Websites of a far left, progressive, compassionate Democrat

Getting informed before Nov. 2nd

from JoeUser Forums
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone can support Dubya. I don't mean to start a nasty debate, but I'm just baffled over this. I just truly believe in my heart that if people stopped what they're doing, listened to both sides of the issues with equal interest and concern, they'd see what's at stake here. They'd understand why Bush is leading this country to utter disaster. I really, really do believe this. I just feel the need to express my particular viewpoint, in what is a predominantly conservative blog site, with such an important election coming up.

Truly, the only reason I have become affiliated with this site is my interest in skinning. So, I do hope that the website links I post here will provide some information regarding the social and political issues at stake in this election. I encourage anyone who stops by my blog to visit these sites. I feel so strongly that the serious mess this courntry is in right now, ranging from this administration's complete disregard for the environment over their corporate cronies to health care to the invasion of Iraq can be turned around if Bush and his boss, Cheney, are defeated. Enjoy, and feel free to post a response, if you feel so inclined.

http://www.commondreams.org
http://mediamatters.org/
http://active opposition.com
http://www.agonist.org/
http://www.airamericaradio.com/
http://www.warblogs.cc/

Thanks
democrat
9,162 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would Iraq be better off today if it was in the control of Saddam Hussein?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
dabe
One problem I suspect a lot of people have is the sense that there is no firmly defined Democratic candidate.

Kerry emerged during the primary as a 'someone who could beat Bush' candidate, rather than a 'someone with a really good plan for America' candidate. That's not a confidence inspiring start. Then when you add what seems to be differing positions on a variety of issues over the course of a year, there's no sense of stability in Kerry, as far as position goes. I believe a lot of people are left with the impression that his positions on a lot of things could very well be 180 from his current positions, say a year from now.

Because of the war and the slowly growing, although uncertain economy, people desire a stable leader with a firm vision. Right or wrong, Bush has that, Kerry doesn't.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would Iraq be better off today if it was in the control of Saddam Hussein?


In what terms? In terms of having regular electricity and water? In terms of not having constant air strikes and foreign troops patrolling the streets?

The answer would then be "no"

In terms of no more brutal dictator?

Allawi is a strong man wannabe, so we'll give this one a "maybe"

In terms of no longer having to live in fear of the Ba'athist regime?

The answer would be "certainly"

You can't break it down so easily. There are things that are better now, things that are worse. We've got to pay attention to both.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would Iraq be better off today if it was in the control of Saddam Hussein?


Jimminy Cricket, I am getting tired of this response. Would we use the same rationale to nuke N. Korea saying, "See, now they don't have the bomb"? Because apparently "the ends justifies the means" has taken over GOP thinking. The bottom line for me is that, no, I don't want Saddam Hussein back. At the same time, I think the world and Iraq without him, currently, is not much better, not much safer. Perhaps there was another way to get rid of him? Perhaps getting rid of him (seemingly) at whatever the cost wasn't such a good idea? Perhaps he was evil, but maybe Iraq with an evil dictator was better off than a leaderless Iraq with idealists (or just hardcore capitalists) trying to bring in democracy at gunpoint?

I just truly believe in my heart that if people stopped what they're doing, listened to both sides of the issues with equal interest and concern, they'd see what's at stake here. They'd understand why Bush is leading this country to utter disaster.


Unfortunately, this belief is probably a bit too optimisitic. Folks who support Bush believe in an ideology (or network of ideologies) so strongly that it is just as inconceivable to them that, upon reflection, the rest of the country isn't just as gung-ho in support of the President. And those of us who want him gone believe in our ideology (or network of ideologies) so strongly that we can't understand how the man has any support. The nature of ideology (especially when it is one you subscribe to) is that it appears to be "common sense."

Thanks for the web sites, though. I am coming to believe that the value of these blog sites isn't that either (any) side is going to convince the opposition. Rather, these sites seem to provide important opportunities to test one's commitments, form connections with the like-minded, and better organize and mobilize for action. And who knows? Maybe there is an undecided or two still lurking in the corners who might be persuaded as to whose "common sense" makes the most sense.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #4 By: Bungy32 - 9/27/2004 11:35:02 AM
Would Iraq be better off today if it was in the control of Saddam Hussein?


Jimminy Cricket, I am getting tired of this response. Would we use the same rationale to nuke N. Korea saying, "See, now they don't have the bomb"? Because apparently "the ends justifies the means" has taken over GOP thinking.


You really should pick another analogy. Mainly because N. Korea *does* have nukes!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone can support Dubya. I don't mean to start a nasty debate, but I'm just baffled over this. I just truly believe in my heart that if people stopped what they're doing, listened to both sides of the issues with equal interest and concern, they'd see what's at stake here. They'd understand why Bush is leading this country to utter disaster. I really, really do believe this. I just feel the need to express my particular viewpoint, in what is a predominantly conservative blog site, with such an important election coming up.
You have guts, I'll say that.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then when you add what seems to be differing positions on a variety of issues over the course of a year, there's no sense of stability in Kerry, as far as position goes.
That could be from the eruption of chaos due to this administration.  
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Would Iraq be better off today if it was in the control of Saddam Hussein?" - Most Iraqis believe that life was much better before the Americans decided to "fix" things. Fact is, we squandered our good will by not spending the money to rebuild Iraq even though Bush promised the US would do so. And, instead of hiring Iraqis to rebuild the country, they gave all the lucrative contracts to Halburton and other US companies. The Iragis are mostly unemployed. And, guess what........ the oil isn't paying for squat. We went to war based on forged documents and the administration KNEW IT. Of that, I am certain. But, they risked our soldiers lives anyway, just to secure the oil for themselves. Bastards. They killed thousands and thousands of Iraqis; more than the insurgents ever will. They have left many more maimed forever. And, they are littering Iraq with depleted uranium, which will cause cancers for generations, not just to Iraqis, but also for the thousands of American troups who are also exposed to the high levels of radiation. It's appalling.

Kerry is well defined democrat. It's just that whenever the republicans say he's a flip-flopper, people buy into that crap. When they say he doesn't stand for anything, that's gargabe. He's committed to the environment, to fixing the Iraq mess as best as possible with an appropriate exit strategy, securing this country from terrorist attacks, as it should have been done all along, instead of invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism or 9-11. They do now. He is committed to providing fair tax breaks and imposing taxes in sensible ways, instead of giving the rich more and more freebees and give-aways. And, whatever you think about Kerry, the man, you have to remember that part of what makes a good president is the kind of people he (and she, someday) surrounds himself with, what kind of advisors he'll rely on. Bush has surrounded himself with crooks and thieves and selfish neocons. It's disgusting. I completely trust that Kerry will be much more intelligent about who he picks for his cabinet and for supreme court justices.

Bush has squandered the surplus. He is incapable of stringing a sentence together. He is a fascist ideologue of the worst kind. He is raping the evironment by gutting regulations so that corporations can make windfall profits at the expense of the air we breath, the water we drink , and the forests and wild lands. He's a crook and a traitor. Does the name "Siverado" come to mind? That was actually his brother, Neil, who was involved in that savings and load debaucle, which cost the taxpayers billions, but Dubya also cost the taxpayers millions with his S&L scandal. He's failed at every business venture he's undertaken, but is rich anyway because he was born with a silver spoon.

I can go on and on, but I'm tired. Go to www.commondreams.org Read the articles. Get educated. Go to www.airamericaradio.com and listen to the station on streaming audio. Get educated.

Thank you, stevendedalus. I am gutsy. I am also passionate about this election. I am absolutely committed to getting people to vote. I am confident about John Kerry's abilities. If that takes guts, then yeah, I've got guts.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Im not in a great mood right now, but this caught my attention. Would Iraq be better off if the americans did not come in. Hmmm. Is that the point? NO. We are not a humanitarian organization. Although we should be concerned with peoples welfare in general, we will leave it up to the UN or some other organization to make the intervention. The real question should be is the United States better off having entered Iraq? I believe that the clear answer to this is no. We have dead americans, americans who have killed innocent Iraqis (and not so innocent irraqis), who now have "blood" on their hands, and have to live with the knowledge that they killed someone. We have Americans who do not want to be in Iraq being forced to go. Is the world a better place after we entered Iraq? I don't think so. Oil prices have risen since we entered (though I can't say that this is because of anyone reason, I am just pointing out this fact because it may be realted), the region has remained unstable, other countries citizens have been kidnapped and killed and other countries soldiers have died. Overall, I can't see how anyone can support the war UNLESS they are an extreme liberal and are Pro-using out military for humanitarian needs, or if they are righties mesmorized by Bush.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
He is incapable of stringing a sentence together. He is a fascist ideologue of the worst kind. He is raping the evironment by gutting regulations so that corporations can make windfall profits at the expense of the air we breath, the water we drink , and the forests and wild lands. He's a crook and a traitor. Does the name "Siverado" come to mind? That was actually his brother, Neil, who was involved in that savings and load debaucle, which cost the taxpayers billions, but Dubya also cost the taxpayers millions with his S&L scandal. He's failed at every business venture he's undertaken, but is rich anyway because he was born with a silver spoon


We'll see about his *after* the debates!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The debates aren't going to change my mind at all, though I won't miss them for anything. Nothing Bush says has any merit, as far as I'm concerned. It's not what he says, afterall. It's what he's DONE. He's driven this country down into the worst deficits in American history, taken us into a shady-dealing and costly war, while at the same time, giving the biggest tax cuts in history, which only benefit the rich. He's plundered the environment, blundered the war, and wallows in this reactionary far right neocon racist, fascist, holier than though ethic (NOT). Naaaaaaa, I am watching the debates for entertainment value.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
The debates aren't going to change my mind at all, though I won't miss them for anything. Nothing Bush says has any merit, as far as I'm concerned. It's not what he says, afterall. It's what he's DONE. He's driven this country down into the worst deficits in American history, taken us into a shady-dealing and costly war, while at the same time, giving the biggest tax cuts in history, which only benefit the rich. He's plundered the environment, blundered the war, and wallows in this reactionary far right neocon racist, fascist, holier than though ethic (NOT). Naaaaaaa, I am watching the debates for entertainment value.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #12 By: dabe - 9/28/2004 6:15:56 AM
The debates aren't going to change my mind at all, though I won't miss them for anything. Nothing Bush says has any merit, as far as I'm concerned. It's not what he says, afterall. It's what he's DONE. He's driven this country down into the worst deficits in American history, taken us into a shady-dealing and costly war, while at the same time, giving the biggest tax cuts in history, which only benefit the rich. He's plundered the environment, blundered the war, and wallows in this reactionary far right neocon racist, fascist, holier than though ethic (NOT). Naaaaaaa, I am watching the debates for entertainment value.


That is your opinion, and as such you are entiteled to it. Thankfully not everyone thinks like you do. EVERY news station and reporter has stated that the debates *could* cost Kerry the race. On the other hand if Bush messes up the debates it could very well cost him the same!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
EVERY news station and reporter has stated that the debates *could* cost Kerry the race. On the other hand if Bush messes up the debates it could very well cost him the same!


OMG! Finally! I can actually say "I agree" to something drmiller has posted. In my endless quest for common ground (yeah, I know...it's a typically "liberal" obsession), I thought I would never be able to admit to such agreement. But here I do. Given the split in the country and the slim lead Bush maintains, I think the debates are going to be pretty important. Neither candidate can afford to take a hit there.

You really should pick another analogy. Mainly because N. Korea *does* have nukes!


Or not. My point is that by this same "ends justifies the means" logic I could see the Bush administration justifying the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons in N. Korea and then claiming that the world was better off because N. Korea wouldn't have nuclear weapons anymore. But I take from your dismissal of the appropriateness of this analogy that you do, in fact, think such a preemptive use of nuclear weapons in N. Korea would be reasonable and justified. And that really scares me! The world response to the US preemptive use of nuclear weapons would be exponentially worse than the response to our current preemptive use of our military in Iraq.


Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
they gave all the lucrative contracts to Halburton


What does Haliburton exactly do according to you? Seriously look it up, they are not like Chevron, Shell, Exxon, or BP, which by the way all last four actual 'Oil Companies' do business with Iran's Islamic Regime despite the people who are growing in numbers in Iran who want Democracy.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Or not. My point is that by this same "ends justifies the means" logic I could see the Bush administration justifying the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons in N. Korea and then claiming that the world was better off because N. Korea wouldn't have nuclear weapons anymore. But I take from your dismissal of the appropriateness of this analogy that you do, in fact, think such a preemptive use of nuclear weapons in N. Korea would be reasonable and justified. And that really scares me! The world response to the US preemptive use of nuclear weapons would be exponentially worse than the response to our current preemptive use of our military in Iraq.


That's what you get for thinking! I have *never* advocated the use of nukes, preemptive or otherwise! Now if they back us into a corner that *might* be something different!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never said that the debates shouldn't happen; that they are not important. They are very important, critically important, given that this country is so split, and there is such a narrow margin that will make up their minds based on the debates. What I did say is that the debates won't change MY mind. I am completely, thoroughly convinced that we need a regime change.. Period.

As for Halliberton........ this administration is packed with friends and cronies. Halliburton is one of them. Cheney was there CEO, fer cryin' out loud. How else would they get a no-bid contract. Hallburton is a war profiteer, which is proven by the fact that they have overcharged for every single bit of services they "privided" to our troops,, and for which they even can't account for billions of dollars that we, the taxpayers, paid them. As for the other oil companies... their all prime examples of corporate greed.
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
That's what you get for thinking! I have *never* advocated the use of nukes, preemptive or otherwise! Now if they back us into a corner that *might* be something different!


I agree.

The first time we will use nukes against one country will be the last time anybody does, because it will probably set off the Nuclear Holocaust chain reaction, it is a very dangerous situation, better to use tactical bombs than risk global annihilation, not to mention the mess that a nuke leaves behind (fallout).

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
As for Halliberton........ this administration is packed with friends and cronies. Halliburton is one of them. Cheney was there CEO, fer cryin' out loud. How else would they get a no-bid contract. Hallburton is a war profiteer, which is proven by the fact that they have overcharged for every single bit of services they "privided" to our troops,, and for which they even can't account for billions of dollars that we, the taxpayers, paid them. As for the other oil companies... their all prime examples of corporate greed.


Quit pussyfooting around the question and answer it, what does Haliburton do? If you are having trouble with the question, please look at Haliburton's official site.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes the Bush policies are killing America. Only the top 3-5% of wage earners benefit from Bush and his policies. Read, "Four More For George W?" if you want the real facts. This book is receiving some great reader comments. see Amazon.com.