[narlus]

Uh...both? Those are answers to seperate questions. You cant expect US citizens who dont get the intel that the president does to have the same working knowledge of every situation, however you can get an idea of how much money your candidate is giving out in international aid.

ok, i can see yr argument. but i still think that it's a bit suspect to think that the is a strong correlation between the average american joe who wants to give out largesse via tax money and the govt actually doling it out. it's used for political reasons (not that there is anything wrong w/ that), not charity. i still think that my suggestion would be a better indicator of just how generous person X is.

 

[narlus]

btw, floyd started to go downhill at _wish you were here_ and never recovered...best lp for my listening is _obscured by clouds_ or _meddle_.

 

[pnj]

Darkside and Meddle!

one of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

:evil:

 

[BurlyShirley]

btw, floyd started to go downhill at _wish you were here_ and never recovered...best lp for my listening is _obscured by clouds_ or _meddle_.

You're crazy yo! Animals owns.

 

[Toshi]

Are they clueless, or are they just weighing positives and negatives? Bush making a profit and a few million Iraqi's gaining freedom vs. Saddam setting pretty and people still being fed to lions. Id take the first of those choices regardless of motive.

clueless.

A large majority of self-identified Bush voters polled believe Saddam Hussein provided "substantial support" to Al Qaeda, and 47 percent believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. Among the president's supporters, 57 percent queried think international public opinion favors Bush's reelection, and 51 percent believe that most Islamic countries support "US-led efforts to fight terrorism."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the Sept. 11 Commission found no evidence of substantial Iraqi support for Al Qaeda, and international public opinion polls have shown widespread opposition to Bush's reelection.

In contrast, among Kerry supporters polled only 26 percent think Iraq had such weapons, 30 percent say Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda, and 1 percent said foreign public opinion favors Bush.

The polls results, said Steven Kull, the head of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey, showed that Americans are so polarized two weeks before the election that many lack even a common understanding of the facts.

"It is rather unique the extent to which we have different perceptions of reality," Kull said.

On other international issues, the survey found that around 70 percent of Bush supporters responding believe that the president supports participation in the land mine treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and a narrower majority believes he supports the International Criminal Court and Kyoto Accords. In fact, Bush opposes all four treaties.

Kerry supporters correctly identified their candidate's position on every foreign policy issue in the survey except defense spending. Only 43 percent of the Democrat's supporters know he wants to keep the Pentagon budget at the same level rather than cut or expand it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

So, since Kerry also supported the war, we can basically say that 25% of Americans put 2 and 2 together in lumping Saddam and Osama together.

 

[narlus]

You're crazy yo! Animals owns.

maybe i'll listen to it on the drive in tomorrow. i dug it a lot back in the day, but it's a bit long-winded really ("echoes" is where they perfected the long song format). _the wall_ though is just over the top shrill waters stuff. very overrated, imo.

heh, just listening to the kool keith _diesel truckers_ now and he namechecked bobby orr. how cool is that? kool keith is the best in the rap game, bar none.

 

[Toshi]

So, since Kerry also supported the war, we can basically say that 25% of Americans put 2 and 2 together in lumping Saddam and Osama together.

kerry supported the war but very conditionally. that was his downfall, since americans are apparently too dense* to see anything in between supporting or being against something. what was so conditional about it? see his speeches before the gulf war and this latest iraq war about his reservations, about how force should be used as a last resort, about how this was supposed to be about finding and eliminating WMD.

(* i'm not trying to suggest that all americans who voted for bush did so because they bought the bush administration's line about kerry wrt waffling on iraq. there are people who voted for bush for their own, valid reasons. the people who voted against kerry because they swallowed the campaign ads hook, line and sinker are those who i am calling dense.)

he did NOT support the war for the reasons that the neocons do, and he had no part in the spin game (as pointed out so well by the daily show) that bush's administration played in order to insert the notion that saddam <==> al qaeda into the feeble collective american mind.

why feeble? let me refer you to that boston.com link again...

 

[BurlyShirley]

kerry supported the war but very conditionally.

So, since Kerry also supported the war, we can basically say that 25% of Americans put 2 and 2 together in lumping Saddam and Osama together.

 

[Toshi]

So, since Kerry also supported the war, we can basically say that 25% of Americans put 2 and 2 together in lumping Saddam and Osama together.

i know you're not stupid. stop acting like it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

i know you're not stupid. stop acting like it.

You're missing my point. If half the bush voters thought Saddam and Osama were in it together, and Kerry got 49% of the votes, that basically means that 25% of Americans believe this.

 

[Toshi]

You're missing my point. If half the bush voters thought Saddam and Osama were in it together, and Kerry got 49% of the votes, that basically means that 25% of Americans believe this.

ok. so going back a bit, that means that half of the bush vote can be classified as clueless, and the other half is either bloodthirsty or is "weighing [the] positives and negatives [of] Bush making a profit and a few million Iraqi's gaining freedom vs. Saddam setting pretty and people still being fed to lions".

 

[BurlyShirley]

ok. so going back a bit, that means that half of the bush vote can be classified as clueless, and the other half is either bloodthirsty or is "weighing [the] positives and negatives [of] Bush making a profit and a few million Iraqi's gaining freedom vs. Saddam setting pretty and people still being fed to lions".

Who is "bloodthirsty"?

 

[Changleen]

Burly, If the American Public 'care' so damn much, why did they re-elect the person who caused all these problems in the first place? Or is the reality that a good percentage of them have no clue, and worse than that, have no desire to get a clue, about what goes on outside of their tiny little deep fried bubbles?

Dude, I lived in Sedona Arizona and San Francisco, and I can tell you about the huge, sickening, ignorant prejudice I experienced everyday in Arizona and the utterly different world where people actually drive hybrid cars that is San Francisco. I don't mean to lecture you on your own country )) but sometimes I think you forget about these people.

 

[Slugman]

I see you have completely missed the point of this thread.

Since the point of all your threads are to have everyone agree with you regardless of any proof (por or con), yes... I have.

 

[Lexx D]

but sometimes I think you forget about these people.

He can't forget about them he is one of them.

 

[-BB-]

Alot of you guys have this tendancy to bash the south for its attachment to christianity and its hatred of gays and whatnot, but seriously, there is no other place in the world Id rather break down on the side of the road.

As long as you have the same color skin, sexual preferences, and religion...
If not, watch out. :nuts:

 

[Changleen]

He can't forget about them he is one of them.

I don't think Burly is on the level of the wilfully ignorant wastes of water and carbon that I met in AZ, but there is something wrong with his way of thinking if he can condone the superficial couch-caring of most of America as proof that Americans are basically decent whilst ignoring the fact that they knowingly (or willfully unknowingly) re-elected a terrorist.

 

[Silver]

It's the American way. You expect a country founded on genocide to step in?

(In America's defence, no one else ever steps in either...the human race is pretty crappy when matters of power and wealth come up...)

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

My point here is that the situation is supported because Americans care, not because Americans dont care.

Simple enough for you?

perfect point. US-ers CARE, and care about THEMSELVES just like anyone else, but in the pursuit of this self-caring they will nail whoever gets in the way, at whatever cost FOR OTHERS.

and adding insult to injury, the white house comes up with this argument about the good father-nation that goes around giving freedom and democracy to everyone instead of saying up front "yeah i raped you cuz i wanted to satisfy myself" insted of going around saying "i had to have non-consentual sex with you because i see that your lack of sex life was really making you unhappy, and there are studies that link abstinence with cancer so i did it in the best of your interest, so be grateful".

notice the fact that in your arguments and those of neo-cons, the point of view is regarding the benefits for "mankind" are never in argument and is always un-movable from the US side.

 

[Changleen]

perfect point. US-ers CARE, and care about THEMSELVES just like anyone else, but in the pursuit of this self-caring they will nail whoever gets in the way, at whatever cost FOR OTHERS.

and adding insult to injury, the white house comes up with this argument about the good father-nation that goes around giving freedom and democracy to everyone instead of saying up front "yeah i raped you cuz i wanted to satisfy myself" insted of going around saying "i had to have non-consentual sex with you because i see that your lack of sex life was really making you unhappy, and there are studies that link abstinence with cancer so i did it in the best of your interest, so be grateful".

notice the fact that in your arguments and those of neo-cons, the point of view is regarding the benefits for "mankind" are never in argument and is always un-movable from the US side.

Brilliant post. I especially liked the rape annology.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Alot of you guys have this tendancy to bash the south for its attachment to christianity and its hatred of gays and whatnot, but seriously, there is no other place in the world Id rather break down on the side of the road.

Of course .... your not gay and whatnot.