PDA

View Full Version : Who Will Win the Election? Bush or Kerry?



nhp
08-31-2004, 05:31 AM
I am pretty sure Bush is going to win. I don't think Kerry is a very good candidate for the dems. In all honesty, how does a rich snooty Democrat appeal to most true democrats? Aside from that, Kerry is mainly relying on his Vietnam experience comparing it to Bush's drunken frat boy days, but the cons are doing an effective smear-campaign against that. What else does he really have left to rely on? For people who really look into Kerry's war records, you will find that most of the negative things you are hearing about his war records are false, but for people who don't bother to look it up, they are probably convinced. Place your bets folks....

eg8r
08-31-2004, 05:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Aside from that, Kerry is mainly relying on his Vietnam experience comparing it to Bush's drunken frat boy days, but the cons are doing an effective smear-campaign against that. <hr /></blockquote> I surely hope your final outcome is correct and Bush wins, however this quote of your hilarious. What about the liberal smear campaign? Liberal media gives Kerry a free ride on MoveOn.org and Moore, looks like you have bought into it.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
08-31-2004, 06:09 AM
The road to the White House is strewn with the corpses of Northern liberals. When will they ever learn?

nhp
08-31-2004, 06:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I surely hope your final outcome is correct and Bush wins, however this quote of your hilarious. What about the liberal smear campaign? Liberal media gives Kerry a free ride on MoveOn.org and Moore, looks like you have bought into it.
<hr /></blockquote>

Wait so just because I didn't mention that the liberals are doing a smear campaign against Bush too that I've "bought into it"?

I was saying that the smear campaign the conservatives are doing against Kerry has been effective, and reflecting the polls, the liberal smear campaign against Bush has not been so effective. Please understand what my point is before you start a debate. I was making an observation.

eg8r
08-31-2004, 06:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Please understand what my point is before you start a debate. I was making an observation. <hr /></blockquote> I am not starting a debate, I am responding to your post. If anything, you started it. I made mention of the clear bias in the post, and you rebutted that you just chose to ignore the liberal smear campaign for this threads purpose.

eg8r

highsea
08-31-2004, 08:47 AM
I think it is too close to call. There are a lot of people who can't stand either candidate.

We'll just have to wait till December to find out.

-CM

nhp
08-31-2004, 05:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am not starting a debate, I am responding to your post. If anything, you started it. I made mention of the clear bias in the post, and you rebutted that you just chose to ignore the liberal smear campaign for this threads purpose. <hr /></blockquote>

So every time I make a post that mentions something "bad" about the republican party, in order not to be biased, I must mention something "bad" about the democrats? Well, being that you and a few others on here make a few new threads per day that say "bad" things about the democrats and nothing about the republicans, I think that what I posted was fair, and wasn't biased either. And being that I made an observation that Bush probably will win the election because their smear-campaign has been more effective than Kerry's, there should be no argument here between us. Don't you agree?

highsea
08-31-2004, 05:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nhp:</font><hr> I am pretty sure Bush is going to win. I don't think Kerry is a very good candidate for the dems. In all honesty, how does a rich snooty Democrat appeal to most true democrats?

<font color="blue"> His main appeal to most Dems is that he is not Bush. He sure hasn't tried to sell his Senate record very hard to the voters.</font color>

Aside from that, Kerry is mainly relying on his Vietnam experience comparing it to Bush's drunken frat boy days,

<font color="blue"> Weren't Bush and Kerry drunken frat boys together? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif </font color>

but the cons are doing an effective smear-campaign against that. What else does he really have left to rely on? For people who really look into Kerry's war records, you will find that most of the negative things you are hearing about his war records are false, but for people who don't bother to look it up, they are probably convinced. Place your bets folks.... <hr /></blockquote>I agree the SBV ads have been effective. W.r.t. the SBV claims and Kerry's medals, if what he says is true, his medical records would back him up, and the SBV's would be discredited. So that ball is in his court, imo.

As far as the overall smear campaigning, I can't see how the Reps have been more effective than the Libs. Especially if you count F911 in the list. The Lib 527's have spent 20 times as much as the Reps on attack ads.

Both sides have put out a lot of propaganda, no question. I think the better way to phrase this debate is to ask which side has made more mistakes?

-CM

mred477
08-31-2004, 06:17 PM
Two weeks ago, I thought Kerry would win. After the SBVs campaign, I'm not so sure. It would be one thing if he had actually been in Cambodia during Christmas, or actually been in Vietnam when MLK was assassinated. It's one thing to forget or even enhance events that took place. It's quite another to completely lie about memories that couldn't possibly have taken place.

I don't like the way his campaign whines about Bush going negative when you know they're doing the very same thing. Regardless, I don't think America has the backbone for the war the way Bush wants to fight it. Right now, I'd say Kerry will win, and honestly, he can't spend more money than Bush has, so my fiscal conservatism wouldn't mind too much...I just worry about national defense. Congress won't rescind the tax cuts, so that is sort of a moot point.

Will

Ross
08-31-2004, 06:30 PM
I think Bush will very likely win. All of the models based on economic conditions, incumbency, etc predict that he will win the popular vote. And the Democratic party has a very poor PR machine compared to the Republicans. The only fly in the ointment is that the election almost certainly will come down again to Florida, not the popular vote. Bush is slightly ahead in Florida so it will take something very different from what is going on now for Kerry to win that state.

I've resigned myself to it. My only consolation is that the Democrat haters on this board will have more difficulty blaming all of the countries problems on the Demos if Bush serves 8 years. But I have faith - they will find a way!

Ross
09-01-2004, 06:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
I agree the SBV ads have been effective. W.r.t. the SBV claims and Kerry's medals, if what he says is true, his medical records would back him up, and the SBV's would be discredited. So that ball is in his court, imo.

<font color="blue">Highsea, the SBV's have been discredited over and over. Most of them who said on TV (with rousing patriotic music in the background) "I served with Kerry" have admitted they never met the man. Some have been forced to admit that they based their opinions on nothing they saw while in Vietnam, but instead they read a book critical of Kerry. So they lied to the American public in a smear campaign. Also several of them that were in the ad testified before Congress that Kerry was a great soldier in '96. But will you criticize them for being lying flip-floppers who will say anything to smear a Democrat for political purposes? No, these lying sell-outs will get the kid glove treatment from hard core conservatives. And then these same conservatives will rail on about media bias as if objective truth were their goal! I would just like to see some consistency. Just for fun, surprise me some day...</font color>

As far as the overall smear campaigning, I can't see how the Reps have been more effective than the Libs. Especially if you count F911 in the list. The Lib 527's have spent 20 times as much as the Reps on attack ads.

<font color="blue">Name one Democratic attack ad that you can remember off the top of your head? You are right that F911 was effective in this way, but it was not produced by the Democratic party. Besides it was damning more by innuendo, not by blatant lying like the SBV's. </font color>

Both sides have put out a lot of propaganda, no question. I think the better way to phrase this debate is to ask which side has made more mistakes?

<font color="blue">This is what I'm talking about - the double standard. Based on your posts, in your book Moore is a lying SOS, but the SBV group is fine. You refuse to recognize that the Repubs have been sleazier than the Dems in their attacks over several elections now. Willie Horton, McCain has a black baby, McCleland is not a patriot, now the SBV's. The list goes on and on. The Dem ads are critical of Bush, but they don't take the sleazy route. So I guess you are right - that is a mistake. We need more operatives without a conscience. I wonder if the guy who created the lying SBV ads can be bought? </font color>

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

Wally_in_Cincy
09-01-2004, 06:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> ...the Democratic party has a very poor PR machine compared to the Republicans.... <hr /></blockquote>

Well the Dems have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC. So that helps a little bit.

As is my tradition, I flipped on Danny Rather last night after the speeches. He was looking pretty glum after Arnold and Laura's speeches. I wonder what he looked like after Kerry's speech. Probably like this /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> ...the Democrat haters on this board...<hr /></blockquote>

I don't hate Democrats. I just think thet're wrong.

eg8r
09-01-2004, 06:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The only fly in the ointment is that the election almost certainly will come down again to Florida, not the popular vote. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, please don't leave that up to us again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif We have too many old people who cannot properly punch a whole in a piece of paper. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Anyone want to start a pool for the date of the first lawsuit?

eg8r

eg8r
09-01-2004, 06:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It would be one thing if he had actually been in Cambodia during Christmas, <hr /></blockquote> I crack up every time the radio plays that snippet of Kerry talking about how this was seared into his heart. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I cannot believe he lied about MLK. How stupid is the man?

It is funny, they call the SBVs a smear campaign, but as time moves on, we are hearing the truths come out. A lot of what they say is true, yet the libs would like to bundle the whole lot of them up and call it a smear campaign. Even the democratic campaign has stepped back from referring to the first purple heart since Kerry's own diary states there was no enemy fire. A smear campaign I doubt it.

eg8r

eg8r
09-01-2004, 06:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think that what I posted was fair <hr /></blockquote> I also think it was fair, so was my reply.

eg8r

eg8r
09-01-2004, 06:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Most of them who said on TV (with rousing patriotic music in the background) "I served with Kerry" have admitted they never met the man. <hr /></blockquote> This is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. You are going to denounce what the man says because they never met. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You are a riot, I never was never a member of the Clinton party, but I can still say with authority that he is an adulterer.

I have not seen any of the stuff you are mentioning, but I am not looking real hard for it either. As for the quote above, this picture should explain your logic pretty clearly....

http://www.boortz.com/images/washington.jpg

About the only difference that could be made was Washington was in command and Kerry wasn't...if that is so, then pic another guy in the boat with Washington and add his name to the quote.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
09-01-2004, 06:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Anyone want to start a pool for the date of the first lawsuit?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

More likely, start a pool for the date of the first call for Bush's impeachment. I'll take Jan. 21 /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

highsea
09-01-2004, 07:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> <font color="blue">Highsea, the SBV's have been discredited over and over. Most of them who said on TV (with rousing patriotic music in the background) "I served with Kerry" have admitted they never met the man.

<font color="black"> Then again, some were his commanders and shipmates on the Gridley, There's a retired Admiral (also a former commander of Kerry's), guys who were on the next boat over in the same engagements. (Sb's worked in groups of 3-5 boats). Once again, when the AWOL accusations were coming fast against GW, he signed a DD180 and released all his records. Kerry did not match up. He turned to his lawyers instead.</font color>

Some have been forced to admit that they based their opinions on nothing they saw while in Vietnam, but instead they read a book critical of Kerry.

<font color="black"> I know of only one that fits this description, the assistant DA in Oregon. </font color>

So they lied to the American public in a smear campaign. Also several of them that were in the ad testified before Congress that Kerry was a great soldier in '96. But will you criticize them for being lying flip-floppers who will say anything to smear a Democrat for political purposes? No, these lying sell-outs will get the kid glove treatment from hard core conservatives.

<font color="black"> I do that in self-defense. MM has done much worse to Bush with F911. Remember Cannes and Seabiscuit in the see-through dress? Oh, they were all so proud of themselves.</font color>

And then these same conservatives will rail on about media bias as if objective truth were their goal! I would just like to see some consistency. Just for fun, surprise me some day...</font color>

<font color="black"> Okay, here's your surprise. The Reps accomplished more with a 1/2 million dollar smear campaign than what the Libs could do with a couple hundred million. One day the Dems might learn to get to the heart of the matter. Until then...</font color>

<font color="blue">Name one Democratic attack ad that you can remember off the top of your head?

<font color="black">The ad contest on Moveon.org with the Bush/Hitler ad? The AWOL ads? www.factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org) has the list. Everyone is on it.</font color>

<font color="blue">You are right that F911 was effective in this way, but it was not produced by the Democratic party. Besides it was damning more by innuendo, not by blatant lying like the SBV's. </font color>

<font color="black">Should we debate the more effective way to lie? F911 was a big budget political "infomercial". The only difference between MM and Moveon.org is that MM is out for a profit. I think he is about 100 mil ahead, not counting his mid-east distribution. </font color>

<font color="blue">This is what I'm talking about - the double standard. Based on your posts, in your book Moore is a lying SOS, but the SBV group is fine. You refuse to recognize that the Repubs have been sleazier than the Dems in their attacks over several elections now. Willie Horton, McCain has a black baby, McCleland is not a patriot, now the SBV's. The list goes on and on.

<font color="black"> Wait a minute. I have never commented on previous elections. My sleazy comments should only be interpreted as applying to this election. But since you mention it, Willie Horton was a criminal, and should have stayed in jail. McCain's adopted kid should not be dragged into his politics. That was a low blow by GW. </font color>

<font color="blue">The Dem ads are critical of Bush, but they don't take the sleazy route. So I guess you are right - that is a mistake. We need more operatives without a conscience. I wonder if the guy who created the lying SBV ads can be bought? </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="black">The Dems have plenty of operators without consiences. Hell, they nominated one for President. What they need is someone a little more PR savvy than McCauliff if they expect to run a decent campaign. This election is Kerry's to lose. But I doubt they could buy the guy who did the SBV ads. I think he is a Bush man.

Anyway, they still have MM, who is planning one or two more books before the election. Of course, if Kerry wins, there's always the risk that the dog may turn on his master.

-CM </font color>

highsea
09-01-2004, 07:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>Anyone want to start a pool for the date of the first lawsuit?
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>I was thinking about a pool when the election is actually called. I say December 20th. The Monday before Christmas. I got 5 bucks.

-CM

cheesemouse
09-01-2004, 04:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well the Dems have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC. So that helps a little bit.
<hr /></blockquote>

Wally, I see your sucking on that old liberal media conspiracy pacifier again...this nipple gives no milk.

If what you say is true then with all this power of the liberal media they would surely beable to get a liberal congress, senate, and a liberal progressive president elected. The Republicans control everything, including the courts....there is no liberal media cabal, you can stop breast feeding Wally, you're a big boy now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
09-01-2004, 07:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Well the Dems have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC. So that helps a little bit.
<hr /></blockquote>

Wally, I see your sucking on that old liberal media conspiracy pacifier again...this nipple gives no milk.

If what you say is true then with all this power of the liberal media they would surely beable to get a liberal congress, senate, and a liberal progressive president elected. The Republicans control everything, including the courts....there is no liberal media cabal, you can stop breast feeding Wally, you're a big boy now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Maybe it's just time that the media realizes that the majority of the country doesn't share the same liberal views that they continuously try to push on us. They all look so miserable having to cover the Rep convention...they remind me of the old Led Zep song "Dazed and confused".

nAz
09-02-2004, 04:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>

Maybe it's just time that the media realizes that the majority of the country doesn't share the same liberal views that they continuously try to push on us. They all look so miserable having to cover the Rep convention...they remind me of the old Led Zep song "Dazed and confused". <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know, get rid of the Electoral College and see how wrong you are.

Qtec
09-02-2004, 04:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I just worry about national defense <hr /></blockquote>

D.Cheney at the convention yesyerday,
"Instead, Cheney focused on Kerry's career as the junior senator from Massachusetts, assailing his stance on national security matters.

"A senator can be wrong for 20 years without consequence to the nation," Cheney said. "But a president, a president, always casts the deciding vote. And in this time of challenge, America needs -- and America has -- a president we can count on to get it right." <font color="blue"> Implying that Kerry was wrong for 20 years, but thats not exactly what he says.[ thought I would say it before eg8r does].The same trick was used linking OBL and Saddam. </font color>

THE TRUTH!

"PFA's ad also fails to mention that Kerry voted for Pentagon money bills in 16 of his 19 years in the Senate. By that measure, Kerry was much more a supporter of "weapons systems our troops depend on" than he was an opponent.

Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.
Interestingly, the ad doesn't specify the 13 weapons systems Kerry supposedly opposed. When asked to document the ad's claim, PVA supplied a document that said the two appropriations bills cited "contained funding for at least 13 weapons systems." The PVA most likely is relying on a list of 13 weapons that the Republican National Committee put forth last February when Republicans first tried this line of attack. One of those weapons is the Trident nuclear missile system -- not exactly a weapon "our troops depend on" in the current conflict."

How can you point the finger at someone for doing the same thing you yourself did?
Double standards and hypocracy are the trademarks of this admin. You just cant believe a single word they say.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
09-02-2004, 06:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ...
Wally, I see your sucking on that old liberal media conspiracy pacifier again...this nipple gives no milk....<hr /></blockquote>

Senator Zell Miller's speech reminded ABC and CNN reporters of Pat Buchanan's 1992 address -- and they didn't mean it as a compliment. ABC's George Stephanopoulos related how "as he was talking I was getting e-mails saying, you know, this reminds me of Houston, 1992 -- Pat Buchanan." CNN's Bill Schneider saw Miller as symbolic of a "very angry convention" and contended that "I've never heard such an angry speech." Aaron Brown inquired: "Do you think this was angrier than the Buchanan speech?" Schneider answered: "In a way, yes, I do." Joe Klein of Time magazine declared on CNN: "I don't think I've seen anything as angry or as ugly as Miller's speech." Brown also quipped: "There was enough red meat in Madison Square Garden to make the Atkins dieters happy for a year." On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell didn't raise Buchanan, but she argued Miller went beyond "red meat" to "raw meat." Tom Brokaw suggested: "I think there is a question about whether Zell Miller went too far here tonight. The language was just too harsh?"

http://www.mrc.org/

<font color="blue">In 1992 the media latched onto Buchanan's speech and whipped it like a plug horse all the way to the election.

Curious how they all describe the speech the same way. I guess they all got their "talking points" email yesterday morning.

They're hacked off at Zell for turning his back on the party but they defend Kerry for "changing his mind" or "rethinking his position". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif</font color>

highsea
09-02-2004, 07:06 AM
Just wondering, how did they go from PFA to PVA, and who are they anyway?

But lets talk about the systems mentioned, and why the Gop was willing to cut back on some.

Bradley. Very questionable system. Under armored and undergunned, but quick and agile. What began as an improved APC became an offensive piece. Not that great an idea, as M1A2's are much more effective and survivable, and M113's are a lot cheaper. I have the same opinion on Strykers. Neither one can replace a MBT in firepower.

The AH-64 has also been a love/hate relationship. It's very expensive to keep them in the air. A Cobra could pretty much do the job the Apaches do. They just don't have the targeting sophistication or weapons loadout. That could be fixed with a MLU, and a mix of Cobras, AC-130's and/or A-10's could certainly do the job of the Apache in ground support. Helos are always vulnerable to ground fire if you don't have a hi-lo mix or lots of RT suppression anyway. So the Apache could go away, and it wouldn't hurt us, as long as we upgraded the Cobra to compensate. Truth is, I think we are due for a new front line helo.

The F-15, well everyone thought that program was doomed long ago. 16's were cheap and mass produced (by comparison), and the end of the cold war led everyone (us included) to assume an air superiority fighter was no longer really needed. Especially with the development of BVR A2A missiles. An F-16 could shoot down a Mig-29, and the Mig would never see the 16. An AC that could fly circles around an F-16 was rendered obsolete by a cheap missile. No fighter can outrun or outmaneuver a missile at mach 4+. What really surprised everyone was GD's ability to reinvent the AC, the current incarnation being the F15E Strike Eagle. An AC that began life as an interceptor, evolved into a long range strike weapon. It took over the role of the F-111, and was further supplemented by the F-117, which could make first strikes undetected. In Iraq, F-15's were used as bombers.

F-14's are just plain too expensive to operate, and the threat they were designed to counter no longer esists. We only have I think, one active squadron today. But they are without a doubt the baddest ass carrier planes we have ever fielded. The F-18's, while not as fast or lethal, are made more effective by a combined force doctrine using E-3's and AWACS. AIM120's don't hurt either. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif They're also are a hell of a lot cheaper to operate, and much easier to fly.

B2's? These are our pride and joy, militarily speaking. Expensive!. Hard to get a real price, but they are somewhere between 1.2 and 2.1 Bil a pop. Not a cheap date. Needless to say, there is no other country that could afford to build these, even if they knew how. But it is probably the US's most effective Strategic weapon. Even more so than our Sub fleet, imo, because it can hit very specific targets with extremely short notice. It operates undetected, and can reach anywhere in the world in about 18 hours or less, drop it's eggs, and come home without refueling. Without any other support. Considering how potent they are, 20 B2's are all we really need. A single B-2 could pretty much neutralize anything between the size of a house and a small country. There are those who would say that having even 20 is overkill.

The point is, we have F-22's coming online to replace the F-15E's. We have JFS's in the pipeline to phase out the F-18's and F-16's, and the few AV-8B's the Marines need.

The difference between Kerry and the Dems and Bush and the GOP is that the GOP is willing to phase out the existing projects, in order to replace them with better systems. Kerry would cut the existing programs and their replacements. Their philosophy is that since we are so far ahead, we can rest on our laurels.

The truth is that a SU-30MKI is more competitive than a F-15D/E in a dogfight. And an SU-37 would have a field day.Fortunately the SU-37 is not in service, but it proves that you cannot just sit back and pretend your advantage will always be there. BTW, a Raptor will singlehandedly smoke 4 Sukhois, and they will never see the F-22. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif But at the price, Raptors will never exist in large quantities.

But let me ask you something Q, Why is the EU building Eurofighter Typhoons, France building Rafales, Sweden building Gripens, China building SU-30's and J-10's? All of these AC could probably defeat a front line US fighter (not counting F-22's), if they were operating independently. With the exception of the Typhoon, look at these countries export markets. Almost exclusively Mid-East or Pakistan/India.

Did you know that in the '80's Iraq consumed 51% of France's arms exports? Hell, France is building modern high-tech subs for Pakistan today. The US is not the only country that builds war weapons. But like every other country in the world, we will work to maintain our warfighting capability, and (hopefully) the ability to win decisively, just in case it becomes necessary. If Kerry wins, there is no doubt in my mind our current advantage will be degraded. His record proves that beyond any doubt.

-CM

eg8r
09-02-2004, 08:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers <hr /></blockquote> LOL, this sounds about right...this is the time frame of when the F-22 started development, and the beginnings of the JSF F-35. The two planes will replace all the planes listed except the B-2. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Would it not make sense to cut further R&amp;D for outdated planes when the new planes are going to enter development soon?

[ QUOTE ]
How can you point the finger at someone for doing the same thing you yourself did? <hr /></blockquote> You have to understand the history of what was happening at the same time to understand.

eg8r

cheesemouse
09-02-2004, 08:22 AM
I think Fox, established in 1996, was a brilliant move. It was a move made by an internation billionaire who's motive is to increase his pile of gold, this is not to say that all the major outlets are not now in the same game. The main difference is that in the tradition of U.S journalism most outlets try to keep the teeter-totter in a centrist postition where weight placed on one side may vary but overall both views remain suspended. Fox, very effectively launch by Murdoc, a foreigner billionaire, knows it's business...they just throw a sandbag on the right side of the teeter-totters plank and let the profits roll in...it is the free market at work, that's fine with me but I do recognize it for what it is; a cynical chasing of the dollar. Fox is 'fair and balanced' in the world of business but they remain just a cynical joke when viewed in the world of trying to further the political debate we are presently in as voting Americans. If, as a voter, you are looking for differing veiws to ponder having the Fox nipple in your mouth all the time will only make you dependant on the nacotic laced tip...Wally, your an addict...LOL

Wally_in_Cincy
09-02-2004, 08:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ....If, as a voter, you are looking for differing veiws to ponder having the Fox nipple in your mouth all the time will only make you dependant on the nacotic laced tip...Wally, your an addict...LOL <hr /></blockquote>

cheese, the reason fox and conservative talk radio have been so successful is because folks weren't getting both sides from the major broadcast media.

cheesemouse
09-02-2004, 08:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ....If, as a voter, you are looking for differing veiws to ponder having the Fox nipple in your mouth all the time will only make you dependant on the nacotic laced tip...Wally, your an addict...LOL <hr /></blockquote>

cheese, the reason fox and conservative talk radio have been so successful is because folks weren't getting both sides from the major broadcast media. <hr /></blockquote>

Wrong again, Wally, the reason they are successful is that they have found a niche market that only wants one product...this dependence is the addiction which makes it profitable...Hell, I'm addicted to #1 on the Burger King's breakfast menu. I don't know how I'm ever going to get thru the whole menu...maybe if my friends proformed an intervention...anyway if you need help I'm your buddy and will try and help you thru this... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
09-02-2004, 09:06 AM
IMO its the arms trade that perpetuates war around the world. We sell arms to poor countries who cant even feed their own people. Is that morally right?
Whether it be US or EU I,m against it. BTW,the US spends as much on defense as the rest of the world put together!Its the rest of the world that should be feeling nervous, dont you think? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
My point was that the Dems could say the same about Cheneey on defense, as he says about Kerry, and be right!

Q

Qtec
09-02-2004, 09:14 AM
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

http://www.pfavoterfund.com/

[pro-Bush group Progress for America Voter Fund (PFA)]

Should be PFA, I think.

Ross
09-02-2004, 10:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> ...
Wally, I see your sucking on that old liberal media conspiracy pacifier again...this nipple gives no milk....<hr /></blockquote>

Senator Zell Miller's speech reminded ABC and CNN reporters of Pat Buchanan's 1992 address -- and they didn't mean it as a compliment. ABC's George Stephanopoulos related how "as he was talking I was getting e-mails saying, you know, this reminds me of Houston, 1992 -- Pat Buchanan." CNN's Bill Schneider saw Miller as symbolic of a "very angry convention" and contended that "I've never heard such an angry speech." Aaron Brown inquired: "Do you think this was angrier than the Buchanan speech?" Schneider answered: "In a way, yes, I do." Joe Klein of Time magazine declared on CNN: "I don't think I've seen anything as angry or as ugly as Miller's speech." Brown also quipped: "There was enough red meat in Madison Square Garden to make the Atkins dieters happy for a year." On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell didn't raise Buchanan, but she argued Miller went beyond "red meat" to "raw meat." Tom Brokaw suggested: "I think there is a question about whether Zell Miller went too far here tonight. The language was just too harsh?"

http://www.mrc.org/

<font color="blue">In 1992 the media latched onto Buchanan's speech and whipped it like a plug horse all the way to the election.

Curious how they all describe the speech the same way. I guess they all got their "talking points" email yesterday morning.

They're hacked off at Zell for turning his back on the party but they defend Kerry for "changing his mind" or "rethinking his position". /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

So Wally, you think the mainstream media shows it's bias by calling Millers speech angry? Did you hear it? Did you read it? If you had showed me the transcript and said it was from a Rush Limbaugh show or an Eg8r post, I would have believed you. It would have shown a pretty strong news bias to NOT point out how strident it was. Here are some quotes. You tell me if they sound "angry" or "harsh" or provoking:

<ul type="square">
Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
This is the man who wants to be the commander in chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
And no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
U.S. forces armed with what? Spit balls?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military. As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harm's way, far away.
[/list]

And so on...

The sad thing is, Zell started out his speach lauding bipartisanship, then he goes on to use sarcasm, ridicule, distortion of facts, and so on to paint Kerry as a person who would allow the US to be run over by its enemies. He was engaging in demogogary, but go check newsmax, or O'Reilly, or the rest of the "no spin" media and see if any of them even dare to note this.

Right now, you and others that are on the "media is biased" bandwagon seem to see anything that is critical of a conservative or of the Bush administration as proof they are biased. But that does not prove bias. Bias is when you only give one side of the story (like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, newsmax, Drudge, Heritage Foundation). If you want me to find items critical of the Dems in todays CNN, I will. If you want to go back and find NYT's articles critical of Clinton you can (they rode him on the Whitewater thing for years). If you want me to find articles in the Washington Post critical of Dems I will. But you will be very hardpressed to find any balancing newstories on the conservative media I mentioned above.

We will all be stuck with a one-sided, distorted view of the world if we shoot the messenger because we don't like hearing what he has to say. Zell Millers speech WAS angry and strident - the mainstream press noted it. They didn't say that about the other speakers - McCain, Schwarchnegger, etc. And they have been giving a lot of credit to the Republicans on running a Convention that puts them in the best light, until Zell, who they know was brought in to give red meat to the far right so they will get out and vote. Noting that does not make the media biased. IMO.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-02-2004, 10:53 AM
I didn't see it all. I was in and out of the room.

Yeah, it was a bit Limbaugh-esque /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif. Perhaps that was a bad example.

not that I disagree with it though /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
09-02-2004, 11:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Rush Limbaugh show or an Eg8r post <hr /></blockquote> Well, thank you Ross, while I don't believe in all the things Rush does, I do feel honored to be in such prestigous company. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The sad thing is, Zell started out his speach lauding bipartisanship, then he goes on to use sarcasm, ridicule, <hr /></blockquote> In your zeal to prove Zell's anger, I might add that you, yourself hypocritically have done the same with this post.

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, you and others that are on the "media is biased" bandwagon seem to see anything that is critical of a conservative or of the Bush administration as proof they are biased. <hr /></blockquote> This quote is a great example of another liberal just not paying attention. The complaint is not that the media is critical of the Reps, everyone can use a little constructive criticism. The complaint is the lack of criticism of the Dems.

[ QUOTE ]
We will all be stuck with a one-sided, distorted view of the world if we shoot the messenger because we don't like hearing what he has to say. <hr /></blockquote> A messenger does not offer their own biased view, they just deliver the message. You would be hard pressed to ever prove today's journalist just deliver the "message".

eg8r

eg8r
09-02-2004, 11:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong again, Wally, the reason they are successful is that they have found a niche market that only wants one product <hr /></blockquote> Wally was not wrong and you fortified what he said...The Broadcast media was not offering a conservative point of view, so Fox did. It appears that this is what Americans prefer to see, 3:1. Maybe you just wanted to hear it in your own words, but you said the same thing as Wally. The niche you refer to WAS the Conservative side.

eg8r

eg8r
09-02-2004, 11:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We sell arms to poor countries who cant even feed their own people. Is that morally right?
<hr /></blockquote> That is the Netherlands fault, why do we care if it is right?

[ QUOTE ]
BTW,the US spends as much on defense as the rest of the world put together!Its the rest of the world that should be feeling nervous, dont you think? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
<hr /></blockquote> The rest of the world does not have to worry until we take over Canada and Mexico. Last time we heard, they both feel safe.

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that the Dems could say the same about Cheneey on defense, as he says about Kerry, and be right!
<hr /></blockquote> If for some reason the Dems do not want to bother themselves with Reason, then it could slide, but in no way would it ever be construed as "right" (referring to this subject alone, they could be "right" on other subjects it just hasn't been proven yet /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

eg8r

cheesemouse
09-02-2004, 11:25 AM
web page (http://) http://www.cybercollege.com/bias.htm

Here Ed twist this...

Wally_in_Cincy
09-02-2004, 11:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> A messenger does not offer their own biased view, they just deliver the message. You would be hard pressed to ever prove today's journalist just deliver the "message".

eg8r

<hr /></blockquote>

speaking of messengers, all zell did was point out kerry's record, something the media messengers have failed to do

eg8r
09-02-2004, 11:54 AM
Don't change the subject...You stated Wally was wrong and then said the exact same thing he said in your own words.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
09-02-2004, 11:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cheesemouse:</font><hr> web page (http://) http://www.cybercollege.com/bias.htm

Here Ed twist this... <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Even so, the popular perception is that TV news is too liberal (45% vs. 14% that think it's too conservative).

<hr /></blockquote>

Don't you think there's a reason for this?

I did not read the whole thing. Statistics can be twisted.

Ross
09-02-2004, 12:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> all zell did was point out kerry's record, <hr /></blockquote>

Wally, if you see that speech as just pointing out Kerry's record, then I give up any hope that you can be objective in your view of this. If you don't see the spin, the selective reporting, the unwarranted conclusions, the exaggeration, then ... well, I don't know what.

Pulling out the name of every weapon in every bill that Kerry voted against without providing any context and then concluding from this list that Kerry doesn't care about our soldiers or defending America is poppycock and I'm pretty sure you know it. If not, then the Fox's and Limbaughs have successfully brainwashed you so well that we CCB'ers are going to have to start collecting funds to hire that old deprogrammer that parents used in the 70's and 80's to get their children out of cults. (What was his name? Was his last name Patrick?) Have you gone that far, Wally? Tell me it isn't so!

Wally_in_Cincy
09-02-2004, 01:16 PM
Ross,

Miller's speech was almost as bad as Ann Richards classic

<font color="red">Pooor George, he's borned wif a silber fut 'nis mouf. </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Don't worry about me dude, I can see bull sh*t as well as anyone.

highsea
09-02-2004, 01:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> IMO its the arms trade that perpetuates war around the world. We sell arms to poor countries who cant even feed their own people. Is that morally right?

<font color="blue"> You can claim to take the moral high ground here if you want, but it was the US that defended Europe this past 50 years.

Actually it's dictators and politicians who promote war. But if you are asking me if I think poor countries should be able to defend themselves, then yes, I do. </font color>

Whether it be US or EU I,m against it. BTW,the US spends as much on defense as the rest of the world put together!Its the rest of the world that should be feeling nervous, dont you think? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<font color="blue"> The US defense budgect for FY 2005 is 3.8% of the GDP. That is nowhere near a historic high for us. It is in the middle of the range compared to the rest of the world. Some countries are higher, some lower.

I doubt the "rest of the world" is as nervous as you seem to think. Certainly Europe has nothing to fear, nor does Canada, Mexico, Australia, South America, Russia, etc. If you are a terrorist State openly hostile to the US, like NK, Syria or Iran, it might be a good idea to be nervous. </font color>

My point was that the Dems could say the same about Cheneey on defense, as he says about Kerry, and be right!

<font color="blue"> Hardly. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

Q <hr /></blockquote>If you want to complain about arms proliferation, start with France. They are the ones who put nukes in the Mid-East. The US does not introduce new weapons into a region unless that cabability already exists. So if for example France sold Rafales to Indonesia, then the US wouldn't be opposed to selling JSF's to Australia. The same goes for missile tech. If NK has AMRAAM's the US would consider selling AIM120's to SK.

It's what countries do. It's called helping their allies.

-CM

nAz
09-02-2004, 03:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>If you want to complain about arms proliferation, start with France. They are the ones who put nukes in the Mid-East. The US does not introduce new weapons into a region unless that cabability already exists. So if for example France sold Rafales to Indonesia, then the US wouldn't be opposed to selling JSF's to Australia. The same goes for missile tech. If NK has AMRAAM's the US would consider selling AIM120's to SK.

It's what countries do. It's called helping their allies.

-CM <hr /></blockquote>

actualy it was Isreal that first got the bomb in the Middle east with help from the USA, the next logical move after that is for every other Arab nation to try to get their own Nuke to counter the Isreali threat. so here we are now /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Vapros
09-02-2004, 04:11 PM
George Bush will win - at least partly because he's very lucky. The Democrats don't have a real contender to send into the ring. They have enough registered voters to win most of the elections in this country, but they can't get them to go out and vote. And, as usual, they don't really have a candidate.

highsea
09-02-2004, 04:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr>actualy it was Isreal that first got the bomb in the Middle east with help from the USA<hr /></blockquote>Wrong nAz. Israel got the technology from France. In fact, it was several years before the US found out. We placed sanctions on Israel as a result. [ QUOTE ]
In the 1950s and early 1960s, France and Israel had very close relations. France was Israel's principal arms supplier, and as instability spread in France's colonies in North Africa, Israel provided valuable intelligence obtained from its contacts with sephardic Jews in those countries. The two nations even collaborated (along with Britain) in planning and staging the joint Suez-Sinai operation against Egypt in October 1956. The Suez Crisis, as it became known, proved to be the genesis of Israel's nuclear weapons production program.

Six weeks before the operation Israel felt the time was right to approach France for assistance in building a nuclear reactor. Canada had set a precedent a year earlier when it had agreed to build the 40 MW CIRUS reactor in India. Shimon Peres, a key aide to Prime Minister (and Defense Minister) David Ben Gurion, and Bergmann met with members of the CEA (France's Atomic Energy Commission). An initial understanding to provide a research reactor appears to have been reached during September.

On 7 November 1956, a secret meeting was held between foreign minister Golda Meir, Peres, and French foreign and defense ministers Mssrs. Christian Pineau and Maurice Bourges-Manoury. The French officials were deeply chagrined by France's failure to support its ally in the operation, and the Israelis were very concerned about the Soviet threat. In this meeting the initial understanding about a research reactor may have been substantially modified, and Peres seems to have secured an agreement to assist Israel in developing a nuclear deterrent.

After some further months of negotiation, the initial agreement for assistance took the form of an 18 MW (thermal) research reactor of the EL-3 type, along with plutonium separation technology. At some point this was officially upgraded to 24 MW, but the actual specifications issued to engineers provided for core cooling ducts sufficient for up to three times this power level, along with a plutonium plant of similar capacity. How this upgrade came about remains unknown.

The reactor was secretly built underground at Dimona, in the Negev desert of southern Israel near Beersheba. Hundreds of French engineers and technicians filled Beersheba which, although it was the biggest town in the Negev, was still a small town. Many of the same contractors who built Marcoule were involved, for example the plutonium separation plants in both France and Israel were built by SGN. The Ground was broken for the EL-102 reactor (as it was known to France) in early 1958. The heavy water for the reactor was purchased from Norway, which sold 20 tons to Israel in 1959 allegedly for use in an experimental power reactor Norway insisted on the right to inspect the heavy water for peaceful use for 32 years, but was permitted to do so only once, in April 1961, prior to it being loaded into the Dimona reactor tank.

Israel used a variety of subterfuges to explain away the activity at Dimona - calling it a "manganese plant" among other things (although apparently not a "textile plant" as most accounts claim). US intelligence became aware of the project before the end of 1958, took picture of the project from U-2 spy planes, and identified the site as a probable reactor complex. The concentration of Frenchmen was certainly impossible to hide.

In 1960, before the reactor was operating, France, now under the leadership of de Gaulle, reconsidered the deal and decided to suspend the project. After several months of negotiation, an agreement was reached in November that allowed the reactor to proceed if Israel promised not the make weapons and announced the project to the world, work on the plutonium plant halted.

On 2 December 1960, before Israel could make the announcement, the US State Department issued a determination that Israel had a secret nuclear installation. By 16 December this became public knowledge with its appearance in the New York Times. On 21 December Ben Gurion announced that Israel was building a 24 MW reactor "for peaceful purposes".

Over the next year the relationship between the US and Israel was strained over the issue. The US accepted Israel's claims at face value in public, but exerted pressure privately. Although Israel did allow a cursory inspection by physicists Eugene Wigner and I.I. Rabi, PM Ben Gurion consistently refused to allow international inspections. The final resolution was a commitment from Israel to use the facility for peaceful purposes, and an agreement to admit a US inspection team once a year. These inspections, begun in 1962 and continued until 1969, were only shown the above-ground part of the buildings, which continued down many levels underground. The above ground areas had simulated control rooms, and access to the underground areas was kept bricked up while the inspectors where present.

In 1962 the Dimona reactor went critical, and the French resumed work on the plutonium plant, believed to have been completed in 1964 or 1965. The acquisition of this reactor and related technologies was clearly intended for military purposes from the outset (not "dual use") as the reactor has no other function. The security at Dimona (officially the Negev Nuclear Research Center) is stringent, an IAF Mirage was actually shot down in 1967 for straying into Dimona's airspace. There is little doubt then, that some time in the late sixties Israel became the sixth nation to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Considerable nuclear collaboration between Israel and South Africa seems to have developed around 1967 and continued through the 70s and 80s. During this period SA was Israel's primary supplier of uranium for Dimona. An open question remains regarding what role Israel had (if any) in the 22 September 1979 nuclear explosion in the south Indian Ocean which is widely believed to be a SA-Israel joint test.<hr /></blockquote>

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/Isrhist.html

-CM

bluewolf
09-02-2004, 07:07 PM
Bush will win. That is what my gut and logic too, I guess tell me. A stonger dem might take it, but do not think kerry has a strong enough platform nor presence to take it away. And with all that has happened many are of the feeling, like what my dad used to say 'a devil that you know is often better than a devil that you do not know'. I know my son in Fl says he will vote bush because he does not know enough about 'the other guy'.

And to be quite honest, there are so many things wrong that need fixing, things that need revamping, that neither one could really fix in four years, but would take at least ten to make a dent in. Saying tax cuts for the rich or programs for the poor, just would not fix those problems, because they run too deep.

Laura

Qtec
09-03-2004, 01:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The US defense budgect for FY 2005 is 3.8% of the GDP. That is nowhere near a historic high for us. It is in the middle of the range compared to the rest of the world. Some countries are higher, some lower <hr /></blockquote>

You could be a politician! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

To put it another way;

"http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetperspective.html

It is important to put the current budget proposal into historical context. To do so, it is necessary to translate current spending and revenue proposals into real terms either by adjusting for inflation or by expressing the proposal in terms of the broader economy. Looking merely at the budget in nominal terms that do not account for inflation or economic growth is misleading and inaccurate. The table below contains information about the current budget in the context of the post-World War II era and the past three administrations. Highlights include:

The President’s budget proposes spending $390.4 billion on defense related activities in FY 2004. This amounts to 17.5 percent of all spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.

-This level is roughly the same as defense spending was in 1996, which amounted to 17.0 percent of all federal spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.

-Defense spending in 1987, the height of the Reagan build up, was 28.1 percent of all federal spending and 6.1 percent of GDP."

"17.5 percent of all spending".
As a layman,I read this as roughly 1 out of every $5s spent goes into defense. Am I wrong?

Q [ see also- http://www.warresisters.org/2005_piechart.pdf ]

Qtec
09-03-2004, 02:59 AM
Off topic.
Aaaahnold,s speech. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif
"The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite."

A mistake or a lie? Its not true.

ABC News Poll. Oct. 2-6, 2002. N=1,029 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Field work by TNS Intersearch.
.

"What do you think should be a higher priority for the United States right now: [rotate] tracking down and capturing al Qaeda members, OR disarming Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power?"

% .

Iraq and Saddam Hussein 46 .

Al Qaeda 30 .

Both (vol.) 13 .

Neither (vol.) 6 .

No opinion 6

ABC News Poll. Sept. 12-14, 2002. N=760 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5 (total sample). Field work by TNS Intersearch.
.

"Would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq to force Saddam Hussein from power?"
Favor Oppose No Opinion
............... % % %
9/12-14/02- 68 29 3
8/29/02---- 56 34 10
8/7-11/02-- 69 22 9
3/02--------72 24 4

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq8.htm

Q

Ross
09-03-2004, 10:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vapros:</font><hr> George Bush will win - at least partly because he's very lucky. The Democrats don't have a real contender to send into the ring. They have enough registered voters to win most of the elections in this country, but they can't get them to go out and vote. And, as usual, they don't really have a candidate. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm inclined to agree, except that I remember that the Republicans didn't have a strong candidate in 2000 and don't have one now. But they do a hell of a marketing job - Bush is now a visionary.

eg8r
09-03-2004, 07:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"17.5 percent of all spending".
As a layman,I read this as roughly 1 out of every $5s spent goes into defense. Am I wrong?
<hr /></blockquote> You may be a layman but you darn sure are no mathematician. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Yes you are wrong, 1 out of 5 is 20% (I am sure you know this, but given the dollar amounts we are talking, 2.5% is a huge amount to fluff off with generous rounding errors /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ).

eg8r