The American Election
Archived55 replies · 831 views
And now for something completely different...
From CNN.com
Study: Fear shapes voters' views Responses to candidates differ after thinking about tragedy Friday, July 30, 2004 Posted: 2:58 PM EDT (1858 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.
Talking about death can raise people's need for psychological security, the researchers report in studies to be published in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science and the September issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
"There are people all over who are claiming every time Bush is in trouble he generates fear by declaring an imminent threat," said Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, who worked on the study.
"We are saying this is psychologically useful," said Solomon.
Jeff Greenberg, a professor of psychology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, said generating fear was a common tactic.
"A lot of leaders gain their appeal by helping people feel they are heroic, particularly in a fight against evil," Greenberg said in a telephone interview from Hawaii, where he presented the findings to a meeting of the American Psychological Association.
"Sometimes that may be the right thing to do. But it is a psychological approach, particularly when death is close to peoples' consciousness."
For their first study, Solomon, Greenberg and colleagues asked students to think about either their own death or a neutral topic.
They then read the campaign statements of three hypothetical candidates for governor, each with a different leadership style. One was charismatic, said Solomon.
"That was a person who declared our country to be great and the people in it to be special," Solomon, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.
The others were task-oriented -- focusing on the job to be done -- or relationship-oriented -- with a "let's get it done together" style, Solomon said.
Fearing doom, choosing charisma The students who thought about death were much more likely to choose the charismatic leader, they found. Only four out of about 100 chose that imaginary leader when thinking about exams, but 30 did after thinking about death.
Greenberg, Solomon and colleagues then decided to test the idea further and set up four separate studies at different universities.
"In one we asked half the people to think about the September 11 attacks, or to think about watching TV," Solomon said. "What we found was staggering."
When asked to think about television, the 100 or so volunteers did not approve of Bush or his policies in Iraq. But when asked to think about Sept. 11 first and then asked about their attitudes to Bush, another 100 volunteers had very different reactions.
"They had a very strong approval of President Bush and his policy in Iraq," Solomon said.
Solomon, a social psychologist who specializes in terrorism, said it was very rare for a person's opinions to differ so strongly depending on the situation.
Another study focused directly on Bush and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
The volunteers were aged from 18 into their 50s and described themselves as ranging from liberal to deeply conservative. No matter what a person's political conviction, thinking about death made them tend to favor Bush, Solomon said. Otherwise, they preferred Kerry.
"I think this should concern anybody," Solomon said. "If I was speaking lightly, I would say that people in their, quote, right minds, unquote, don't care much for President Bush and his policies in Iraq."
He wants voters to be aware of psychological pressures and how they are used.
"If people are aware that thinking about death makes them act differently, then they don't act differently," Solomon said. Solomon says he personally opposes Bush but describes himself as a political independent who could vote Republican.
Yeah right! I fear more for my safety with that fascist twat in control for another 4 years than some other guy, even if that new guy isn't much better (though really anyone could be better). Vote Dave Church in 2004!
Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope Yeah right! I fear more for my safety with that fascist twat in control for another 4 years than some other guy, even if that new guy isn't much better (though really anyone could be better). Vote Dave Church in 2004!
Ok, you've got my vote. What party will you be running for 
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope> Yeah right! I fear more for my safety with that fascist twat in control for another 4 years than some other guy, even if that new guy isn't much better (though really anyone could be better). Vote Dave Church in 2004!
Ok, you've got my vote. What party will you be running for I'll be running for the Nihilist Party...for some reason there aren't many of us.... As said in the other thread, my campaign slogan will be "Sex and violence...and honesty." Because sex and violence are two things that any President should promise the people if he/she wants to be honest about the next 4 years. Oh, and my theme song will be the Mighty Mouse theme followed by something by the Clash like "Clampdown." :D
Who's Dio's running mate? 
Sebastian Bach? Kip Winger? David Lee Roth? Lita Ford? (a first for the Heavy Metal Party, a female running mate)
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Who's Dio's running mate?
Dita Von Teese would be my choice. She was bound to be the running mate of Kucinich.
President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election...
Is this an attempt for him to remind everyone of how his administration screwed up? I don't think it's a wise idea for him to mention it. He might want to stay clear of the war with Iraq too, since it was his administration that lied and mislead people about why we were going to war in the first place. What will he tell all the families of the deceased soldiers? For what did they die? "Oops, my bad. It was all a mistake. Better luck with the next kid if I get re-elected!"
It so doesn't make him look good.
Sorry for that little rant. I really don't like the guy and his administration makes me feel ashamed and embarassed to be an American.
Originally posted by bunny > President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election...Is this an attempt for him to remind everyone of how his administration screwed up? I don't think it's a wise idea for him to mention it. He might want to stay clear of the war with Iraq too, since it was his administration that lied and mislead people about why we were going to war in the first place. What will he tell all the families of the deceased soldiers? For what did they die? "Oops, my bad. It was all a mistake. Better luck with the next kid if I get re-elected!" It so doesn't make him look good.Sorry for that little rant. I really don't like the guy and his administration makes me feel ashamed and embarassed to be an American.
Well you should be embarassed and ashamed, for you don't have your facts straight. Why did the Bush administration go to war? Becasue of faulty intelligence. Maybe the administration should be blamed for so wholeheartedly believing guys like Chalabi, but to say he lied and mislead people without mentioning the fact that he was mislead by faulty intelligence is ignorant. Now I bet if you or someone else responds to this, then you will mention that the administration was attempting to make the case for war since before 9/11, but I'm sorry, and administration would have prepped for action against Saddam. Now if you want to question Bush's manner in dealing with the war (not making concessions to Western European nations so as to receive assistance from them, etc.) then be my guest, but don't say he lied to and mislead the American public without mentioning he received bad intelligence.
Originally posted by Tristan > > Well you should be embarassed and ashamed, for you don't have your facts straight. Why did the Bush administration go to war? Becasue of faulty intelligence. Maybe the administration should be blamed for so wholeheartedly believing guys like Chalabi, but to say he lied and mislead people without mentioning the fact that he was mislead by faulty intelligence is ignorant. Now I bet if you or someone else responds to this, then you will mention that the administration was attempting to make the case for war since before 9/11, but I'm sorry, and administration would have prepped for action against Saddam. Now if you want to question Bush's manner in dealing with the war (not making concessions to Western European nations so as to receive assistance from them, etc.) then be my guest, but don't say he lied to and mislead the American public without mentioning he received bad intelligence.
First off, I never blamed Bush directly. Please read a post carefully before calling a complete stranger "ignorant." I blamed those who work in his administration. I honestly believe that he was given faulty intelligence information. However, I'm suspicious that the documents claiming Iraq had WoMD were doctored. Remember the intelligence officer in the UK who claimed that UK intelligence documents were indeed doctored to show that Iraq had WoMD? Shortly thereafter the man turned up dead. I don't think any connection was ever proven between the two events, but it got me thinking and only increased my suspicion.
I don't know anything about what was going on before 9/11 in regards to intelligence to be honest. I was actually somewhat impressed that the government actually took time to plan out what to do without just bombing Afghanistan immediately following the attacks. They could have easily made the case that since Bin Laden claimed responsibility for bombing the WTC previously, that it must have been him this time around. But they didn't. Instead they actually took the time to be sure they were making the right move. With Afghanistan there was a pretty obvious reason why we were there. We were attacked and retaliated. Any other country would have done the same thing.
Yet, with Iraq it was a different story. It seemed to come out of nowhere. Many other countries actually do have WoMD, the US being one of them. However, the only country we seem to worry about is Iraq. Not China. Not Korea. Not Pakistan. Not Iran. Why is that? Why Iraq and not one of the others? Why is Iraq such a large threat? Enlighten me please oh wise one, because I've been desperately searching for an answer for well over a year now. Right now, to me and millions of others, it looks as though the US went into Iraq totally unprovoked, WoMD or no.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by bunny> > > > President George W. Bush may be tapping into solid human psychology when he invokes the September 11 attacks while campaigning for the next election...> > > > Is this an attempt for him to remind everyone of how his administration screwed up? I don't think it's a wise idea for him to mention it. He might want to stay clear of the war with Iraq too, since it was his administration that lied and mislead people about why we were going to war in the first place. What will he tell all the families of the deceased soldiers? For what did they die? "Oops, my bad. It was all a mistake. Better luck with the next kid if I get re-elected!" > > It so doesn't make him look good.> > Sorry for that little rant. I really don't like the guy and his administration makes me feel ashamed and embarassed to be an American.
Well you should be embarassed and ashamed, for you don't have your facts straight. Why did the Bush administration go to war? Becasue of faulty intelligence. Maybe the administration should be blamed for so wholeheartedly believing guys like Chalabi, but to say he lied and mislead people without mentioning the fact that he was mislead by faulty intelligence is ignorant. Now I bet if you or someone else responds to this, then you will mention that the administration was attempting to make the case for war since before 9/11, but I'm sorry, and administration would have prepped for action against Saddam. Now if you want to question Bush's manner in dealing with the war (not making concessions to Western European nations so as to receive assistance from them, etc.) then be my guest, but don't say he lied to and mislead the American public without mentioning he received bad intelligence.
Who is Sean Hannitty?
Also : as "commando in chief", surely its Bush’s ultimate responsibility to send in troops? The nature of intelligence is that you get as much of it as possible, and build a broad picture of the "threat" to your soil, then plan actions - be it diplomatic, economic or military.
After sep11, bush and Co were looking for reasons to go to war (be it in Iraq, Afghanistan), sections of intelligence were set aside , and sent to justify pre emptive war by drudging up faulty intel.
The reason for war in Iraq was not Weapons of mass destruction, they did not exist, and did they, they would have been used by Saddam/Taliban when under Military attack (They proved themselves an evil cunts , willing to do worse before).
The reason for war was not Humanitarian (free people from Saddams/ Taliban Rule), Because both “Regiemes” were supported by the US and various EU interests. Also, after Wars in both countries, conditions are even worse (you wouldn’t have thought it possible), In Afghanistan Fundamentalist warlords are running the country, treating women like shit, and educating the young in fundamentalist doctrane (Heroin production is up too – plenty more Shauns Ryders and Ronnie Woods to hit the streets soon). In Iraq, civil war has broken out, and the US will back repressive governance by various Arab and US interests (and Arab/Us marines) to secure strategic interests.
The reason for war in not to fight terror. The US supports terror – in Libya, in Uzbekistan, in various “strategic states” in sub Saharan Africa, it supports Israeli Terror and apartheid Were it to go after the perpetrators of 911, it would have shut down links with the house of saud, invaded Iran, Pakistan and ousted the Taliban – without the help of terrorists (who will doubtless turn on uncle Sam in years to come, just as the Taliban and Saddam did). IT would have spent $10,000,000,000 on giving each Arab kid a chance of life outside the grip of Religion and hate, it would have provided water and food and education to the needy and desperate – the breeding ground of terrorism.
But this isn’t a war on terror. Its another Western war on the poorest of the poor to secure strategic interest for the richest 15% A way of keeping the global norms. A way to ensure that you have the freedom TO have an suv because they have no freedom FROM abject poverty. Your (and My) government wont build railways or public infrastructure, for fear of burdening the rich with a hefty tax bill. Your government puts more young Black males in prison than in college. Your government refuses to educate the working class youth unless they risk their lives killing working class Arabs. Your country is a sick, depraved backwater, and the system it purports is equally despicable. Yurup will soon be as depraved. I hope there are enough decent loving people in the world to see beyond the faulty intelligence of leaders, be they George’n’ John ’n’ Jesus, or Osama’ n ’Mullah ’n’ Mohamed
Originally posted by bunny > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > Well you should be embarassed and ashamed, for you don't have your facts straight. Why did the Bush administration go to war? Becasue of faulty intelligence. Maybe the administration should be blamed for so wholeheartedly believing guys like Chalabi, but to say he lied and mislead people without mentioning the fact that he was mislead by faulty intelligence is ignorant. Now I bet if you or someone else responds to this, then you will mention that the administration was attempting to make the case for war since before 9/11, but I'm sorry, and administration would have prepped for action against Saddam. Now if you want to question Bush's manner in dealing with the war (not making concessions to Western European nations so as to receive assistance from them, etc.) then be my guest, but don't say he lied to and mislead the American public without mentioning he received bad intelligence.>
First off, I never blamed Bush directly. Please read a post carefully before calling a complete stranger "ignorant." I blamed those who work in his administration. I honestly believe that he was given faulty intelligence information. However, I'm suspicious that the documents claiming Iraq had WoMD were doctored. Remember the intelligence officer in the UK who claimed that UK intelligence documents were indeed doctored to show that Iraq had WoMD? Shortly thereafter the man turned up dead. I don't think any connection was ever proven between the two events, but it got me thinking and only increased my suspicion.
I don't know anything about what was going on before 9/11 in regards to intelligence to be honest. I was actually somewhat impressed that the government actually took time to plan out what to do without just bombing Afghanistan immediately following the attacks. They could have easily made the case that since Bin Laden claimed responsibility for bombing the WTC previously, that it must have been him this time around. But they didn't. Instead they actually took the time to be sure they were making the right move. With Afghanistan there was a pretty obvious reason why we were there. We were attacked and retaliated. Any other country would have done the same thing.
Yet, with Iraq it was a different story. It seemed to come out of nowhere. Many other countries actually do have WoMD, the US being one of them. However, the only country we seem to worry about is Iraq. Not China. Not Korea. Not Pakistan. Not Iran. Why is that? Why Iraq and not one of the others? Why is Iraq such a large threat? Enlighten me please oh wise one, because I've been desperately searching for an answer for well over a year now. Right now, to me and millions of others, it looks as though the US went into Iraq totally unprovoked, WoMD or no.
I agree there are other countries with WMD's, but the US would never engage in a war with a country with more than 1 billion people (China), a country with nuclear capabilities (N Korea, Iran), or a country that wants to be our ally (Pakistan). Now could these countries turn out to be enemies in the future, maybe considering the instability of those countries. The US was more eager to go to war with Iraq because:
- We had intelligence (which turned out to be faulty) that would justify a pre-emptive action.
- We have been there before and are familiar with Iraq.
- Iraq is primarily flat and much easier to deploy ground troops on.
Overall, Iraq would have been an easy, high-profile target to continue the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive action against possible hotbeds for terrorism.
The glaring mistakes I have seen were the naive propensity to believe Chalabi and the thinking that secular Iraq would have any meaningful ties with the fundamentalist Muslim terror organization, Al Qaeda.
Nevertheless, a tyrant is out of the region, Iraq (no matter how turbulent now) is on the path to democracy, and most likely the US will have a stable oil trading partner in the near future, which is promising considering the recent fallout of a Russian oil company, and we are using the country now to fight against terrorists and their sympathizers. The outcome of the war I do not like is that we automatically become even more tied to Sharon, for the only country Saddam posed an obvious threat to was Israel, and we ousted Saddam. This criticism of this war has been blown out of proportion and the critics fail to recognize any benevolent outcomes for the US out of this war if we continue our action in Iraq.
Originally posted by Clockwork C
Sure this is a war to protect our economic interests in America, and frankly I have no problem saying that. Sure terrorism has some role in this war; we are fighting small operatives in Iraq and will continue to do so. Why does the US want to stop terrorists from disturbing us, it's because they disturb our economy. Everything about the US is protecting our money and making more of it.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Clockwork CSo 1 Billion people living on under $1 a day matter little to you? the lives of public sector workers in the twin towers matters less to you than your economy? Global environmental breakdown and the death of working class males from your counrty matter less than "protecting our money and making more of it?" I dont honestly believe you, but figure youre on the wind up.at least youre honest.God bless America
Originally posted by Tristan Why did the Bush administration go to war? Becasue of faulty intelligence. Maybe the administration should be blamed for so wholeheartedly believing guys like Chalabi, but to say he lied and mislead people without mentioning the fact that he was mislead by faulty intelligence is ignorant.
Poor widdo Georgie Bush didn't have good intelligence, so don't bwame him.
Bullshite, of course.
Everybody in the intelligence community is saying that he was told the intelligence was bad, and he went ahead and knowingly used bad intelligence anyway to fabricate a case for war.
And now that he's caught with his pants down, pweeze don't bwame him, it's not Georgie's fault, honest.
Bullshite.
George Bush: Al-Qaeda's best friend?
From the BBC Online:
"The prevailing wisdom is that al-Qaeda actually "likes" George W Bush in the sense that his muscular rhetoric is seen as playing up the very divisions that al-Qaeda wishes to emphasise.
The Bush administration's fixation with Saddam Hussein and Iraq is widely seen as being a distraction from the real campaign against terrorism.
And it has hardly served to present the United States in a positive light in the wider Middle East. So, the argument goes, more of the same would be seen as good news for al-Qaeda."
hmmm...but didn't Kerry (or Edwards, can't remember which one it was) say that they would hunt down terrorists as well???
Hey, as much as it pains me to say it, violence sells here. As long as it isn't American's getting killed...let me rephrase that...as long as American's aren't getting killed on American soil!!!
maybe everybody just needs to get together...pull a few hits of a bong, and chill out...wouldn't that be a great sight to see...Dubya, Osama, Saddam, Blair (you get the idea) all stoned and professing that they really do like each other...
that's it...Pot For World Peace...damn, my mother would be sooooooo proud!!!:p
Can we please change the subject and talk about important world affairs like the continued success of Duran Duran?
Originally posted by Clockwork C Who is Sean Hannitty?Also : as "commando in chief", surely its Bush’s ultimate responsibility to send in troops? The nature of intelligence is that you get as much of it as possible, and build a broad picture of the "threat" to your soil, then plan actions - be it diplomatic, economic or military.
as for sean hannity: it's best you maintain your ignorance. be glad you don't know who he is; i wish i'd never heard of him. no wait, i wish he'd just go away.
and regarding the president's ability to send troops into battle: the president may send troops into battle for 60 days, after which time congress must declare war or troops must be removed. this came about after the vietnam war, when the president was essentially given a blank check to conduct warfare without congressional approval (under the gulf of tonkin resolution). congress has since reined in presidential powers to conduct war, hence the 60-day rule.
Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Clockwork C> > Who is Sean Hannitty?> > Also : as "commando in chief", surely its Bush’s ultimate responsibility to send in troops? The nature of intelligence is that you get as much of it as possible, and build a broad picture of the "threat" to your soil, then plan actions - be it diplomatic, economic or military.
as for sean hannity: it's best you maintain your ignorance. be glad you don't know who he is; i wish i'd never heard of him. no wait, i wish he'd just go away.
and regarding the president's ability to send troops into battle: the president may send troops into battle for 60 days, after which time congress must declare war or troops must be removed. this came about after the vietnam war, when the president was essentially given a blank check to conduct warfare without congressional approval (under the gulf of tonkin resolution). congress has since reined in presidential powers to conduct war, hence the 60-day rule. That rule can be bent all to hell, though. Hence why we haven't technically declared war since 1941. Congress can grant extensions of the 60-day rule in order to give extra time to pull troops out, but as long as Congress agrees to military action (which is what happens), there's plenty of war for everyone!
Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope Can we please change the subject and talk about important world affairs like the continued success of Duran Duran?
or twiglets. Oops back to Bush again.
Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Are they still dreamy?
Didn't one of them decide to make gay porn?
Originally posted by Clockwork C > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > Originally posted by Clockwork C> > > > So 1 Billion people living on under $1 a day matter little to you? the lives of public sector workers in the twin towers matters less to you than your economy? Global environmental breakdown and the death of working class males from your counrty matter less than "protecting our money and making more of it?" I dont honestly believe you, but figure youre on the wind up.> > at least youre honest.> > God bless AmericaI hope your concern for poor people makes you feel very noble.
Also I hope you make some money in the future and donate it to good causes, even though it probably won't make a difference in the long run. I used to feel badly for the unfortunate people of this world. My mum would force me to finish all my meals because "there are starving people in Africa". Over my few years on this planet I have come to realize that there are many self-righteous arses on this planet that talk about the poor, are worried about the poor, yet fail to help them in any useful manner. The only manner in which I believe we could truly help countries mired in penury would be to airlift planes full of contraceptives, morning after pills, RU-486 pills, etc. POOR PEOPLE PLEASE STOP FUCKING AND MAKING MORE POOR PEOPLE! I realize some of these poor people rise up and make successful livings (my family used to be lower, lower middle class [almost impoverished] and are now middle class), but for the most part, the poor engender more poor fellows and lasses. People on this earth are in a fight for limited resources (food, raw materials, etc.) and pretty soon I believe we will hit our breaking point in which there are not enough resources to withstand our global population. I wish I could go hand out Trojans to the people of Dhaka, Karachi, Lagos, Mexico City, etc. Hmm... I guess I'll stop here and forget about survival of the fittest.
Oh, honestly, Tristan. For that to work, you'd have to stop getting a billion people in the world from continuing to be Catholic...or otherwise religious. Contraception in the "third world" isn't popular because it often goes against religious beliefs, aside from also being hard to find.
Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope Oh, honestly, Tristan. For that to work, you'd have to stop getting a billion people in the world from continuing to be Catholic...or otherwise religious. Contraception in the "third world" isn't popular because it often goes against religious beliefs, aside from also being hard to find.
Umm we could try shooting beams of radiation at the genitals of people.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope> Oh, honestly, Tristan. For that to work, you'd have to stop getting a billion people in the world from continuing to be Catholic...or otherwise religious. Contraception in the "third world" isn't popular because it often goes against religious beliefs, aside from also being hard to find.
Umm we could try shooting beams of radiation at the genitals of people. How about euthanasia while we're at it? For all those youth in Asia?
I’m not interested in finishing my dinner for the sake of a starving kid, or self righteousness, I just know that there is enough resources to go around, and its not going round. Our economic system of management is primitive - and our economies - although competitive, are not efficient. We live in very primitive, inefficient times - but not as primitive as your knowledge. Go and read more and stop accusing me of some sort of self appointed "nobility".
Originally posted by Clockwork C I’m not interested in finishing my dinner for the sake of a starving kid, or self righteousness, I just know that there is enough resources to go around, and its not going round. Our economic system of management is primitive - and our economies - although competitive, are not efficient. We live in very primitive, inefficient times - but not as primitive as your knowledge. Go and read more and stop accusing me of some sort of self appointed "nobility".
All that I am saying is that I hope you become financially successful and are able to help the poor of this world.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Clockwork C> I’m not interested in finishing my dinner for the sake of a starving kid, or self righteousness, I just know that there is enough resources to go around, and its not going round. Our economic system of management is primitive - and our economies - although competitive, are not efficient. We live in very primitive, inefficient times - but not as primitive as your knowledge. Go and read more and stop accusing me of some sort of self appointed "nobility".
All that I am saying is that I hope you become financially successful and are able to help the poor of this world.
By becoming financhially successful - as you would have it, I am most proberbally doing so at the expense of the poor of the world. That pretty much a certainty in free market capitalism.
Originally posted by Clockwork C > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > Originally posted by Clockwork C> > I’m not interested in finishing my dinner for the sake of a starving kid, or self righteousness, I just know that there is enough resources to go around, and its not going round. Our economic system of management is primitive - and our economies - although competitive, are not efficient. We live in very primitive, inefficient times - but not as primitive as your knowledge. Go and read more and stop accusing me of some sort of self appointed "nobility".>
All that I am saying is that I hope you become financially successful and are able to help the poor of this world.
By becoming financhially successful - as you would have it, I am most proberbally doing so at the expense of the poor of the world. That pretty much a certainty in free market capitalism. You are correct.
Originally posted by Clockwork C > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > Originally posted by Clockwork C> > I’m not interested in finishing my dinner for the sake of a starving kid, or self righteousness, I just know that there is enough resources to go around, and its not going round. Our economic system of management is primitive - and our economies - although competitive, are not efficient. We live in very primitive, inefficient times - but not as primitive as your knowledge. Go and read more and stop accusing me of some sort of self appointed "nobility".>
All that I am saying is that I hope you become financially successful and are able to help the poor of this world.
By becoming financhially successful - as you would have it, I am most proberbally doing so at the expense of the poor of the world. That pretty much a certainty in free market capitalism.
Ugh, this argument can go forever and has an endless amounts of offshoots and subtopics to debate. You seem to care for the poor of the world, and I hope you can help them in some shape or form.
Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope Sally Struthers cares about the poor also.
She likes to fatten them up, so that when she eats them later on, they are more meaty.
Had a good laugh while driving around Portland early this morning. I was listening to an AM station for a bit to catch the traffic reports. While waiting, the Rush Limbaugh minute came on; in that segment, he started commenting on how Kerry supposedly has lineage with some of the noble families of Europe, even "the Shahs of Persia", and then made some smart ass comment about Kerry's possible cousin, the Ayatollah. 
If that was supposed to be a joke, it wasn't funny, and Rush should've known better than to say something that like and to place in the minds of his listeners the name of the man most Americans first associated with the modern version of radical Islam with that of Kerry.
It's not that I ever took Rush that serious to begin with, just made me laugh and shake my head.
Originally posted by Green Had a good laugh while driving around Portland early this morning. I was listening to an AM station for a bit to catch the traffic reports. While waiting, the Rush Limbaugh minute came on; in that segment, he started commenting on how Kerry supposedly has lineage with some of the noble families of Europe, even "the Shahs of Persia", and then made some smart ass comment about Kerry's possible cousin, the Ayatollah.
What's even worse is that both Bush and Kerry come from a common ancestor. They are distant relatives... no wonder he doesn't attack Iran... 
Fucking politics! We should make a rule you's are only allowed 100 words to get yer point across, ma heids banging reading that. And I still don't know who Sean Hannity is:D
Just out of curiosity, how's this John Kerry fellow viewed by the American public? He looks like a right boring cunt. Where are the personalities over there these days? Bring back Bill Clinton's what I say:p
I believe bush and kerry are neck and neck.
Sorry to get technical, but any presidential election where the current president is standing is more a referendum on the incumbent than anything else. So whether Kerry is popular or not is a tough question, but you are right, he is a boring cunt.
Originally posted by Uncle Liam I believe bush and kerry are neck and neck. Sorry to get technical, but any presidential election where the current president is standing is more a referendum on the incumbent than anything else. So whether Kerry is popular or not is a tough question, but you are right, he is a boring cunt.
further to that, you could argue that theres essentially no difference who wins .
Originally posted by Uncle Liam I believe bush and kerry are neck and neck. Sorry to get technical, but any presidential election where the current president is standing is more a referendum on the incumbent than anything else. So whether Kerry is popular or not is a tough question, but you are right, he is a boring cunt.
He's boring, and no matter what he does, he'll never change his poll numbers (as evidenced by the DNC). By the time of the Republican National Convention, where we will hear Bush speak to the nation and present his case for reelection, then maybe there will be some changes in the polls. Not even ridiculously high oil prices seem to affect Bush's poll numbers.
To answer Shug's question:
Sean Hannity is a right-wing bigot who is a secret homosexual. This should not be held against him, as he is quite open about it when he goes clubbing with his longtime companion, Ollie North (of Iran-Contra fame). They dress as French maids and take turns shoving each other up the ass with well-placed dusters. On weekdays, however, Sean is a staunch defender of the right to free speech. He speaks his mind, you have to listen. And he personally sees to it that as long as he's speaking, whatever comes out of your mouth in response will be label "liberal", the Right's new variation on the "n-word lover" tag that they attached to anyone post-1865 who dared speak against them.
Sean enjoys water-skiing, table tennis, French ticklers, overwrought gesticulating with a phallic pen in one hand, defending America from godless Muslims who don't share his skin color, reaming innocent young Cub Scouts at his summer house, watching autoerotic porn with the whole family, and blowing Pat Robertson. He's never served in war, but he has served in the heady conservative-unfriendly confines of Fox News, a well-known organ for Rupert Murdoch's bile.
Sean is one of Murdoch's biggest studs, and his kennel is decorated with many instances of Sean praising himself. He is above all humble about himself, as his article "How I Won The Iraq War" (Gun and Ammo, February 2004) shows. A friend to all those poor upper-class neo-cons who wet themselves at the very mention of participating in the wars they endorse, Sean needlepoints and designs quilts in his spare time.
Overall, Shug, you're lucky not to know who this jackass is. If you do see him out in the wild, however, don't feed him. He may take that as a sign to dry hump your leg while he rambles on about how dynamic Bush is 
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 To answer Shug's question:Sean Hannity is a right-wing bigot who is a secret homosexual. This should not be held against him, as he is quite open about it when he goes clubbing with his longtime companion, Ollie North (of Iran-Contra fame). They dress as French maids and take turns shoving each other up the ass with well-placed dusters. On weekdays, however, Sean is a staunch defender of the right to free speech. He speaks his mind, you have to listen. And he personally sees to it that as long as he's speaking, whatever comes out of your mouth in response will be label "liberal", the Right's new variation on the "n-word lover" tag that they attached to anyone post-1865 who dared speak against them.Sean enjoys water-skiing, table tennis, French ticklers, overwrought gesticulating with a phallic pen in one hand, defending America from godless Muslims who don't share his skin color, reaming innocent young Cub Scouts at his summer house, watching autoerotic porn with the whole family, and blowing Pat Robertson. He's never served in war, but he has served in the heady conservative-unfriendly confines of Fox News, a well-known organ for Rupert Murdoch's bile.Sean is one of Murdoch's biggest studs, and his kennel is decorated with many instances of Sean praising himself. He is above all humble about himself, as his article "How I Won The Iraq War" (Gun and Ammo, February 2004) shows. A friend to all those poor upper-class neo-cons who wet themselves at the very mention of participating in the wars they endorse, Sean needlepoints and designs quilts in his spare time.Overall, Shug, you're lucky not to know who this jackass is. If you do see him out in the wild, however, don't feed him. He may take that as a sign to dry hump your leg while he rambles on about how dynamic Bush is
Hannity is generally makes some smart points in his debated with Allan (sp?) Colmes on his Fox News Show, but as with most political commentators, he tends to exaggerate and be illogically extreme on some other points.
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> To answer Shug's question:> > Sean Hannity is a right-wing bigot who is a secret homosexual. This should not be held against him, as he is quite open about it when he goes clubbing with his longtime companion, Ollie North (of Iran-Contra fame). They dress as French maids and take turns shoving each other up the ass with well-placed dusters. On weekdays, however, Sean is a staunch defender of the right to free speech. He speaks his mind, you have to listen. And he personally sees to it that as long as he's speaking, whatever comes out of your mouth in response will be label "liberal", the Right's new variation on the "n-word lover" tag that they attached to anyone post-1865 who dared speak against them.> > Sean enjoys water-skiing, table tennis, French ticklers, overwrought gesticulating with a phallic pen in one hand, defending America from godless Muslims who don't share his skin color, reaming innocent young Cub Scouts at his summer house, watching autoerotic porn with the whole family, and blowing Pat Robertson. He's never served in war, but he has served in the heady conservative-unfriendly confines of Fox News, a well-known organ for Rupert Murdoch's bile.> > Sean is one of Murdoch's biggest studs, and his kennel is decorated with many instances of Sean praising himself. He is above all humble about himself, as his article "How I Won The Iraq War" (Gun and Ammo, February 2004) shows. A friend to all those poor upper-class neo-cons who wet themselves at the very mention of participating in the wars they endorse, Sean needlepoints and designs quilts in his spare time.> > Overall, Shug, you're lucky not to know who this jackass is. If you do see him out in the wild, however, don't feed him. He may take that as a sign to dry hump your leg while he rambles on about how dynamic Bush is
C'mon, Tris, stand up to that! I thought S.H. was your boy 
:p
Hannity is a pretty smart guy; on Foxnews he seems to be right on many points (as long as he doesn't talk about family values and such :barf: ). Maybe he seems smart just because Colmes is such an idiot. I don't know how he is on his radio show.
BTW, did anyone catch the NY Times article connecting everyone involved with the Kerry swift boat attack ad to Karl Rove, who happens to be probably the most influential Bush advisor.
Originally posted by Tristan Hannity is a pretty smart guy; on Foxnews he seems to be right on many points (as long as he doesn't talk about family values and such :barf:). Maybe he seems smart just because Colmes is such an idiot. I don't know how he is on his radio show.
He's an ass either way
I don't know, he's too much of a "Rush's golf caddy" to me. I think Limbaugh's a dick, but he's been at it longer, he's a master craftsman of BS. Hannity, by comparison, seems like the eager little kiss-ass who wants to impress Big Hero Rush and (I think) makes himself out to be a Johnny-Come-Lately. I'll take the cranky old man schtick of P.J. O'Rourke any day over the puppy-tail-wagging eagerness of Hannity any day.
Originally posted by Tristan BTW, did anyone catch the NY Times article connecting everyone involved with the Kerry swift boat attack ad to Karl Rove, who happens to be probably the most influential Bush advisor.
I had not heard that.......but it's just another lie of the liberal media, of course. You can't trust a left-wing organ like the NY Times.....
Sincerely,
National Review readers
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by Tristan> BTW, did anyone catch the NY Times article connecting everyone involved with the Kerry swift boat attack ad to Karl Rove, who happens to be probably the most influential Bush advisor.
I had not heard that.......but it's just another lie of the liberal media, of course. You can't trust a left-wing organ like the NY Times.....
Sincerely,
National Review readers
What I don't trust about the NY Times report is that most of their evidence state that Rove and these people were in contact in some campaigns in 1986, but they really fail to connect the guy in Texas to Rove & Bush today.
One day I'll have to understand why the hell there are publicities AGAINST a contender instead of talking about what they will do if they are elected.
Such publicities (I've seen the Kerry war one yesterday in our news) usually have the reverse effect here... that would never work here!
What the US needs is serious competition, a 3rd party or something...
Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > > > Originally posted by Tristan> > BTW, did anyone catch the NY Times article connecting everyone involved with the Kerry swift boat attack ad to Karl Rove, who happens to be probably the most influential Bush advisor.>
I had not heard that.......but it's just another lie of the liberal media, of course. You can't trust a left-wing organ like the NY Times.....
Sincerely,
National Review readers
What I don't trust about the NY Times report is that most of their evidence state that Rove and these people were in contact in some campaigns in 1986, but they really fail to connect the guy in Texas to Rove & Bush today.
Who knew there were so many damn Danes in the Retardican Party today? Cnuts every one.
Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > > > > > > Originally posted by Tristan> > > BTW, did anyone catch the NY Times article connecting everyone involved with the Kerry swift boat attack ad to Karl Rove, who happens to be probably the most influential Bush advisor.> > >
I had not heard that.......but it's just another lie of the liberal media, of course. You can't trust a left-wing organ like the NY Times.....
Sincerely,
National Review readers
What I don't trust about the NY Times report is that most of their evidence state that Rove and these people were in contact in some campaigns in 1986, but they really fail to connect the guy in Texas to Rove & Bush today.
Who knew there were so many damn Danes in the Retardican Party today? Cnuts every one.
Hey I bet you just love what Dole said about Kerry.
Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr President Mofo: Leader of the free world? Nah.
Eh, this'll have no bearing on the election. There hasn't been a president with great foreign policy for ages. I bet after four years of Kerry (and more bombings of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade 
), the world would love to see Kerry lose the 2008 election.
Clinton seemed to keep the peace in Israel. Bush dropped the ball there. Took Clinton to save the Bosnians.
But 911 was planned under his watch. Deals with North Korea allowing them to work on nukes. Sudan offering to had over bin Laden. Iraq telling the UN and everyone else to fuck off.
