Run-up to the election .....

Where are all the loyal TechRepublicans? Are you afraid to express your ideas? Are you afraid your gallant leader will not be re-elected?

Your President has publicly admitted that the Intellegence information on WMDs may have been incorrect.

Your president can admit that he has erred -- cannot any of you face the reality that GWB may not be re-elected?

Don't any of you hold SOME opinion as to the likely outcome of the election?

.
On Bush's military record versus Kerry's (assuming he's the nominee):

When "draft dodger" Bill Clinton was running for the Presidency, the following was said on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

"I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign........The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation......."

"We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 (30 or 40) years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations? Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?"

"Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition. But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized......."

"I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home. We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric."

- Spoken by Senator John Kerry in 1992

Bottom line: President Bush served in the National Guard just like tens of thousands of other Americans, he served honorably, and there's nothing to prove otherwise. Why should President Bush be treated any differently than the draft-dodging Bill Clinton? There is no issue here except the one that shines the light on yet another disingenuous Democrat who is, obviously, one who can't decide what his core principles really are.

----------

On Enron:

Between 1989 and 2001, Enron contributed nearly $6 million to political parties and candidates from both parties, a reported two-thirds to Republicans, and one-third to Democrats.What favors did Enron receive from the White House in return? Well, in 1994 President Clinton's administration brokered a deal in which the Washington-based Export-Import Bank approved a $302 million loan toward a $3 billion Enron-controlled power plant in India. Clinton chief of staff, Thomas McLarty, then a presidential adviser, was later hired by Enron, only one of many Clinton administration officials to be hired by them. In 1996, four days before India granted approval for Enron's project, Enron contributed $100,000 to the Democratic Party.

When Enron was first faced with their problems in 2001, executives from the company went to the White House to ask President Bush for his help in getting them out of "hot water". President Bush declined. So what's your point? Are you suggesting that President Bush somehow helped his corporate buddies? How did he do that? By kicking them out on their keister to face the music that they, themselves, wrote, and by having a Bush administration justice department go after the thieves and, contrary to what you may believe, putting many of them in jail, that's how. So again, what's your point?

----------

On Cheney:

There's nothing there except the same tired-old "Enron style" of rhetoric.

----------

On gay marriages:

President Bush is against gay marriages. Moreover, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1997. That act created the federal law that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. President Bush agrees with President Clinton in that regard. In addition, 38 states have passed such marriage protection acts. However, and this is interesting, John Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (signed into law in 1997), although Senator Kerry now claims to be against gay marriage. How can he explain the contradiction? At least President Bush is consistently standing on principle. Again, what's your point?

----------

On rewriting the constitution:

Do you really understand what it takes to rewrite the Constitution? That's something no single President could possibly do.

----------

On Howard Dean's tanking:

Blame the media for that one. Who else is to blame - except, perhaps for Dean himself?

----------

On your first time voting:

Congratulations, way to go, and high-fives to you. Do us all a favor, however, and be as well-informed as possible. Try to look through all the political rhetoric, and gather the real facts for yourself. And vote your principles - regardless of who might be the recipient of your vote.

for adding your opinions and/or facts to this discussion.

I have found your responses interesting, and educational to myself.

If Kerry wins the Democratic nomination, he will face scrutiny over his war record and more importantly his antiwar activity once he left the service.

I suspect the silence so far regarding this is that it will be a real fiasco for him and works best for the Republicans if the discussion occurs with him as the opposing candidate.

.
You asked for some election predictions, but you didn't get any, so you asked again, and I simply gave you my predictions. I will admit that I was hesitant at first, especially since you had just flamed me in a different thread by pointing out that I "remind" you of my views "all too frequently". However, I tried to make light of it and simply accommodate your request. But what did I get? POW - Right between the eyes. Well done, Julian. You sucked me in on that one. Nonetheless, I'll address your comments anyway.

You said that I, "demand total precision from others, but when it suits you (me) to do so, you (I) throw reason and logic out the window in some of your (my) own postings." Well, I will admit that I'm a stickler for accuracy when citing "facts", and a pet-peeve of mine is accuracy in reporting, or the lack thereof, and how misinformation can take on a like of its own, and so on. But levying the blanket statement that I demand precision is a bit of a stretch. Nonetheless, I'll concede your suggestion that I may come across that way (I'll work on my style, however, and try to improve my delivery so as to come across a little better.) and move on to your next suggestion that I failed to maintain my own standards in my own message. I must therefore ask, what facts have I posted that aren't accurate? And don't confuse my future prediction with past or present facts. I read my message again, and the facts I posted seemed accurate to me. So will you please point out where I erred? (Erred - how 'bout that? I finally got that one right.)

You said that I threw reason and logic out the window. You later went on to point out that my wishful thinking will not alter the fact that mine is only one vote out of 120 million. Let me address those two things together. Well, my one vote was right, but the 120 million estimated U.S. voters is off by a little bit. In the 2000 Presidential election, a total of 105,405,100 votes were cast. (Let's call it 105 million.) But my one vote is not one of 105 million, but rather one of 1,741,368. You see, we don't have a national election, per se, but rather 51 (counting the District of Columbia) individual state elections. And since there were 1,741,368 votes cast in my state in 2000, my vote is only one of that many. Broken down a bit more, my vote was one of 883,748 cast in my state for GWB; 738,227 votes were cast for Al Gore; and the rest (you do the math) were unequally divided between 16 minor candidates. Moreover, and this is the really important part, ONE vote can indeed make a difference, and the razor thin margin of victory in the State of Florida illustrated as much. Did you know that GWB won Florida by only 537 votes? If 538 more people in Florida thought that their ONE vote (out of almost 6 million) would count, the election could have gone the other way. So I respectfully disagree. One vote, that one little drop in the ocean (as you put it), can indeed make a big difference.

Building on that a little bit, I'm not sure where you think my logic and reason found their way out the window. Since we have 51 individual state elections (counting DC as a state), I just gave you an overview of the results of each state election in 2000, and how each state could differ this year. You see, it only takes 270 votes - electoral votes - to win the Presidency, and if a candidate wins a state, he or she gets all of that state's electoral votes. My state has a total of 8 electoral votes. (Electoral votes are based on population.) Look at Texas, for example, and its 32 electoral votes. Texas is a pretty strong Republican state, and the suggestion that it might go to the Democrats would be throwing reason and logic out the window, and I didn't do that. Some other pretty strong Republican states are Utah, Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Idaho, Colorado, and several others. Conversely, there are some pretty strong Democrat states as well, states such as, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington DC, and several others, of course.

That brings us to some states that could go either way; we would call those the swing states. I mentioned Wisconsin and New Mexico. Did you know that the Democrats carried New Mexico by only 366 votes? That was a closer margin than Florida by considering numbers. (Florida was closer, however, by counting percentages.) I mentioned the fact that GWB could lose North Carolina, a state he won in 2000, because a very popular local Democrat Senator, John Edwards, was in the race, and could possibly be on the ticket - in either the number one or two spot. So please point out to me where my logic and reason went out the window. I would be most appreciative.

On my past comments that John F. Kennedy would be a Republican today. I did say that, but there was an OR associated with it. I've said many times that, based on his core political philosophy, John Kennedy would be a Republican today OR he would have changed the direction the Democrat Party took in the late 60s. His "Ask not what your country can do for you" philosophy is contrary to what the message of the Democrat Party is today. That's the point I was making, and I stand by it today. Please point out the problem you have with that assessment.

Did I really say that the "silent majority in America were Republicans"? I have to wonder in what context that was said. Perhaps I said that while the vocal Democrats were out protesting this or that, demanding that the government give them anything and everything, the silent Republicans were quietly at work supporting themselves and their families. But if you say that I said it, okay, I won't disagree.

On your comment that, "A significant proportion of stupid, apathetic Americans take pride in exercising their freedom not to vote." Well, since I do vote, I guess you consider me some other kind of stupid American. Nonetheless, since that comment was directed at others, I'll refrain from commenting on that.

An interesting observation: TheChas looked at one aspect of our election, and you considered it "an excellent overview". I looked at a different aspect of our election, and you sarcastically called me "clairvoyant", accusing me of "wishful thinking". So much for avoiding attacking the person.

Bottom line: I should have known that your discussion was just a trap to suck in all us lowly Republicans so you could have a forum in which to flame us some more. Congratulations. It worked.

Thanks Max, it was a good article that points out what every American fears with the justice system. The rich and powerful use their influence to get themselves out of trouble whether or not they are guilty. You or I would never get the opprotunity to meet outside of the court room to meet a judge responsible to determine our fate, hence unfairness. Cheney being the second most powerful man on the Earth or the most powerful pending on your opinion could make or break the judges career and apply pressure to rule in his favor which is not fair, lady justice is supposed to be blind and impartial. My issue is would a mass murderer, rapist, theif, mafia guy or what have you get the ability to sway a judge outside the court room? No, it would be a miss trial and you cant say either person were negligent of the law, they circumvented it with a loophole that they just happened to be at a neutral place doing the same thing, it wasnt accidental, it was planned, seeing one another in a bar or resturant by accident is another thing. They could acknowledge eachother but not converse or choose another place to go keeping separate. Do you think they only talked about the weather or ducks?

These kinds of displays makes us leary of trusting our leaders that they will ENFORCE the law, not bend it to their satisfaction, this is the reason of voter apathy. People are teaching their children to be more of a barracuda than a dolphin nowadays cause nobody plays fair, and that's really sad in this day of age. The integrity is compromised and the lack of respect is apparent. When are we the people who play by the rules (making an honest buck and spending it in America)going to get the proper examples by our leaders that they are enforcing what millions of people lost lives and limbs for when their country asked them? To me this is treason and should be treated accordingly.

As always I appreciate your wisdom in educating me on politics showing me both sides not just one, that to me proves your integrity of making my own choice. We all have our beliefs and we agree more than we disagree Max, but sometimes I feel that you like others tend to stay loyal to your party rather than denounce their indescretions. No body's an angel but my expectations of my leaders (extremly high like the customers always right) is that if they cant give their lives for their country they can at least give it their all the right way to evolve our humanity they wanted the job, and for that I would gladly give my life, limb, or whatever defending those rights, but right now I wouldnt because I've lost my faith that they are not the great people they claim to be. Right is right and wrong is wrong and today it's just called compromise and its happening in other countries as well as the UN.

Julian, you have my permission to use my posting on your site.

So long as that does not violate any of TR's rules.

Chas

.
Who ever said that the USA was under an "imminent threat" of any kind?

.
If everyone removed their predisposed opinions, and considered only this question. Where are they, or did they really never exist in the first place?

A follow up question. How could everyone have been so wrong, or were they really wrong?

As I am very new to this website, I have not previously encountered the term "America bashing,"
but I suppose it means criticising America, perhaps invalidly or unfairly.

It seems strange to me that a country which is so proud of its constitution and amendments should try and stifle free speech.

.
The "free speech" clause of the American Constitution is quite often misunderstood, so you are certainly not alone in misapplying its intent. That clause prohibits the U.S. government from doing anything that would stifle or prohibit one's right to exercise free speech. However, that applies to government, not private business. How would you feel, for example, if you owned a business, a restaurant, for example, and someone was exercising their right to "free speech" on your property, offending people, creating an undesirable situation, and running your customers away? How would you like it if you were powerless to do anything about it? Well, that person would not have the right to do it, and you would indeed have the right to remove that person from your property. That's all TechRepublic, as a private business, is doing. They have, in essence, said, "Take it to the streets, but get it out of our lobby". Moreover, all the America bashing that's gone on in the past resulted in return bashing, flaming, name calling, and so on. It really did get out of hand, and it was, apparently, running TechRepublic's customers away.

I probably shouldn't be entering in to this discussion but right or wrong I feel the need to say something. I feel that all events in the past reflects what was going on at the time. The US had just experienced 9/11. A group of individuals with ties to terrorists in the Middle East hijacked planes with boxcutters and sent them crashing into three targets in the US. The targets were the center of finanical trade, the pentagon,and the white house (which failed).
Some time after that you have a middle-eastern dicator with ties to terrorism and rumors that he possesses WMD who refuses to let the UN inspect his country for WMD (which was agreed to in the treaty he signed).
In a country that was attacked and had never experienced such a attack before you have a leader who is charged with the defense of the country that he leads. Dipolomacy was tried and had been tried unsucessfully for years. To me it was the obvious next step.

"...I think we have all figured out by now that TechRepublic is controlled by Republicans..."

Whoa there, Nelly. Speak for yourself.

.
You are most welcomed to post anything I write on your Web site. You have my blanket permission to do so.

On the censorship - I thought we talked about that already? I thought most people agreed that censorship by a private business or private Web site was understandable?

On TechRepublicans - I doubt it, but if it's true, I've got no problem with it. But actually, based on several communications I've had with various editors/writers, and based on the wide range of articles published, I consider them pretty impartial.

.
You think the Why is okay, so the justification was there.

You think the Who is okay, so a change had to be make.

You just don't like the How.

Oh well, if you didn't like the how, you get one vote and I get one vote. Wait a minute......You DON'T get a vote. Too bad.

Yes, I agree, the report shown by the paper was idiotic and very misleading.

Your quotes also tiptoed around the subject without claiming outright there was an imminent threat.

Neither of those were the speech I saw compared though. It was both last years and this years full speeches as provided by the white house.

I may haave an angle to dig it up so I'll look as time permits, which is not too much lately as I'm busy as a donkey with three.....

In response to your posting, I do fully agree that the article took the presidents word out of the context they were spoken in and warped them to mean something else. This is wrong and misleading but womsthing we have to face I suppose.

I don't know if Canadian reporting has been quite so bad toward our government, they just lay it on the line and quote straight up here, nobody really cares whether positive or negative, it's just back east stuff that we ignore out west as we have a life to live instead.

You can keep your $100, buy something for the wife and kids instead.

I will find my source eventually and perhaps I will see my error perhaps not, but it is not on the top of my list today, sorry.

OM

.
Read the 2003 State of the Union speech in its entirety. The President said what he said - no more, no less. He didn't tiptoe around anything.

I am glad, however, that you agree the press does (or at leat did) a poor job reporting what was really said. And they do it all the time.

By the way, it's you who should keep the c-note because, no matter how long you try, you'll never find a speech where the president used those words.

Put it on the number 4 horse in the 4th race instead. At least then, you'll have some chance for a return.

Why the 4th in the 4th? A play on the words, 4 more years in 04, of course.

I could not respond to your posting directly, as there was a message "maximum level has been reached," so I hope I am doing the right thing by posting my comment on a different discussion thread.

Thank you for your very clear statement about freedom of speech. The way you have presented it makes it very simple to understand.

Well the fourth is non winners of one race lifetime, so it's acrap shoot. Only claiming $2400, but should pay well as favorites are not in the picture (just like the election, ba-dum-dum!!)poor jock, not a great bet but may a tag along for a triactor if the others run each other out. I think I will drop a $20 to show and maybe key it in a triactor to keep it interesting, but this ones a dog race (just like the election, ba-dum-dum!!).

I don't know if I'll bother to find the info really, I know it was there but regardless if George W Bush came to your home and told you to your face that he thinks you are doomed, you stilll wouldn't believe it, so what's the point? To prove you wrong? Not worth my time that's for sure.

Whatever you say. When I stop LMAO I may address this further. Your country and it's citizens are seen worldwide as people that live in fear.
I know you don't feel that way and would never know it if you did feel that way, but seeing as I've seen you TV ads, read yournewspapers and met your citizens, I will strongly disagree. Your country is built upon fear. Fear of being different, fear of being attacked, fear of your jobs, fear of being ugly, fear of being inadequate etc. FEAR FEAR FEAR.

Who else has a national THREAT level that is shown on the daily news?

Who else invades countries before being attacked themselves?

Who else is SOOOOOOO defensive?

Nobody.

Now before you start again, I am in NO WAY whatsoever putting down te USA, or as you say, being Anti-american. I am voicing an observation not an opinion.

To say you fear no one has me LMAO, Mad Max the sole survivor, because he HAD NO FEAR!!! Dum, Dum DUUUUUUUUUM!!!!!!

Whatever makes you feel good Max.
Fearless, hahahahaha! Oh no, that's a really good one Max. You obviously must have chuckled yourself when writing "I 'Fear' no one.!!"

Yes Tantor, off we gooooo!

the Japanese realized not to wake a sleeping giant? What, was this before or after they bombed the crap out of Pearl Harbour, while you were sleeping and ignoring them because you had no fear? Ha HA !!

Lay it to rest Max, this one's just getting too silly now.

?Other counties that were in on the whole concept were veterans of many wars and have suffered MASSIVE attacks on their own soil, would it not have been wise to follow their lead in that case then??

Yes we could have followed the lead of the other nations that have repeatedly suffered ?MASSIVE attacks on their own soil? and we would still be suffering such attacks. I believe it is very important to stay out of the fights going on around the world but how long do we stay out. We were attacked and said enough was enough. If other countries had the courage to stand up and do something maybe this little problem could have been fixed years ago. Why does the US have to be the one who gets stuck paying the bills?

?the Japanese realized not to wake a sleeping giant? What, was this before or after they bombed the crap out of Pearl Harbour, while you were sleeping and ignoring them because you had no fear? Ha HA !!?

Admiral Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbour raid and the early offensive against SEA, said after the attack: I am afraid we have woken a sleeping giant! (paraphrased). The Admiral spoke these words because of his experience from being educated in America. He also served as a naval attach? to the Japanese Embassy in Washington. He also told the Japanese General staff that they had 6 months to win the war. Very prophetic considering the Midway battles were almost 6 months to the day of the Pearl Harbour attack. It was not because we had no fear. We were at the time a peaceful country not wanting to get involved with world conflicts, especially the troubles in Europe. But we were already supplying food and materials to keep Britain alive by that time.

Oh Max. As a former GI I HOPE to God that the Democrat we elect in 04 gets us out of the pickle GWB has gotten us into. Yes he did act too fast, in his defense the EU nations were dragging their collective feet, but over 500 precious US lives have been lost. A better coalition, like his father put together, would have been the wiser thing. But GWB has never been know for doing the wise thing, sneaky maybe, but not wise.

I am sorry if I fan the flames but I have to call em as I see em.

I wasn't implying anything realy just responding to some screwed up and over patriotic comments.

By saying other countries that have suffered massive attacks, I was referring to the European Nations who were bombed and invaded by Hitler. these countries have been at peace for 60 nearly years now, with the rest of the world for the most part as well.

Waking a sleeping giant, yes I have read the events leading up to and after pearl harbour. Nor am I trying to minimize the devastation of pearl harbour or the ability of the Allied forces to quickly respond to the attcks.

It was thrown at me in a very arrogant and self centered manner, therefore is was simply tossed back without too much thought.

just read Max's line, we "fear" no one. Well everyone in the world knows better than that and I would assume that 99.999% of Americans don't believe it either. Having 'no fear' is just being plain stupid. Why all the security, why the theat level if you have no fear? Vertainly you are better prepared now, but having no fear means just sitting back and waiting for attack, not invading in order to stop a POSSIBLE attack some time in the furture, maybe.

Where do some of these kids get their ideas from these days?

Hey that's got a real Mayberry ring to it.

Good to see you've got your name back damn I hate it when I forget/lose mine, thank god for name tags!

As for my humor, well I think many thnk it needs much to be desired but hey, if I can chuckle my way through life then I say "all the power to me" right?

Cheers,
OM