The Official US President Election Thread

[jerseydevil]

If you are truly interested in the oil for food scandal - you should watch Fox News a bit (since the whole scandal thing seems to be a non-issue on ABC, CNN, and others) - they're having "United Nation: Blood Money". They mention the US companies that also abused the system. it also states Saddams goals of undermining sanctions and having the WMD programs up and running once those were lifted. French sold 2.9 billion worth of goods to Iraq during the abuse and there were documents that even right before the war, France was going to sell Iraq missiles - missiles which would have been used to fire at OUR soldiers. Up until the moment we entered Iraq - there was still a relationship between France and Hussien. There is evidence that France told Hussien that they would do anything to stand in the way of US's efforts to oust him.

Oil-for-Food Scandal Key to CIA Report

The UN is corrupt, not just with this, but also the fact that the likes of Iraq and Libya get voted to head commissions which they were KNOWN to be prime abuers of. Come on - Libya voted as head of the human right commission?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I suppose you were trying to make some point by highlighting "french" in there.

actually a joke :shrug:

Do you know anything that I said last week, last month, two years ago? I've said many things to explain my stand on things, but you and others wish to ignore them and not accept them.

all too well

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

all too well

From your own statements I know that isn't true.

[Nurvingiel]

It's actually "C'est la vie" anyway Brownie.

I've been following this thread, though I haven't added much. Is the "Blood for oil" issue a hot topic in this election? I was wondering if both candidates were addressing it in their own plans or anything. Just wondering. It's always interesting to read debates like this, even if you aren't directly involved in the subject.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It's actually "C'est la vie" anyway Brownie.

I should have caught that.

I've been following this thread, though I haven't added much. Is the "Blood for oil" issue a hot topic in this election? I was wondering if both candidates were addressing it in their own plans or anything. Just wondering. It's always interesting to read debates like this, even if you aren't directly involved in the subject.

It's not really an issue as the way you put it - because Kerry voted for military action against Iraq. A couple fo months ago - even after it was stated that there were no WMD - he had said he would have voted still for military action. Now of course he has come out with "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It's actually "C'est la vie" anyway Brownie.

I've been following this thread, though I haven't added much. Is the "Blood for oil" issue a hot topic in this election? I was wondering if both candidates were addressing it in their own plans or anything. Just wondering. It's always interesting to read debates like this, even if you aren't directly involved in the subject.

the angle JD is expressing, that it's some sort of conspiracy against the US and we are completely innocent in the whole affair (US government officials at least), is covered pretty extensively on the conservative news stations... here and there on the more objective sources (npr), who tend to just state the current reports and let it go at that... definitely not a major campaign issue... both sides are mostly in direct-attack mode now that the final stretch is coming up

excuse my spelling nurv

i took spanish in high school

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I should have caught that.

I thought you spoke French JD.

Okay, interesting posts both of you. I'll just keep lurking now.
*sits back to read with a mug of tea and a scone (naturally )

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the angle JD is expressing, that it's some sort of conspiracy against the US and we are completely innocent in the whole affair (US government officials at least), is covered pretty extensively on the conservative news stations... here and there on the more objective sources (npr), who tend to just state the current reports and let it go at that... definitely not a major campaign issue... both sides are mostly in direct-attack mode now that the final stretch is coming up

No - the angle I am reporting isn't from Fox or anything - I am going by the Duelfer report myself - which i POSTED the links to before. You can read it yourself. What Fox has been reporting is basically in there. If something isn't in the report - they have been accurately stating that. It is you that is so narrow-minded and won't look at a legitimate news source because it doesn't fit in with your politics. Also - as for the conspiracy theory that Fox is just making it look like everyone is against the US - that's funny - since they reported the AMERICAN names also. What I find distrubing is how much the liberal media, CNN et al, just basically ignores the whole thing.

Nurv - general media won't cover it - because they have basically come out supporting Kerry - even ABC has had a memo released saying that they will be easier on Kerry with facts and stretching the truth than Bush.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Nurv - general media won't cover it - because they have basically come out supporting Kerry - even ABC has had a memo released saying that they will be easier on Kerry with facts and stretching the truth than Bush.

Well Fox News, news that I have seen you argue, god bless their unbiased souls, utterly and obviously support Bush, so perhaps its six of one...ect?

Everyone has their sides.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No - the angle I am reporting isn't from Fox or anything - I am going by the Duelfer report myself - which i POSTED the links to before. You can read it yourself.

are you forgetting??? i don't read your posts

my original point in all this, which seems to have been subverted a bit, is that companies, and countries, act in their own self-interest, politically and monetarily... many in the UN are corrupt, many in France are corrupt and many in the US are corrupt... is this news to you??

the flipside, is that many in all these places are not

Narrow-minded:
[adj] lacking tolerance or flexibility or breadth of view; "a brilliant but narrow-minded judge"; "narrow opinions"
[adj] rigidly adhering to a particular sect or its doctrines
[adj] capable of being shocked

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

are you forgetting??? i don't read your posts

Its hard to, mate, given I haven't got time to read a novel.....

Now there is such a thing as being saturated in "answers"...

Touche?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

are you forgetting??? i don't read your posts

Actually I didn't forget that - I was just pointing out that you don't read them - sicne you would have known that I was also getting my information right from the report also.

my original point in all this, which seems to have been subverted a bit, is that companies, and countries, act in their own self-interest, politically and monetarily... many in the UN are corrupt, many in France are corrupt and many in the US are corrupt... is this news to you??

You actually never said that. But I had often said that countries and companies act in their self interest. To expect the US to worry about the rest of the world and risk it's own self interest as many people on entmoot in the past have argued we should do - is naive. You however have not said that here. I am pointing out that you have a double standard though. If it was the Bush adminstration involved in this - you would be bitching about this all over the place. But it wasn't - it was the UN, France, Russia, China - so therefore you give them the "there is corruption all over the place, everyone does it, they weren't thinking about the morality of it" excuse. i can accept the fact corruption is all over the place - I can not accept the "turn a blind eye liberals" when it comes to problems in the UN and the countries they support.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You actually never said that.

yes i did when i spoke of just caring about the $$!

now you're not reading my posts!!

but honestly, i don't want to get into and argument about something you can read a few posts back... and even QUOTED... i know how busy you are

so... to follow the self-interest argument... if it is okay for the US to act in it's own self-interest, even if it goes against the interest of other allied nations, why is it not ok for france or russia to do the same?

on the bigger picture... i don't see clinton as "the do nothing wrong president", he missed a lot of opportunities and screwed quite a few things up... that said, unlike gwb, at least he had a few positives under his belt... if i judged president's by only their faults... or countries for that matter, as you seem to love to do... i wouldn't like anybody or anyplace... i try to weigh the good and the bad and make my choice according to that

i voted for bush senior because i did not like dukkakis, and because bush was fairly central when it came to the conservative/liberal balance... i voted for clinton twice, because i thought bush senior had lost a lot of credibility over the iran/contra issues and because clinton was also fairly central all told

i wanted to vote for mccain, but the choice wasn't there, so i voted gore... though i did not particularly like him... i'll vote kerry too, who i still have a few reservations about... why, because gwb is a joke... and because he is probably the most socially conservative president we have had in decades (maybe ever)... while being one of the biggest spenders in either party's history

so if liberal means that i actually think about my vote irregardless of party-affiliation... guilty as charged

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I can not accept the "turn a blind eye liberals" when it comes to problems in the UN and the countries they support.

Nor should you. But had it ever occured to you that people may be more concerned over the fact that a SITTING AMERICAN PRESIDENT and currently the most powerful figure on earth has these corruptions in his administration while you yourself describe the UN as anemic and useless. So if you had to choose one evil would you choose a corrupt yet ineffective UN program? or a corrupt all powerful american adminstration? id say we need to worry much more about the latter. but sure we should expose both.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

even ABC has had a memo released saying that they will be easier on Kerry with facts and stretching the truth than Bush.

you know I heard a report this weekend about this. right wingers are crying foul about this report but no one actually took the time to look into the facts behind the accusation. So one reporter (unaffilliated with ABC) actually looked at every statement made by both candidates and ranked them 1 to 3 on the basis of their "relevance to the most important issues toward the presidency" as determined by the american populace. Granted this is by definition an arbitrary point use but the reporter said he tried to be as careful and fair as possible in how the points were assigned. And his conclusion? that george bush scored much much higher on this scale then kerry did. in other words bush tended to lie or distort facts or "exagerate" on points relevant to the voting populace MUCH more often then kerry did. the sheer numbers of these distortions was similar for both sides but the weight of their usage and their extremity was something like 6 times higher for bush then kerry. dont quote me on that exact number im doing this from memory but the point is that it was much higher. so it does seem that there IS some basis to this whole thing and its not just a "liberal media plot". Of course anyone who takes anything that comes out of the mouths of EITHER of these candidates without at LEAST a grain of salt deserves to be thought of as a dupe. Basically just be smart and dont be a toadie to any one party or candidate. they will both say what ever they have to to get the last few undecideds.

and by the way how the heck can anyone STILL be undecided at this point! these people must have serious need issues if they still cant figure out who to vote for. seems amazing to me...

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

yes i did when i spoke of just caring about the $$!

now you're not reading my posts!!

but honestly, i don't want to get into and argument about something you can read a few posts back... and even QUOTED... i know how busy you are

so... to follow the self-interest argument... if it is okay for the US to act in it's own self-interest, even if it goes against the interest of other allied nations, why is it not ok for france or russia to do the same?

See - if you read what I had said 2 years ago - you w9ould see that I said it was okay for France, Russia and so forth to go with their self interest. My problem isn't that - it's the fact that all these people demonstrate against the US - saying blood for oil and yet are completely silent when it comes to corruption with France, Germany, Russia, China and the UN.

on the bigger picture... i don't see clinton as "the do nothing wrong president", he missed a lot of opportunities and screwed quite a few things up... that said, unlike gwb, at least he had a few positives under his belt... if i judged president's by only their faults... or countries for that matter, as you seem to love to do... i wouldn't like anybody or anyplace... i try to weigh the good and the bad and make my choice according to that

See - I don't only concentrate on the faults of others - here though - i want to point out the hypocrocy of you and others in this regard. No one really seems to have a problem of bitching about the US or Bush every chance they get. I just want to know why when there is evidence of corruption and deals that affect the ENTIRE world like this - there is no debate on it.

i wanted to vote for mccain, but the choice wasn't there, so i voted gore... though i did not particularly like him... i'll vote kerry too, who i still have a few reservations about... why, because gwb is a joke... and because he is probably the most socially conservative president we have had in decades (maybe ever)... while being one of the biggest spenders in either party's history

Well he can't do anything domestically without congress so I have no real problem with his social views and as for the spending a lot of that is related to 9/11 and the fact that the economy took a nose dive afterward, not to mention the Enron scandals - which he inherited, along with the recession. The stock market affects the budget of the United States.

so if liberal means that i actually think about my vote irregardless of party-affiliation... guilty as charged

Nope - because then I would be liberal - but I'm independant. But what you know about me - you know nothing about me - but yet you are very quick to make these accusations concerning me.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Nor should you. But had it ever occured to you that people may be more concerned over the fact that a SITTING AMERICAN PRESIDENT and currently the most powerful figure on earth has these corruptions in his administration while you yourself describe the UN as anemic and useless. So if you had to choose one evil would you choose a corrupt yet ineffective UN program? or a corrupt all powerful american adminstration? id say we need to worry much more about the latter. but sure we should expose both.

Whihc corruptions are you referring to? You mean the perceived halliburton one? I think we need a strong president right now. that was one of the problems that caused 9/11 - Clinton playing beach ball with bin Ladin between us and Saudi Arabia and then backing off everytime the world screamed enough. I don't want a repeat of that.

you know I heard a report this weekend about this. right wingers are crying foul about this report but no one actually took the time to look into the facts behind the accusation. So one reporter (unaffilliated with ABC) actually looked at every statement made by both candidates and ranked them 1 to 3 on the basis of their "relevance to the most important issues toward the presidency" as determined by the american populace. Granted this is by definition an arbitrary point use but the reporter said he tried to be as careful and fair as possible in how the points were assigned. And his conclusion? that george bush scored much much higher on this scale then kerry did. in other words bush tended to lie or distort facts or "exagerate" on points relevant to the voting populace MUCH more often then kerry did. the sheer numbers of these distortions was similar for both sides but the weight of their usage and their extremity was something like 6 times higher for bush then kerry. dont quote me on that exact number im doing this from memory but the point is that it was much higher. so it does seem that there IS some basis to this whole thing and its not just a "liberal media plot". Of course anyone who takes anything that comes out of the mouths of EITHER of these candidates without at LEAST a grain of salt deserves to be thought of as a dupe. Basically just be smart and dont be a toadie to any one party or candidate. they will both say what ever they have to to get the last few undecideds.

So let me ask you - who determines what is important to the election? You mean kerry flip flopping back and forth isn't an issue? kerry exagerating the cost of Iraq isn't an issue? Just let the facts come out and let the public decide what is important to them. The media is supposed to report the facts - not determine who they will be easy on and who they won't. Why don't we just let ABC and the rest of the media world cast our votes - they obviously don't think we can reason on our own.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

See - if you read what I had said 2 years ago - you w9ould see that I said it was okay for France, Russia and so forth to go with their self interest. My problem isn't that - it's the fact that all these people demonstrate against the US - saying blood for oil and yet are completely silent when it comes to corruption with France, Germany, Russia, China and the UN.

so what? some people bitch almost exclusively about France, Germany, Russia, China and the UN too... or am i the only one who notices

demonstration and debate are good things... i can understand not agreeing with the issues as portrayed... but the methods are the very source of the idea of political freedoms... something the current admin is trying very hard to limit under the guise of "security concerns"

Well he can't do anything domestically without congress so I have no real problem with his social views and as for the spending a lot of that is related to 9/11 and the fact that the economy took a nose dive afterward, not to mention the Enron scandals - which he inherited, along with the recession. The stock market affects the budget of the United States.

it's a republican congress! how many spending bills has he vetoed? look at the nondefense budget numbers here us budget

Nope - because then I would be liberal - but I'm independant. But what you know about me - you know nothing about me - but yet you are very quick to make these accusations concerning me.

i'll give you something you refuse to give me and take your word for it... guess that makes me independent too

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

you know I heard a report this weekend about this. right wingers are crying foul about this report but no one actually took the time to look into the facts behind the accusation. So one reporter (unaffilliated with ABC) actually looked at every statement made by both candidates and ranked them 1 to 3 on the basis of their "relevance to the most important issues toward the presidency" as determined by the american populace. Granted this is by definition an arbitrary point use but the reporter said he tried to be as careful and fair as possible in how the points were assigned. And his conclusion? that george bush scored much much higher on this scale then kerry did. in other words bush tended to lie or distort facts or "exagerate" on points relevant to the voting populace MUCH more often then kerry did. the sheer numbers of these distortions was similar for both sides but the weight of their usage and their extremity was something like 6 times higher for bush then kerry. dont quote me on that exact number im doing this from memory but the point is that it was much higher. so it does seem that there IS some basis to this whole thing and its not just a "liberal media plot". Of course anyone who takes anything that comes out of the mouths of EITHER of these candidates without at LEAST a grain of salt deserves to be thought of as a dupe. Basically just be smart and dont be a toadie to any one party or candidate. they will both say what ever they have to to get the last few undecideds.

A few key phrases from your post - "one reporter", "arbitrary", "his conclusion".

I say report the facts impartially and let the people decide. If it's so overwhelming (6 times higher), then I think the people would notice.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

A few key phrases from your post - "one reporter", "arbitrary", "his conclusion".

I say report the facts impartially and let the people decide. If it's so overwhelming (6 times higher), then I think the people would notice.

way to cut it up and discount it out of hand rian without even considering it. i went out of my way to point out the imperfect nature of the report. doesnt mean it needs to be rejected out of hand as was your intent. because it certainly COULD enlighten us in a way we werent aware of before. when we originally assumed ah its just liberal bias. flush it!

and as far as reporting the "facts impartially" thats ALL he was doing by analyzing EACH instance as he did. are you suggesting you have knowledge that it was anything other then that? im impressed you know so much about this reporter and his sinister motives.

[Rían]

oh lighten up on me, IRex!

I DID considered your post, and my decision is that one reporter should not decide for everyone. I appreciate how you pointed out "the imperfect nature of the report", and because I believe that people should think and decide for themselves, and given "the imperfect nature of the report", I reached my conclusion. I repeat that I think that they should fairly and impartially report fact twisting. Why do you have it in for me so much?

ANd how did I "cut it up" if I quoted your whole paragraph?