become somewhat ineffective. The UN is NOT ineffective however because they would not pass a resolution supporting the Iraq war. This was the choice it made and for what I think was good reason but that is not the issue. It is however only because the US makes it ineffective. When the UN refuses to autorize the war in Iraq the bush administration does it anyway even though the vast majority of the world was against it. If we are so willing to do things against the UN charter and without UN approval then yes the UN becomes ineffective. But it doesn't have to be that way. The US should help give legitamacy to the UN by fallowing its law.

Now for my favorite part. You write, "To anyone who really believes that the US is a terrorist nation....hey, I have bridge I would like to sell you..... " I have much evidence to sugest the US is a terrorist nation. Let me give you a couple examples. There are many more. The united states was condemned by the world court of international terrorism in Nicaragua. The US was ordered to desist and pay reparations. We would have been condemned by the UN security council had we not vetoed the resolution. We responded by giving official order to hit "soft targets," (you may recognise this term as it has been used in reference to the statagy of Al Quada) which basically means ungaurderd civlilian targets. This is terrorism. In 1961 the US started a campaign of terrorism against cuba called operation mongoose. It has a $50 million annual budget. The operation included bombing of hotels and industrial installations, sinking of fishing boats, poisoning of crops and livestock, contamination of sugar exports, etc. This is terrorism.

[dodecahedron]

Socialism done right works, and people are alot better off than they are in capitalism.

quite true.
it's a shame that socialism is anathema to many people in capitalistic countries such as the US.

I will agree with you that the UN has become somewhat ineffective. The UN is NOT ineffective however because they would not pass a resolution supporting the Iraq war. This was the choice it made and for what I think was good reason but that is not the issue. It is however only because the US makes it ineffective. When the UN refuses to autorize the war in Iraq the bush administration does it anyway even though the vast majority of the world was against it. If we are so willing to do things against the UN charter and without UN approval then yes the UN becomes ineffective. But it doesn't have to be that way. The US should help give legitamacy to the UN by fallowing its law.

so you're saying the UN is ineffective because the US doesn't support it/follow it's instructions to the letter?
can't agree with you there.

not that i'm entirely objective, but the UN's impartiality and objectiveness are a picece of crap.