Do you think people like Michael Moore and George Soros hurt the democrats?

[Tetrahedrite]

People seem to be under the impression that if you repeat a slur enough times that it becomes the truth.

 

People can legitimately oppose Bushs policies and opinions but he isn't actually stupid. Stupid people don't get Masters degrees.

 

They do if they have enough money to pay for it!

[Douglas]

They do if they have enough money to pay for it!

From the 'American thinker' a few months ago.

 

The comparatively small amount of attention paid by the political press to the President’s Harvard MBA partially reflects a generalized ignorance of, and hostility toward, the degree itself. More importantly, acknowledging that he learned any valuable intellectual perspectives would contradict the storyline that young W was a party animal, who coasted through his elite education, scarcely cracking a book. In other words, as the left never tires of claiming, he is too “stupid” to have picked up any tricks across the Charles River from Harvard Square.

This is patently incorrect. Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two-year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year’s interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the miniscule degree of slack cut for even the most well-connected students, when their performance did not make the grade.

 

Bush has 600 or 700 hours piloting one of these.......

 

F-102 Delta Dagger

[atinymonkey]

hey, atinymonkey, why dont you read my quote again....i seriously hope you're joking...read especially the part that says "one county" thats the interesting twist to your attempted flame job.

 

You think that my post was a flame job? Jesus, grow up.

[WILLOWTREE]

A lot of political analysists have been attributing the turnoff to the democratic party to hardcore liberals such as Michael Moore' date=' George Soros, MoveOn.org, etc. The democrats had a major motion picture working for them which seen by millions which essentially slammed Bush, much more money from outside groups including George Soros funding huge smear campaigns on TV, celebrities publically backing up Kerry and slamming Bush, and the liberal media to back it all up! How in the world did they still lose this election? They didn't even get one southern state, and the southern states historically vote democrat.

 

I'm not really trying to bash the democratic party here, but I think they went wrong somewhere. They should have had this election tied up. Do you think that part of it was from associating with nutjobs like Michael Moore?[/quote']

 

You are obviously right about a Moore backlash.

 

Why would anyone let uneducated Hollywood buffoons dictate who gets elected President ?

 

Hollywood didn't care about getting an education yet they know whats right for an entire country ?

 

Intelligent people quietly went to the polls and voted against the propaganda of Moore and Sean Penn.

 

Democrats should resist the trojan horse allure of Hollywood types that the American public really is not fooled by despite our love of the movies.

[budullewraagh]

Why would anyone let uneducated Hollywood buffoons dictate who gets elected President ?

speaking of the uneducated...

Hollywood didn't care about getting an education yet they know whats right for an entire country ?

are you implying that all actors are stupid?

Intelligent people quietly went to the polls and voted against the propaganda of Moore and Sean Penn.

are you implying that unintelligent people compose the left base?

 

and really, moore isnt quite the satan you make him out to be. his facts were, in fact, just those; facts. yes, he put a nice little "spin" (i used that just for the republicans out there) on things, but the facts were accurate.

[Tetrahedrite]

You are obviously right about a Moore backlash.

 

Why would anyone let uneducated Hollywood buffoons dictate who gets elected President ?

 

Hollywood didn't care about getting an education yet they know whats right for an entire country ?

 

Intelligent people quietly went to the polls and voted against the propaganda of Moore and Sean Penn.

 

Democrats should resist the trojan horse allure of Hollywood types that the American public really is not fooled by despite our love of the movies.

Does someone having an education make them superior?

 

Are you saying that the people who voted for Kerry are uneducated? I would've thought that the geographical distribution of votes suggest otherwise.

80% of people in New York (city) voted for Kerry. I have a new found respect for the city! These people are probably more educated (on average) than most parts of Bush's USA. This results comes even with ground zero being in their midst. Your own state voted against Bush! The majority of the people around you must be uneductated and stupid!?

[Sayonara]

Hollywood didn't care about getting an education yet they know whats right for an entire country?

It's called democracy.

[SubJunk]

Intelligence has nothing to do with political affiliation. America (a constitutional republic, not a democracy) along with the rest of the world will always have republicans and democrats, who will always be able to back up their own points and interpretations of facts. I've spent the last few months debating politics every single day on http://www.scam.com and I learnt a very valuable lesson. Neither side can ever prove they're the best.

That aside, I think Michael Moore is a horrible individual and it's crazy how much he's allowed to run his mouth, maybe I'm just old fashioned but I see him as a criminal.

[r1dermon]

atinymonkey, it obviously was, you came right out and stated something uttery retarded. in trying to flame me, you successfully made yourself look like you didnt pass 3rd grade english.

 

anyway, smart has nothing to do with getting a degree, especially when you're a rich kin. smart is how you apply yourself to certain situations. dedicated is how you get a degree. if you have the money, you can get a degree with fair ease. all you have to do is do the work. its easy. if bush was smart, we wouldnt be in iraq. or, maybe he's a genius, and he went to iraq to rip the US off and get a huge margin of money from the american people to put it in all his business buddies pockets..but, if thats the case, then he would've figured out a better way to disguise his doings. because we all know about it. its just the radical rib eating, cow ranching, god fearing right wing that plays up LOVE for our nation that keep driving bush's bad policies upon the entire population. i get told all the time that bush is good because he stands by his decisions. he doesnt change course...well, thats a bad thing. that means he is not open minded, that means that even if he made a stupid ass decision(like going to iraq) he's not going to admit it was stupid, even if it was. he's just going to keep the course and let a bunch of soldiers die fighting for nothing. that sounds like a great cause to me.

[atinymonkey]

atinymonkey' date=' it obviously was, you came right out and stated something uttery retarded. in trying to flame me, you successfully made yourself look like you didnt pass 3rd grade english.

[/quote']

 

It was a joke. That's what humor is, stating the ridiculous. If you don't think it's funny, I don't care.

 

If you want to sit there insulting me, go right ahead. It's not as if anything else you say is remotely elucidating.

[SubJunk]

I hate having the same arguments over and over again but I see posts like that and just have to reply...

Bush is not a genius, nor is he stupid. He's a smart man.

Knowing when and when not to stand by your decisions is a sign of maturity and wisdom, it's a matter of opinion whether Bush has done that or is just being pig-headed of course.

 

"smart has nothing to do with getting a degree, especially when you're a rich kin. smart is how you apply yourself to certain situations. dedicated is how you get a degree. if you have the money, you can get a degree with fair ease. all you have to do is do the work"

 

Is it just me, or did you continuously contradict yourself in the paragraph? Could you explain exactly what point you were trying to make clearer please?

 

"because we all know about it"

 

We all know it's alleged by a minority of people in the US.

The most amazing thing is that just before the last quote, you said "if thats the case, then he would've figured out a better way to disguise his doings" which implies you're not even sure if it's the case, but then go on to make the other quote that "we all know about it". You're a living, breathing, contradiction machine.

[r1dermon]

subjunk, he wouldve found a better way to disguse himself, because we know about what he's doing...how in hell is that a contradiction. that states that he did an awful job covering up what he's doing. thats an educated guess. like a theory. like saying that the universe is still expanding. all theories.

 

tell me how i contradicted myself in the previous paragraph though, that will be a good one. i said you have to be dedicated and have money to get a degree. smarts has nothing to do with it. other than basic smarts, which consist of "if i dont do the work(dedication) then i will fail to recieve a degree" where's the contradiction?

 

atinymonkey, it really didnt look like a joke. and it was a bad one anyway. not only that, but you never sent the message that it was a joke. not until it was convenient for you to. but ok, i'll let it slide. try to analyze what i say in the future, instead of joking about it. if i get drafted by this imbucile in the white house, im going to be rip shit.

[SubJunk]

of course he's doing an awful job at covering up what he's doing, he's not trying to cover anything up.

"tell me how i contradicted myself in the previous paragraph though, that will be a good one. i said you have to be dedicated and have money to get a degree"

Yes, this will be a good one.

Yes you have to be dedicated, but money doesn't necessarily come into it.

There are student loans, other kinds of loans, scholorships.

 

Regardless, I don't see why you're saying that in the first place.

[atinymonkey]

atinymonkey' date=' it really didnt look like a joke.[/quote']

Yes, I think everyone understands you didn't get it.

 

and it was a bad one anyway.

It doesn't really matter if my humour doesn't suit.

 

not only that, but you never sent the message that it was a joke. not until it was convenient for you to.

 

There is no function on the forum to inform user they have misconstrued a post. If you can dream one up, please do let us know. And, like most people who are literate, I don't use 1337 jk ;0) in every sentence where I intend to display humor.

 

but ok, i'll let it slide.

No, obviously you will not. It was not a flame, and repeated accusations and deformations don't amount to much more than you completly misinterpreting one simple sentence.

 

try to analyze what i say in the future, instead of joking about it.

You can't be bothered rereading what I say but I must pay rapt attention to you? I'm sorry, but I'll only take seriously what I want to.

 

You know full well if I wanted to flame you, I'd have done a better job than that.

[r1dermon]

no, i dont know that, i dont know you, i have never conversed with you, therefore i dont KNOW that you would've done a better job. or even attempted to. and yes, i WILL drop it if you leave it alone. seriously, just get back to the topic at hand.

[Tetrahedrite]

Intelligence has nothing to do with political affiliation. America (a constitutional republic' date=' not a democracy) along with the rest of the world will always have republicans and democrats, who will always be able to back up their own points and interpretations of facts. I've spent the last few months debating politics every single day on http://www.scam.com and I learnt a very valuable lesson. Neither side can ever prove they're the best.

That aside, I think Michael Moore is a horrible individual and it's crazy how much he's allowed to run his mouth, maybe I'm just old fashioned but I see him as a criminal.[/quote']

 

To illustrate perfectly what you are saying, I think GW Bush is the criminal not Michael Moore. What laws do you believe Moore has broken that make him a criminal?

[Aardvark]

I think GW Bush is the criminal not Michael Moore.

 

 

I wonder, which exact law has GW Bush broken?

 

People often talk about international law. But what laws exactly?

[Tetrahedrite]

Heres some to start you off, I'm working on specific UN charters etc at the momment.

(Not all of these are specific to GW Bush)

 

1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

 

2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.

 

3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.

 

4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)

 

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC.

 

6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.

 

7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead" by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.

 

8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program),

 

9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.

 

10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001

 

11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa

 

12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it.

 

13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).

 

14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty.

 

15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no).

 

16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.

 

17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.

 

18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

 

19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government.

 

20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified.

 

21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.

 

Taken from: http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php#rogu

[Aardvark]

Thank you, that was informative, but of the twenty points only two actually refer to illegality, the rest just to actions which may be regretable.

 

point 13) which law is the embargo breaking? I don't think UN resolutions on such matters are legally binding.

 

point 15) possibly correct re force in Nicaragua, but as you acknowledge, this wasn't G W Bush.

 

It seems that people have got into the habit of calling G W Bush an international lawbreaker, without having anything to quantitively back the accusation.

 

On a general note,i wish people took some more care making sure their criticisms of G W Bush were based on facts rather than prejudice. ( i'm not refering to you personally, Tetrahedrite)

[Tetrahedrite]

Thank you' date=' that was informative, but of the twenty points only two actually refer to illegality, the rest just to actions which may be regretable.

 

point 13) which law is the embargo breaking? I don't think UN resolutions on such matters are legally binding.

 

point 15) possibly correct re force in Nicaragua, but as you acknowledge, this wasn't G W Bush.

 

It seems that people have got into the habit of calling G W Bush an international lawbreaker, without having anything to quantitively back the accusation.

 

On a general note,i wish people took some more care making sure their criticisms of G W Bush were based on facts rather than prejudice. ( i'm not refering to you personally, Tetrahedrite)[/quote']

 

I'm getting there, I've been exceedingly busy today and the university network is working at snail on sleeping pills pace!

[Tetrahedrite]

Here you go! (Written before the invasion)

 

In October 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114, which gave Bush limited authority to attack Iraq. This was basically an abdication by Congress of their power to declare war. Here is a complete text of the bill. Section 3(a) states:

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

This would seem to give him unlimited authority to launch an unprovoked attack. But HJR114 also states in Section 3©(2) that:

Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

This means Bush cannot ignore any requirements of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 when determining what is "necessary and appropriate". So what does the War Powers Resolution say about this? Section 9(d)(1) states:

(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--

(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or

So what existing treaties address the issue of attacking other nations? Two immediately come to mind: the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter.

The Nuremberg Charter says that it is a crime to plan a war of aggression. Many people believe that Bush is the agressor in this situation. Iraq has made no threats or attacks against the United States. They have simply built weapons to defend themselves from attack. They are also cooperating, albeit begrudgingly, with the United Nations. Bush, on the other hand, has surrounded Iraq with a huge military force and has threatened to destroy Saddam Hussein and much of Iraq in the process. Bush has also labelled the UN as irrelevant.

 

The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.

 

So if Bush attacks Iraq without UN permission then he will be in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are ground for impeachment.

 

Taken from: http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.htm

[Douglas]

So if Bush attacks Iraq without UN permission then he will be in violation of the UN Charter' date=' the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are ground for impeachment.

Taken from: http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.htm[/quote']

www.impeachbush.???..Doesn't sound like an objective source to me.

 

Believe me, if Bush did anything that remotely smelled like an impeachable offence, the "mainstream" Democrats would be all over his ass.

 

There are currently many people being treated for "post election selection trauma" (PEST), the "impeach Bush" folks are probably among them.

[budullewraagh]

the fact that it is a site that opposes bush does not make everything it writes null and void. it quoted documents you know...

[Mad Mardigan]

Even John Kerrys dog got owned. Give up, its over.

 

Animal porn in the politics forum is a no-no, thanks. Sayo.

[r1dermon]

no, its not over. clinton lied about getting a BJ from a fat chick, he got impeached, bush lied about WMD's and as a result over 1000 soldiers have died fighting for a fictional centerpiece. i'd say that pretty damn impeachable.