****applauding wildly***

Nicely done, Steve!

Awesome just awesome Steve.
Thanks
T

Hear, hear!!!!

I wish you had been on my debate team!!!
jezzi(remember SNL...Jane, you ignorant slut)

Steve,

I'm a long time lurker on your page (Just an old school Janes fan looking TPC info and other insightful commentary).

Anyway, as someone working on an M.A. in Political Science and who teaches Poli. Sci. at the undergraduate level, I just want to commend you on your comments on Kerry that are written with more cogency, truth and verve than most of what I read in the media and indeed from academics. If TPC does not work out, you should call MTV up again and become a talking head on politics for them! ;-)

BTW...Hurry your ass up with that TPC record...I can't wait to hear it!

"Round Two , ding! ding!"

God Steve, I love your posts. If I had a webcamera you would see me snorting. On second thought, thank God I don't have one.

Steve-Right on! You Rock in more ways than you know! The countdown is on till election day and I seriously can not wait to vote!!!!! Power to the People!!!!

Brett

Here's something I recieved in an e-mail, worthy enough I'd say!

I have this on very good authority! I spoke to a lawyer who couldn't believe what was happening in this presidential. He told me it's bad enough that John Kerry is a traitor to American Servicemen, and has taken vast amounts of campaign money from a Saudi fund raiser who raises funds for, you got it, Osama Bin Laden. He knows of a cover-up by Teresa Heinz Kerry to save the reputation of her cavorting husband. John Kerry got a little too frisky with an office worker in his Washington office and couldn't stop, one thing led another, and Bam. RAPE. The young girl was devastated. It was kept out of the news with several large contributions from Kerry's wife, to the young lady, her family and several lawyers, including the one I spoke to.
This needs to be heard by America! The major news affiliates will not touch a story like this on the eve of an election, so it's up to us. Send this to everyone you know and please urge them to send this to everyone they know. This is too important to let go. We must stand up to this kind of behavior by elected officials.

Torsion Bar(aka Customer Service @Fantastic Shopping)

Is your "good authority" the same one that says the munitions were gone before we got there?

or is it a Swift Boat groupie?

Maybe the same person who said there were WMD?

or...is it....ED?

Steve,
spoken like a true American, right on!
Kerry cares.
Good luck to you all on election night!
Cheers from a Canadian!

rock on Isaacs, rock on... :0)

"He wants to work for energy independence from middle eastern oil."
that's one of the main reasons I'm voting for him.

I'm a little concerned if Kerry does get elected into office that he will stick to what he says, though. Hopefully he will come through and put his words into action if he's elected, but until then my "all politicians suck" attitude probably won't change much. The whole making-the-candidates-look-bad thing messes with you. However, of course there are some incredible folks involved in politics out there, not to take away from them.
I have to say too, one foreign politician that makes sense and I have respect for is Labus of Serbia. Kostunica isn't bad, either. But that is a whole other world there...

ok, that's my opinion that nobody asked for. hehe
back to work.. can't resist checking up on a debate!

-peace-

Maria

Sorry I accidentally posted this in the older thread, but I figured I might as well put it here too.

georgewbush.com/olympics/

This shows a real lack of maturity. Should it be on a parody website, then I could care less, but this is Bush's OFFICIAL site.

As for flip flops, yes Kerry has changed his mind on some issues, but then again so has Bush, but I would never use such a disrespectful term as "flip flopper" for either of them. Check this out to see what I'm talking about. This is a list of Bush and Kerry's "flip flops". (To see Kerry's just click on the appropriate link)

And to you, Linda, I want to commend you for voting for Kerry. It is not easy to break with your party to do what you think is right.

Have you guys heard of the converter that can make cars run on leftover fastfood grease!! Seriously! The only thing is that it only works for cars that are set up to run on deisel. But all you have to do is buy the product (install it) and get a filter, then find a source for your "fuel" ...apparently a lot of food chains don't mind giving it up, because they usually have to pay to have it hauled away...I'll see if I can find a link with info...I just remember reading about this...

Ok....here it is...

http://www.greasecar.com/

check it out....I heard that if the grease is from a fast food chain it has a faint smell of french fries! LOL

OK...let's lighten up the mood and get ready for Halloween! Be sure to watch this with your headphones on!

http://www.omnicore.net/scary/strange_commercial_1.mpeg

-Craig

Steve, I didn't realize that *I* was being so hostile. Wasn't "lying asshole" your line? It's not that you didn't answer quickly enough, I just responded to what you posted. If you had said, "I'm too full of bile right now, I need a lot more time to come up with anything positive.", I would've understood. The misleading way you introduced this post, I had to go back and re-read what you said. For a minute, I thought that I had mistaken your original response to me as being written by someone else.

1. He has taken EVERY stance along the way towards Iraq. Surely, you must recognize that. Hey, I agree with him sometimes too. He's got something for everyone. I liked it when he talked about what a serious threat Iraq was, and that they had WMDs. Just yesterday, he told Brokaw that if in charge, he probably would've had gone to war with Iraq if sanctions continued to fail. Well, after what, 17 ignored UN resolutions?, it's a pretty safe bet. And please use "unilateral" correctly. It doesn't mean "without France and Germany". There are other countries contributing, whether or not you want to admit it or not.

2. Read "Unfit For Command"? Surely you must know about the swift vets opposing him. He has already admitted to lying about at least one of the Purple Hearts. Form 180 would make all his military records public. Bush has signed it and released his. What is Kerry hiding? My guess is a less than honorable discharge for meeting with the enemy in France while still an officer on inactive duty. How can it be such a big deal about a missed physical that CBS would conspire to air forged documents, yet Kerry's secret recrods are not a big deal? Who was the one who made this about Vietnam?

3. see above. There are levels to protesting a war. How far do you go? Is John Lindh the ultimate hero? Kerry met with the enemy in France. He is honored as a war hero in the Vietnamese War Crimes Museum. Tapes of him were played to tortured POWs. He admitted to committing war crimes while in Vietnam (not just the Winter Soldier fabrications of others, but on another occasion he specifically included himself). If he even only witnessed atrocities, why did he never report them?

Your assumptions about Bush are all wrong here. All speculation, and again, do not reflect positively on Kerry. If you are going to claim special interest groups don't have hands in both parties, that is outright laughable.

4. Bush is certainly for adult stem cell research, and was the first president to federally fund it. I don't know a lot about fetal stem cell research. I know that Bush wants to balance ethics (something that is not as simplistic as that ol' evil "religious right") with science. I may not be a scientist, but I'm pretty sure when John Edwards literally announced at a rally that "People are going to get up out of wheel chairs and start walking.", it reeked of a snake oil salesman, or ironically enough.... an old fashioned religious revival.

5. Abortion again is a complicated issue. Is it a choice or a child? What about partial birth abortion? Do you support that as well? Unlike Kerry, Bush does have a moral stance on it, but I don't think that necessarily means that it'll be overturned.

6. A complex issue (in which you threw in some ridiculous non-sequiturs). I think Bush is still open to the idea of civil unions.

7. Really? Well so is everyone. Easier said than done. When he's in Detroit, he brags of his "big Suburban" and all his cars. When he's at an Earth Day rally, they suddenly are not his, they "belong to the family". Uh-huh....

8. A very undistinguished record for having been in the Senate so long. I wish he'd talk about it more often. How about that Senate Intelligence attendance? I believe he's missed 3/4 of the meetings. There emerges a pattern of someone who will say anything to anyone just to further his own career. You really can't see this?

9. So does everyone running for any elected office this year.

10. I don't care what albums to which Bush listens, and obviously I'm a music fan. It has ZERO relevance when it comes to protecting the country and recognizing that terrorism is more than a nuisance. It needs a global strategy. So attacking a verbal slip-up of Bush's is once again something positive about Kerry? Do you seriously think he never has any? I sure hope Kerry likes seeing those Packer games at Lambert Field. Oh, and "Can I get me a hunting license"?

Once again with the "liar". If you're referring to WMD's, you can't prove intent (critical to lying), or that Kerry, who once in awhile showed up for intelligence briefings, didn't believe the same intelligence. You don't think Kerry has said misleading (I'm not going to stoop to the "liar" bit) along the campaign? You've got to be kidding. I can go through them if you want, but I'm not sure there's any point.

"You also apparently can’t offer up any supportive comments for him."

You hadn't asked. ***Note again to everyone, that I'm not the one telling people how to vote.*** But since you ask, the biggest is the war on terrorism. I believe that you have to go on the offensive, even if France and Germany don't like it. I believe the world is safer w/o Hussein. I believe elections in Afghanistan are a remarkable achievement. The war on terrorism is the biggest thing for me. Now there will be some who disagree, but most of it, like Kerry, is all in hindsight. What plan he does have, is almost identical to Bush's with the caveat of everything bad that happens, he would've done differently. That's not a plan, that's Monday morning QB-ing and sickening pessimism. I'm open to the possiblity that I don't have all the answers, but I've watched both candidates closely, and I have my opinion on whom the stronger leader is.

I never "assailed" you, and I never gave you a time-table. That's a straw man argument. I responded to your first response, simple as that.

The electoral college is NOT a loophole. If we didn't have it, it would amass all the power to only the largest population centers. It's an important part of the checks and balances of our government. The constitution is untouchable, yet this is just a "loophole"? Right now, an popular vote would undeniably by every poll out there, favor Bush. I'm still support the "loophole".

Steve, name-calling is not legitimate discussion. Don't confuse that with me saying you have no right to do it. I just wanted to have a serious discussion without taking it down to that level. Remember what John Kerry says: "Labels are meaningless." Well, when you're using them on him at least.

"So now it’s time to add your thoughts, but let me ask you a question… what in the world can you tell me that would make me waste a vote on George W. Bush?"

Well, if we're to the point of calling people "assholes", I don't think you really want to approach this with an open mind. I already told you why I'm voting for him (and I'm not "shoving it down peoples' throats"). The deficit? Yeah, 9/11 had no effect on that at all. World reputation isn't as critical for me as it may be for you. I'm not in favor of the "Global Test", which by the way, we apparently didn't pass even in the first Gulf War, no matter how many nations signed on.

Don't worry Steve, you won't get "assailed" with too much opposition here it appears, so at least you still have that. And you wonder why I don't want other people e-mailing me? If "lying asshole" and other name-calling is deemed applaudable by a certainly credible, unbiased Political Science teacher, I wonder why Kerry didn't use the tactic? Sounds about as "fair game" as the VP's daughter's sex life. But I digress.... Congratulations, Steve, let the sucking up continue!

P.S. I thought about doing this through e-mail in an attempt at real one on one discussion, but the tone you've taken leads me to believe that your level of anger at anyone who dares disagree would make that pretty near impossible. On a lighter note, love the (Skycycle) music, I just wished I hadn't tainted it for myself by checking out the site.

Regards,
Ed

There are just too many draft age people in this country. Please vote for Bush so that they can all be sent off to Iraq in order to die for Haliburton. * For those of you Republicans with your heads in the sand, this is sarcasm.*

LMAO...someone sure has a bee in their bonnet today! Don't mind me folks...just an empty headed twit here to "suck up" ;)

Ed,

Let me clarify, I'm not angry in the least, I think this is great. I love a good debate, whether it's about election day, about a movie or a CD. Love this stuff.

I truly don't want a chours of democrats cheering away at whatever I post, that's boring. I was just making my vote known. I appreciate how well stated and researched your posts are. I would much rather have this happening, than a one-sided partisan hoe down. You raise some great points, and some I wasn't even aware of that I will look into. To be honest, beside my step dad, I just don't know too many Bush supporters, so I am happy to have you here. It's too bad that my vote tarnishes your appreciation for my Skycycle music, don't really see the connection, but hey, that's the risk I suppose.

I wan't posting angrily, but you were a bit nagging and dismissive with your tone after my response to you the first time, so you got that tone on the rebound.

I disagree with some of the points in your response and only really see one in your listing of Bush's strong points - the war on terror, which to me Bush has distastefully squeezed every drop of political gain from. Others, I agree with.

Ultimately, I appreciate the time and intelligence you dedicate to expressing your view, it adds value and dimension to the site, thanks...

S

Steve, don't worry, I can still break out 1's 'n' 0's for some good listening.

I think the war on terror is a big issue. Actually, according to polls, it's the top issue for most of the country. I don't think Bush has done anything distasteful by talking about it. I don't mind Kerry talking about it, when it's in a proactive way. But I don't find his four-point plan to be much different than what Bush is already doing, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how calling allies a "coalition of the bribed and coerced" and saying "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" makes France and Germany (who have already said they will not go in no matter who wins the election) want to have anything to do with Iraq. There must be a reason the overwhelming majority of the military support Bush. They don't see what they're doing as a "distraction" or a waste. I have this as the main strong point, because to me, the economy is pretty much a wash. There are so many factors and statistics can be spun so many ways, that I really don't see the president as being that critical to the equation. On social issues, I think I generally side with Bush, but I do realize (as does he) that there's a lot of grey area there. I can't say that that influences my vote all that much.

Since someone else mentioned the draft, our fine democratic representatives was one of the co-sponsors to reinstate it.... before he voted against it. He has a safe, gerry-mandered district, so I'm sure he'll be back at it again.

Okay, I've added my balance before the democrats start pounding me! I'm off to give Breathing Underwater a spin.

Ed

ok, see, I like this, this is more of an intelligent discourse, Ed. That's what I wanted to see. By the way, thanks for clarifying for Lisa exactly who was the idiot....are you single?

jezebel(against fetal stem cell, against partial birth abortion, against Constitutional amendment defining marriage REPUBLICAN FOR KERRY)

Ed,

According to the polls the economy (23%) and Iraq (23%) are the top two issues in this election followed by terrorism at (19%),that's just another one of your distortions of the facts and of John Kerry's record. I have full confidence that Kerry will win this election save for the fact that the repulicans are trying to suppress the minority vote in the battle ground states just as they did in 2000. Normally voter suppression is only found in communist countries. I hope that fact makes you proud to be a republican.

This is a joke, right? Like there's only one poll out there? Let me enlighten you, Murph. There are terrorists in Iraq. It is not mutually exclusive. Any actual proof of this suppression, or that it's any more than an isolated incident? I guess you think I shouldn't bring up that democrats are paying people with crack in Ohio to fraudulently register people? Or is objecting to that your idea of "suppression". Still, unlike yourself, I'm not bigoted to suggest that every democrat is corrupt. By the by, just down the road from me, where Bush signs are routinely ripped up, someone set a large Bush sign on fire, taking out the neighbor's fence with it. What's next, Murph? Will Senator Byrd burn a cross on my lawn?

You know where they actually have had to deal with real voter intimidation? How 'bout Afghanistan or Iraq? Or Kerry's fave, Vietnam? Before you go spewing your baseless vitriol, try and get some facts straight next time. Your level of hatred does not impress me, and I think you'll find it will backfire on people who spread that kind of garbage come election day. You'll fool some people, sure, but the rest have grown tired of that garbage.

Ed,

Paying people with crack!!!!!!!! Come on man, tell me the site where you saw that. As for evidence to support what I have said all you need to do is check out the websites for CNN, MSNBC, ABCNEWS, CBSNEWS, or watch Inside Politics, Hardball with Chris Matthews,or Meet The Press. The only reason there are terrorist in Iraq is because Bush opened up the door for them to come in. I freely admit that Saddam was a terrible man, but he was not an imminent threat, nor was he harboring terrorist. Saddam was not a religious man, and he would never have risked losing power to fundamentalist terrorist. Maybe you should read the bipartisan 9/11 report. How about seeing Bin Laden in that video tape the other day, wasn't that refreshing? Maybe if we had more than a token force in Afghanistan we could have caught him by now. You know the Twin Towers were also hit in 1993 under Clinton's watch, and the masterminds of that attack are all behind bars, why can't Bush say that? John Kerry's favorite Vietnam!!! Does John McCain support that view? How about Chuck Hagel? John Kerry fought for his country. Where was Bush during that War? It's always the guys who haven't been in combat that are always in a rush to send other peoples children into war. Bush has children and plenty of newphews under 26 why doesn't he incourage them to join the armed forces and volunteer for Iraq? Better yet, if you are of age why don't you volunteer, since you believe it is such a just cause? By the way why do you reference this discredited swift boat crew, and Bush's talking points, none of which have been proven, don't you have any original thoughts? If you don't believe the swift boat idiots were discredited you should watch Nightline more often. And what about all the other swift boat vets who support Kerry, like the guy who says Kerry saved his life? I guess he's lying as well, although he is a republican, who's conscience told him he should support Kerry. Maybe he's just delusional. Why don't those swift boat thugs give back the medals the received for the fire fight in question if it never happened? You know that some of them received medals also right? And where did John Kerry admit that he didn't deserve one of his Purple Hearts? I would really like to know the source. You mentioned in a previous posting that kerry missed 3/4th of his committee sesions, that probably true, but it's also true of every other senator who has run for president. What was John McCain's attendence record in 2000? What you don't know because Bush didn't mention that during the debate? What was Kerry's attendence record in 2003, or 2002? What you don't know? I've sited my sources, lets hear your objective sources.

"Lying Asshole"-Hell yes! *applauds loudly* I'm one of those proud, democratic, cheering fans of Steve you were counting on, Ed. Hey, you were right! Steve's a God, you suck, Bush sucks-Go Kerry!!! Know why I'm not voting for Bush? He's fucking dumb, that's why. Oh, and a big "Lying Asshole". A republican accusing someone else of being filled with hate? Kinda the ole pot calling the kettle black thing there, don't ya think, Ed?

I know the conspiracy theories of which you speak, but I asked for evidence, not names of news organizations. Look Murph, I actually back up what I say: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/18/mary.poppins.registers.to.vote/ So who is the one with "distortions", then?

Whether you want to debate when terrorists were in Iraq or anything else.... unrelated to the original point that THE WAR ON TERROR is the number one issue. I believe that's the phrase I used. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain that to you.

"You know the Twin Towers were also hit in 1993 under Clinton's watch, and the masterminds of that attack are all behind bars, why can't Bush say that?"

Oh, yeah, that certainly solved the problem. Too bad you can't treat terrorism as a police action. Are you trying to argue for my side or against it?

"John Kerry's favorite Vietnam!!! Does John McCain support that view? How about Chuck Hagel?"

What view? I don't think Hagel and McCain negotiated with the enemy.

"By the way why do you reference this discredited swift boat crew, and Bush's talking points, none of which have been proven, don't you have any original thoughts?"

Discredited in your mind only. Original thoughts? Such as what, forged documents? I form my opinions based on news, apparently unlike yourself. I guess your thoughts are real original. That's why they're not based in reality.

"Better yet, if you are of age why don't you volunteer, since you believe it is such a just cause?"

Oh, so this is now the criteria for judging if we should go to war? I only wish John Kerry would say the stuff you say. Bush would win in a landslide.

"If you don't believe the swift boat idiots were discredited you should watch Nightline more often."

Koppel was schooled by O'Neill. And that was on one minute issue that's far from the cruxt of the book. Maybe you should read instead of watching TV. Even if you read Kerry's own account, you'd find that it disagrees with what Koppel relied on our enemy in that war now reports. So now you side with them over both Kerry AND the swift vets account?

"And what about all the other swift boat vets who support Kerry, like the guy who says Kerry saved his life? I guess he's lying as well, although he is a republican, who's conscience told him he should support Kerry."

No one has called him a liar. Of course you don't know this since you obviously haven't read Unfit For Command. This is a complete waste debating the details of a book with someone who hasn't even read it. You're just echoing the talking points without even knowing what exactly is in the book. Let's see, who do I think is the liar? "Murph" or decorated Vietnam vets. Oh, that's a tough one.

Here's a link about his campaign admitting that the first purple heart may've been self-inflicted.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040825-125217-7993r.htm

"You mentioned in a previous posting that kerry missed 3/4th of his committee sesions, that probably true, but it's also true of every other senator who has run for president."

This was well before the campaign.

"What was John McCain's attendence record in 2000? What you don't know because Bush didn't mention that during the debate?"

Oh, in a debate you're supposed to argue the opposite side? I didn't know that. If you want the answer to that question, go look it up yourself. I'm not voting for McCain, so your point is moot at best.

"What you don't know? I've sited my sources, lets hear your objective sources."

You've yet to cite a single source, objective or otherwise. I'm done with you. True, it's very tempting to address the outright falsehoods by you and your kindred spirit, "Zingale", but I really only care to discuss it with Steve. Zingale, get a vocabulary that moves past childish name-calling, and then maybe they'll be some hope for you. In the meantime, you're unworthy of anyone's time, mine or Steve's. Start your vocabluary lesson with the word "hypocrite" and you may find that writing a profanity-filled post telling someone how hateful THEY are, might merit such a label. Hopefully, and it's looking likely, that if they have chads wherever you two live, you won't be able to figure out how to punch them out correctly.

Cheers!

Love, E
Helping the most vitriolic of society (especially those in the party of kindness and peace) vent their baseless hatred and bigotry while scrambling to defend their self-delusional air of moral superiority.

"Zingale, get a vocabulary that moves past childish name-calling, and then maybe they'll be some hope for you. In the meantime, you're unworthy of anyone's time, mine or Steve's. Start your vocabluary lesson with the word "hypocrite" and you may find that writing a profanity-filled post telling someone how hateful THEY are, might merit such a label."
Gee, thank God you're here to "help" us Ed. And you're right, I did use "fucking", "sucks", and "asshole". I could speak in eloquent 4-5 syllable words all night long, I just choose not to as I don't like to type that much. People site sources for their info on here, and you just keep saying, "you haven't named your sources". You started this "debate" by asking "name one reason why you are voting for Kerry" and Steve named 10 right off the bat, so then you feel the need to discredit those reasons. You want respectful answers? Fine, treat others' opinions with that respect. Bush lied. It's that simple. And the same old response of "Kerry voted for it too" doesn't make it right. It sounds like a little kid that's been caught eating cookies-"Billy ate some too". Gimme a break. He hasn't once accepted responsibility for being wrong, he blames the intel. You know why? Because he knew it was a lie all along. He wanted a big "victory" for America after 9/11 at any price. Guess what? The attacks happened while Bush was in office. The repubs say that Bush will keep us safer-he didn't keep those 3000 folks in the towers safe, now did he? The buck stops at the office with the seal on it. And if I'm "unworthy" of Steve's time, it's Steve's place to tell me that, not yours. You cite me for my profanity and my vocabulary. Try this one, Ed. Fuck You. How's that?

Oh, one more thing, Ed. Doesn't Ted Nugent have a blog or a website you can go post on? You'll get a lot more support there. You aren't going to change any opinions or votes here. And my email address is real, I don't hide behind a holier-than-thou attitude. If you want 4 more years of lies, spiraling deficit figures, no end game in sight in Iraq (8 Marines died yesterday, but they are just numbers, right?) distancing our country from the rest of the world (don't forget Poland!), continuned destruction of our environment and drinking water in exchange for corporate donations to the "Party", no real alternative fuel source program in place, 2-3-4? dollars a gallon for gas, rampant nepotism (hey, there's a BIG word), ever increasing limits on our privacy and free speech (see Colin Powell's son-nepotism? no way!)-this from a party that advertises LESS government, then you go cast your vote for your hero. I won't be.
Cheers!
Helping arrogant Repubs to be put in their place while using profanity-proudly!

I think this whole debate is really great and a lot of valid points are made regardless of who the arguments are for. Ed is obviously very passionate about his views, and I totally respect that, however I am put off by the manner in which they are presented and the lack of depth demonstrated. Here are some things I see as being some flaws from the perspective of a person finishing up a BA in political science.

1.) I think any educated person with a true passion for scholary discussion and educated conclusions knows that a newspaper or news program is only a starting point to forming an opinion. His citations are based on URL addresses as well as tv shows. I think it is cute that he feels his hours in front of a television or computer make him intellectually superior to anybody else. This is the funniest thing since seeing Ashlee Simpson on SNL.

Personally I cannot take those media sources seriously when they ultimately have an objective to present news in a manner that attracts ratings and advertising opportunities such as pop-up ads and commercials. I have yet to see any scholarly journals being "sited"? If you had taken the time to read some then you could enlighten the board why most respected Political Scientists, who serve prominent roles in government positions, refer to George Bush as King George or George the dictator rather than President Bush. He's a man with anything but solutions.

2.)I don't see how you could say that police action has nothing to do with terrorism. That's insane. Terrorism is such a broad term that it cannot be solved by merely bombing a country. A series of well planned precautionary actions are more necessary than fighting a war (i.e. police actions). If you are so concerned with terrorism or outside threats than you would have read Bush's policy on terrorism and drug trade which is released at the beginning of any president's term. You would also know that many analysts and law enforcement officials say that policy sets the tone for the level in which a country can protect itself from outside threats. Bush's plan is about 1/3 the size of Clinton's. That's the reason why the events never happened on Bill Clinton's watch. He took the appropriate steps so these issues would never have the need to be brought up for such serious discussion. John Kerry has said he is using Clinton's policy as a model for his. Maybe if Bush is in office for four more years then he can start a war against obesity by bombing McDonalds.

3.)It baffles me how you can say that understanding your opponents perspective is not relevant. This logic defies and degrades the teachings of educational institutions across the country. Maybe you can send the URL where we can all view a copy of your online degree?

As fun as this, I have to get back to working on a true "research paper". "You know it's hard work. It's really hard." Later "internets" peeps. Thanks for hosting this discussion Steve.

"People site sources for their info on here, and you just keep saying, "you haven't named your sources"."

"People"? That comes from my response to Murph. Do you see any link to a source in his post? He mentioned Nightline (w/o a direct link). The report he refers to disputes Unfit For Command AND Tour of Duty. Doesn't that tell you something? Now since you and he have both used the word "site", maybe that has led to your confusion.

"You started this "debate" by asking "name one reason why you are voting for Kerry" and Steve named 10 right off the bat, so then you feel the need to discredit those reasons."

I wanted to discuss those reasons. That's why I asked. If you don't like reading a back and forth between Steve and myself, then maybe you could read something else?

"Bush lied. It's that simple. And the same old response of "Kerry voted for it too" doesn't make it right."

You're looking to simplify this just so you can call people liars. It makes for a good bumper sticker, but that's about it. Kerry lied. British intelligence lied. Our intelligence lied. Russian intelligence lied. Everybody's a liar.

"Try this one, Ed. Fuck You. How's that?"

Completely childish and shows why I should've just stuck to talking to Steve. You just ended it there. I never should've dignified your first post with a response. No, you're right, Zingale. No hatred from you at all. You certainly made that clear. I'm through entertaining your little tantrums. I know all the DNC talking points and stereotypes, but why should I bother addressing them point by point with someone who can't even conduct a civil conversation? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, Zingale!

And by the by, a big difference between people like you and myself is that I don't pretend that there is one simple answer that can be reduced down to a bumper sticker, or that there is only one side to an issue. It actually requires analyzing things before you go calling people "assholes" and "liars". Apparently Steve recognizes this concept, but you're so ideologically blind that you'll name-call until you have your way. Are opposing ideas that dangerous to you that it enrages you just to see them discussed? You suggested I go to a Ted Nugent blog, but I'm not looking for an echo chamber, just a reasonable discussion with a musician that I respect musically. If you can't conduct a civil conversation, then maybe some type of Michael Moore forum would be best suited for you. I'll bet profanity, temper-tantrums, and name-calling resonate very well there.

Good day to you.
E

In response to Randy:

1. He asked me for a source, so I gave him verifiable ones. What would you prefer? Mail him articles from left-wing opinion journals? He's free to analyze them anyway he wants. I notice you don't actually dispute the content of my sources. And what TV show? Nightline? I was directly addressing the *poster's* reference to Nightline. I was supposed to ignore what he said? This whole criticism of my providing sources is ridiculous. You accuse me of intellectual arrogance by referencing a news report from CNN (which was not an editorial piece), and countering his own claim about Nightline's report). If you had bothered to look at the content of what I said, I noted that the Nightline report contradicted two books. Maybe this is part of...what did you call it?... bragging of my hours on the internet, but I at least responded to what he actually wrote. Maybe you might want to try reading (for comprehension) before you start your critique. Interesting that he is not criticized for citing a TV show, but I am. I can see where this is going....

2."I don't see how you could say that police action has nothing to do with terrorism. That's insane."

What's "insane" is your misquote. He was implying that since they arrested the bombers of the first WTC attack, that was the end of it. Problem solved. Why didn't Clinton go after Bin Laden for the other al Quaeda attacks? I have news for you: the first WTC attack, along with numerous others, such as the USS Cole DID take place under Clinton's watch. I'm not going to ridiculously simplify things and say it's all his fault, I'm just using your own brand of logic.

3. "It baffles me how you can say that understanding your opponents perspective is not relevant."

It baffles me how you extrapolated that out of anything I've said. I know you find quotations and citing sources beneath you, but I believe you'd have to completely distort beyond recognition anything like that from me.

You exposed your bias right at #1, and it only got worse. If I had written something as arrogant as you, I would've justifiably been shot down immediately. Are we all supposed to give our education credentials now in lieu of supporting arguments? Actually, I have a masters degree, but I didn't want to bring that up as a way of attempting to invalidate anyone else's opinion, unlike yourself.

In response to Ed:

You crack me up. It's funny that you think I would find your "concise" arguments worthy of a drawn out discussion. Keep it real in the trailer park!

Steve,

Thanks for you site, your music and your willingness to put yourself out there on a matter as divisive.

Ed,

I’m replying to you post point to point, please read.

1. There is no evidence to the fact that Iraq was ever a threat to the US. Why would we commit to a war against a country that didn’t clearly pose a threat to us, when there are at least three nations in the region that we have clear documentation of there support of terrorists and an existing nuclear program.

2.You speak of controversy of an unknown form surrounding Kerry’s service in Vietnam, but I believe Steve asked you to speak of positive points for President Bush. You are following the pattern of the Republican party, attack and undercut rather than speak of their achievements or plans. Instead of undermining Kerry’s service, speak of Bush’s service during Vietnam.

3. Once again, see above. And no, John Walker Lindh is not the ultimate war hero, he did not serve in the US military in a war effort and then, after experiencing the horror of war, then speak up against the war her served in. John Walker Lindh was a disenfranchised youth from Marin County who in his search for acceptance became deeply involved in a fundamentalist organization. Hardly the same.

4. Stem cell research offers the promise of all the thing your have quoted John Edwards of saying. There is plenty of documentation from actual scientists that support that quote. As for Bush’s federal support of stem cell research, he only offered funding after making open scientific research illegal in an effort for the Republican government to control research that doesn’t meet their moral agenda.

5. Bush has a moral stance, yes, unfortunately he pushes his moral belief upon the rest of the country. I would wager that under a lie detector and some sodium pentathol President Bush’s morals fall far from the platform he espouses. Abortion is a moot point, I can’t convince you it’s a woman’s choice and you can’t convince me it’s immoral. But what I want to focus on is the moral platform. That is the real threat here, it is not the governments job the regulate morality, that is the job of a family. Right now the Republican government is attempting to pass laws that will eliminate large parts of the First Amendment under the guise of family values. Today an individual performer can be fined for "indecent" broadcast material. Tomorrow, will it be book burning and social behavior laws? As I said morality is a personal issue, not a legislation issue.

7. So he owns cars? He can still be working for a better world and encouraging new energy and still own an SUV. It’s called campaigning, and speaking to the target audience. What exactly has President Bush said on the matter? Remember the point was for you to talk about your candidates god points?

8. Undistinguished, in who’s eye? Your just repeating campaign rhetoric. Let’s not get into undistinguished career comparisons between the two candidates, President Bush’s track record in the epitome of the word, undistinguished. By saying undistinguished, you are regurgitating the fact that Senator John Kerry did not vote in line with the Republican party. Please produce proof, not rhetoric.

9. President Bush does not have decades of civil service, after his time in the Texas Air National Guard, President George Bush went to Harvard and then entered the PRIVATE sector, not public sector. There is nothing wrong with the private sector, but do not confuse it with his being in the public sector for decades. He hasn’t even served in the civil sector for a decade in any one thing.

10. John Kerry’s love of Abby Road has as much bearing on the race as does any of President Bush’s private beliefs, which he has chosen to make part of his running platform. It tells me that this is a human being running for office, not a rhetoric spewing stay on message robot. President Bush has expressed his beliefs are that of America’s and those that believe differently are un-American. I like the fact that Senator Kerry will not allow his faith to dictate his policy making decisions.

Ed, you love you party and your candidate, that’s obvious. Take some time and think about the greater picture, gather your information from more than just partisan machines. Be objective, it’s your god given right as an American to be able to question the system and do what your want.

I’m sorry my words are coming this late in the game and they will not make much of a dent in your well entrenched ideology. Too bad.

-alex

PS. Steve did you ever get the JPG I sent you of that comic book drawing I did of your old band American Psyco (I think was the name?)

I haven't been online in a few days and just wanted to respond to a comment that Ed directed at me. I commented on a BBC TV debate I had just watched without checking the name of the speaker I was appalled at (should have really looked it up before my first post I suppose). When I listed the panellists I could identify Ed responded by saying "I thought you were actually referring to a specific politician debating a campaign opponent. I don't take anything with Michael Moore in it as serious debate".

Well I've looked it up now and the Republican I was quoting was called David Frum, who is the Bush speech-writer who wrote the 'axis of evil' speech. The programme I was talking about was a special one-off American edition of the British show Question Time which is pretty much the BBC's flagship weekly political debate show, it's been going for 25 years and quite frequently has senior politicians from all the main British political parties.

They do however like to have at least one panellist each week who isn't a career politician (usually a journalist, spokesman for a charity or union, occasionally a stand up comic) which generally means you have at least one panellist who says what they genuinely believe and doesn't just trot out the party line. This week it was Michael Moore. You might not agree with him politically but as the writer/director of the highest grossing political documentary ever I would have thought his presense could be justified, without detracting from the 'seriousness' of the debate.

Here's the link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/3957715.stm
you can watch the programme yourself from there if you've got broadband and want to check it out for yourself.

Two more things: at one point Ed said that we need a global strategy to combat terrorism. I couldn't agree more, that's kind of the point. But Bush's attempt at a 'global strategy' appears to be 'you're either for us or you're against us, no matter how badly thought out, misjudged or downright dangerous our plans are, and we'll call you cheese-eating surrender monkeys and accuse you of being bribed if you disagree with us'.

Here's quite an interesting link to a story I don't know if the US media picked up on. This was a story in the Sunday newspaper I read which reveals that Bush had plans to invade Iraq BEFORE he was elected, way before the September 11 attacks. http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Why in your blog i can find it ? breast - teen free sex - sex toys adult - animal sex teen models - cock sexy girls - hardcore sex please delete it