Bush vs Kerry

[Tanner]

If people don't share my sense of rightness then my worry factor increases.  If their sense of rightness is at cross purposes with mine, or worse threatens the existence of me and mine then I will act to ensure the future of me and mine and to allow me to return to my happy spot.

I agree consistency of righteousness and tolerance are key in dealing with other nations. As to your notion that action is required to ensure your future, I am unsure what you mean.

In getting back to the subject, the Bush administration has sacrificed that sense of righteousness for political expediency. They invaded a sovereign nation to liberate the populace of a "tyrant". Violations of UN Gen Assembly Resolutions, Geneva Coventions and IAEA agreements were noted as a justification for the action.

The US violated those same internationally accepted agreements prior to, and during, the Iraqi invasion. Now they face a renewed insurgency partly due to their inconsistency of righteousness and intolerance. Despite the fact very few Muslims would support an act like 9-11.

My job as a peacekeeper will be infinitely more difficult due to the suspicion and mistrust of Western Society. If you want to know what an insurgent looks like, take any of your friends; deprive them of security, housing, nutrition. Develop them a sense of helplessness, treat him or her with disrespect in their own home and- there you have it, presto!!! - an insurgent. If you want to know what they sound like, listen to any of your family discussions. Their base needs are no different from yours or mine.

Show them consistency of righteousness, tolerance and justice and our efforts will be rewarded.

 

[Kirkhill]

If people don't share my sense of rightness then my worry factor increases.  If their sense of rightness is at cross purposes with mine, or worse threatens the existence of me and mine then I will act to ensure the future of me and mine and to allow me to return to my happy spot.

I agree consistency of righteousness and tolerance are key in dealing with other nations. As to your notion that action is required to ensure your future, I am unsure what you mean.

If I feel uncomfortable in my current situation then I will act to improve my situation.  I may move away.  I may run away.  I may vote for a change. I may write to encourage others to support a position or to change themselves.  In extremis, if threatened I may choose to act to eliminate the threat.  That is what I mean by acting.  I am not in favour of slaughtering people that disagree with me.  If society found such a thing permissible then I doubt that I, being as disagreeable as I am, would be given the opportunity to enjoy these discussions for long.

And with respect to the difference between rightness and righteousness I prefer rightness.  Righteousness to me has too many overtones of dogma and of people setting themselves above others.  I feel that I can be right, be different, respect others for the difference and not wish to associate myself with them, all at the same time.

Righteousness always reminds me of Burns poem "Holy Wullie's Prayer":  O ye who are sae guid yersel, sae pious and sae holy....

Cheers, 

 

[Brad Sallows]

If someone believes a "wrong" is "right" to them, it merely means they have made an incorrect moral judgement.

There is nothing wrong with being judgemental (objective) unless you habitually avoid extending that objectivity to yourself.  It is unlikely any person, any nation, or representatives of any nation will remain wholly consistent with their principles throughout their undertakings.  We credit those who try, criticize those who do not, and distinguish between them.

>They invaded a sovereign nation to liberate the populace of a "tyrant".

You're not sure Saddam Hussein was a tyrant?

 

[Tanner]

There is nothing wrong with being judgemental (objective) unless you habitually avoid extending that objectivity to yourself.


Not sure what you mean.

Point 1- Saddam was, and is, an ***. No dispute.

I believe this will clarify my position

 

[pappy]

Can't we all just get along?

 

[Kirkhill]

Can't we all just get along?

chuckle, chuckle, chuckle...

 

[Spr.Earl]

Can't we all just get along?

Pappy when I was in the Merch.,I sailed on a ship with 9 yes 9 nationalities and we all got along.
I know it's simplistic but in small groups we humans can get along with each other.
Our big task is getting along in this world and sharing .

 

[Spr.Earl]

Bush is a lier and a wanker and if reelected will destroy the U.S. as we used to know it.
Mark my words!!

 

[NavyGrunt]

Bush is a lier and a wanker and if reelected will destroy the U.S. as we used to know it.
Mark my words!!

: Thanks for backing that up. You've changed alot of minds with that little gem ......or stripped yourself of any credibility you had....unless its a joke?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Bush is a lier and a wanker and if reelected will destroy the U.S. as we used to know it.
Mark my words!!

Consider them marked.

The Sun today came out in favour of him.

 

[dutchie]

Bush is a lier and a wanker and if reelected will destroy the U.S. as we used to know it.
Mark my words!!

At this point, re-electing Bush, even if you totally disagree with the war (as I do), can be justified by the old saying:

In for a nickel, in for a pound.

just a thought as we stand on the verge of what I think will be the re-election of Bush.

this probably belongs on the other thread. Were'nt we supposed to be discussing the whole Native-White Government issue?

 

[muskrat89]

Of course Bush has made mistakes..some of them big. That being said, maybe his decisiveness (my perception, granted) is what I have missed about Canada all of my life. I dearly love Canada, but the smarmy Canadian political machine is absolutely sickening. When a country - any country - honestly feels that they are threatened with attack - they should not feel they need to cow-tow to western Europe, the UN, or anybody else - to justift their "defense" or offense, as it may be. Kerry wants and expects the US to pass a "global test", prior to acting. I don't think that's in the best interest of the country in which I live. I do belive Iraq was connected to terror - I listened to a Marine Colonel on the radio the other day describe a terrorist training camp that his unit discovered in Iraq - complete with barracks, classrooms, dining facility, etc. I believe it was a mistake for the Administration to change the focus to "regime change" when WMD didn't pan out the way they expected. I don't like some of Bush's immigration policies, and the steel tariffs helped the mills, but almost put many downstream industries out of business. I think the way Kerry changes/modifies positions, he could have easily eaten up 3 debates, debating only with himself.

Oh - think Bush is a liar? Perhaps, but Kerry has his own brand of disgrace. Have a look at the Stolen Honor video  www.stolenhonor.com  Sorry if it's been tossed out there before..

 

[rw4th]

I listened to a Marine Colonel on the radio the other day describe a terrorist training camp that his unit discovered in Iraq - complete with barracks, classrooms, dining facility, etc.

To see proof of Iraq's link with terror, you just need to listen to the National Geogrpahic special "Inside Special Forces". They find what they call a "Terror House", basically a training facility for making bombs and defeating security at airports. The stuff they find includes the schematic for airport metal detectors. Scarry stuff indeed

 

[Infanteer]

Well, it's election day and I have the funny feeling that Americans have the same set of choices that we were confronted with this summer...not much.

As usual, The Economist delivers a poignant, tongue-and-cheek look at the Presidential Race that is probably not far from the mark:

"You would have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair.  If so, you would be wrong.

This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago.  But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist.  It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world.  But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush."

My instinct is towards continuity because I'm not to warm to Kerry's change, but that's just my opinion.  Either way, it should be a close one....

 

[dutchie]

This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago.

An excellent analysis in my books.

If I was voting, I would be one of those voters that enters the voting box undecided. The choice has both never meant so much, nor been so unclear.

 

[winchable]

From what I hear the voter turnout is a bit higher this year.
Carlson Tucker (The guy with the bowtie) predicted that if 60% of the voters turned out than Kerry would win.
The Washington Redskins lost their game on sunday and for the last 70 years (?) when the Washington redskins when their game before the election the incumbent has won.
An increase in the number of young African American Males, a group that is usual low in turn out, bodes well for Kerry.

I would say all signs point to Kerry (Though the football one is a bit of a stretch, but 70 years c'mon) but I figure Bush'll win.
Either way the president will be an American above all else and serve American interests, nothing wrong with that of course, however I doubt whoever wins will make significant changes in the long run.
Someone on CNN said this morning "You could put a potato in the Oval office and it would serve the American interests the same way any man could."

It's the most voters in a long time from what I hear which is always good, but I still don't understand how people cannot vote.
I was talking to a gent from South Africa today and he grew up under apartheid and he cannot for the life of him understand why people don't vote, even in something like a plebiscite or a municipal election.

Well in any case I'm of the opinion that whichever candidate wins we'll be having the same issues in a few years or ones very similar to them.

 

[1feral1]

Meanwhile here in Australia, we are cashing in on the Bush'Kerry gamble. The state ran TAB betting agency of New South Wales, is actually taking bets, paying out $1.36 if Bush wins.

:

Wes

 

[muskrat89]

A report from the eye of the storm, so to speak.... seems there are record turnouts, and long lines. My wife waited over 2 hours to vote, and all of the polling stations I went by had very long line-ups today....

 

[winchable]

I work at a sports-odds company and we're doing an unofficial odds on the election.
And you better believe there are bookies taking plenty of bets on it.

 

[a_majoor]

Doing the late night political junkie thing. Pres Bush has 249 electoral college votes to 216 for Kerry. I guess all the registered dead, pets and illieagal aliens just arn't doing it for the Dems. (Cats usually vote Republican anyway). Time to call out the lawyers!