CA AIDS fundings cut

[John Reynolds]

That's just it, John. It's not. That's the entire point..

9/11 shapes much of our policies today.. You and the rest of the democrats just "don't get it." You prefer to "forget" about 9/11 as if it were just some isolated incident, something in the past that at most, we learn a few things from.

Rather than see it for what it is: one example of the continuing and real present day threat that we face.

I was being facetious, Joe. Yet 9/11 is as irrelevent to today's policies as a draft dodger describing himself as the war president who's so tough against our new ideological enemy that we don't dare vote him out of office, that any vote not for him is one for bin Ladin. Sorry, I ain't buying that reasoning. It's distasteful to me in its Manichaeanistic simplicity.

But you're again putting words in my mouth. I'll never forget 9/11 and hope we never show an ounce of mercy toward those involved and any who would plot future attacks (against any civilian targets, not just American). Yet IMO not forgetting the past is also not white-washing someone's background and their scholastic achievements (or lack thereof) because of partisan affiliations. That's one of the problems you have in arguing politics with me, Joe, is that you can't pigeon hole me into a box because I have no partisan leanings or loyalties. Whereas you, in complete contrast, very clearly do, and those partisan biases obviously color everything you write.

Oh...here come the ad-hominem attacks. I'm surprised you held out this long.

Gosh, you don't whine when I call Kerry an electoral whore. I wonder why?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yet 9/11 is as irrelevent to today's policies as a draft dodger describing himself as the war president who's so tough against our new ideological enemy that we don't dare vote him out of office...

I really have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying, one, both, or neither of these things is relevant? how does Bush's FALSE accustations of being AWOL, btw, change his track record in the war on terror?

But you're again putting words in my mouth. I'll never forget 9/11 and hope we never show an ounce of mercy toward those involved...

But your calling the 9/11 images distasteful doesn't reconcile with that. Sorry.

That's one of the problems you have in arguing politics with me, Joe, is that you can't pigeon hole me into a box because I have no partisan leanings or loyalties.

Uh, who said I have problems arguing politics with you?

Whereas you, in complete contrast, very clearly do, and those partisan biases obviously color everything you write.

Yes....you've got me pegged alright. Next thing you know, you're going to call me a conservtive. The horror.

Gosh, you don't whine when I call Kerry an electoral whore. I wonder why?

Because his track / voting record bears that out, and because we agree?

 

[John Reynolds]

I really have no idea what you're trying to say. Are you saying, one, both, or neither of these things is relevant? how does Bush's FALSE accustations of being AWOL, btw, change his track record in the war on terror?

Whether Bush was AWOL is totally irrelevent to the FACT (hey, I know where my caps lock button is too <g>) that he used his daddy's influence to dodge the draft.

But your calling the 9/11 images distasteful doesn't reconcile with that. Sorry.

We shouldn't forget a national tragedy but I also feel that a politician shouldn't use it during TV commercials for political gain (a la re-elected) is somehow incongruent to you, Joe?

Yes....you've got me pegged alright. Next thing you know, you're going to call me a conservtive. The horror.

No, Joe, the name calling, insults, labelling, and other personal attacks have all come from you.

Joe, I've always liked you and I think you're a smart guy, but we're obviously in polar positions when it comes to Bush's administration and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon (though I do hope when Bush wins this fall you don't feel compelled to gloat).

 

[Natoma]

I wish they would cut all aids funding/research in half. Use the money instead to fund cancer research or altzermia(sp) lots of diseases that are not COMPLETLY preventable.

later,
epic

HIV isn't completely preventable. What about babies who are born with HIV? People who get it through infected blood? What about those infected because their spouses cheat?

And for what it's worth, many types of Cancer are preventable. Same with many types of Heart Disease. Alzheimers is a disease we really don't understand at the moment, but it may come to a time when it is understood that Alzheimers is in fact a preventable disease. You know that studies have found that Lipitor and other statins help restore cognitive abilities in Alzheimers patients. They believe the medication reduces the size of the fatty plaques. So who knows. Maybe you should cut back on the greasy burgers. It'll save you a little dementia later on in life.

 

[Natoma]

Arnold is more liberal than a lot of Democrats.

On some issues, yes.

But it doesn't matter...he's a republican, and he supports Bush.

Will 1.3 million CA voters suddenly reverse their previous opinion of Dubya just because of the Govenator?

You don't know much about "the people" and how they vote...do you .

(Oh...and it's only 650,000 voters, BTW.)

Arnold is going to mean squat for Bush in the fall. California is much like New York. We elect governors and mayors from both republican and democratic parties pretty equally, though the last 10-15 years or so have been republican for NY, surprisingly. Anyway, both states consistently go for democratic presidents. I don't see either trend suddenly changing this year.

California got rid of Gray Davis because they wanted a change. If anything, that anti-incumbent feeling hurts Bush because whatever you think of him or his policies or whether it was "his fault" or not, the fact of the matter is that he has presided over one of the worst economies in decades.

 

[Natoma]

But as Republican Congressman Tom Cole recently enthused, a vote against Bush is a vote for Osama bin Laden.

Very true. OBL will be very happy with Kerry in office. Deep cuts to the budget, in the form of less spending on national security, intelligence gathering and the like should be expected with a Kerry win. Im using his past votes to make such conclusions. Isnt a track record great.

later,
epic

I'm not a fan of Kerry at all, but the majority of his anti-defense spending votes in the senate were against missile defense systems and other "useless" devices.

The funding cuts to intelligence agencies is a very fair assessment however. But anyway, I very much doubt Osama and his cronies care who the president is.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

We shouldn't forget a national tragedy but I also feel that a politician shouldn't use it during TV commercials for political gain (a la re-elected) is somehow incongruent to you, Joe?

Yes, it is.

I politician can not use events that occurred during his administration...and events that currently shape his policies, for political advertisement?

Joe, I've always liked you and I think you're a smart guy, but we're obviously in polar positions when it comes to Bush's administration and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon (though I do hope when Bush wins this fall you don't feel compelled to gloat).

Why would I gloat?

I'll certainly be happy...but that's for country's sake. Not mine.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Arnold is going to mean squat for Bush in the fall.

We'll see. Does anyone want to make a wager that Bush either wins CA, or makes it much closer than Bush/Gore? (This is, of course, assuming things go relatively well for CA, and Arnold still is very popular with Californians around election time.)

California got rid of Gray Davis because they wanted a change. If anything, that anti-incumbent feeling hurts Bush because whatever you think of him or his policies or whether it was "his fault" or not, the fact of the matter is that he has presided over one of the worst economies in decades.

And improving every month....just as it is in CA.

 

[John Reynolds]

Yes, it is.

I politician can not use events that occurred during his administration...and events that currently shape his policies, for political advertisement?

It's pandering to fear-based emotions. Look at what happened! It could happen again if you don't keep your war president!! Keep American safe, vote Bush!! Be afraid, maintain the political status quo.

Blech!

 

[Natoma]

Honestly, I don't know.

Of course, no one "knows". I was asking what you thought. And there's no doubt in my mind that he'd rather not have a President on a stated mission hunting him and Al Qaeda down every day, vs. someone with less conviction.

Maybe it should be pointed out that when Bush came into office, it was with the stated notion that the US should not be involved in other countries affairs, nor should we be in the business of nation building. And then he subsequently went on to pull us out of almost every major agreement made in the last 35 years.

To say that Kerry would somehow have "less conviction" in finding members of Al-Qaeda is absurd. He hasn't done anything to prove or disprove that notion. Frankly it'd not only be national suicide, but political suicide, for him to "let up" or show "less conviction" in going after Al-Qaeda.

There are other ways of going after them than tossing bombs at countries that don't have terrorist ties or WMD.

How again does it damage terrorism and those who support it by toppling a government that, according to intelligence so far, did not possess WMD that could've sold to terrorists or directly supported them financially?

So maybe Libya surrendering it's weapons program has nothing to do with Iraq?

Or maybe North Korea or Iran accelerating their weapons program had nothing to do with Iraq either? Either way, Libya is a nice after effect, but it certainly wasn't on the agenda at the time we went into Iraq. We went there to get WMD and to snuff out terrorist ties. Neither of which occurred because neither of which apparently were there.

Honestly, in spite of the damage Bush has done to our relationships with certain long-standing allies...

More bullshit rhetoric. What relationships with long-standing allies are damaged...any more "damaged" than they were pre 9-11? Same shit, different day.

Why is it that to bring up our strained alliances around the world is just "more bullshit rhetoric" eh? We tried strong arming Mexico into supporting our position. We went into the UN process insulting practically every major european nation as "old europe." We strained our relations with our neighbor to the north. Now to be fair, some of these allies of ours may not have helped even if there was 100% rock solid evidence of Saddam's duplicity and non-compliance. But we didn't give them a chance. Asking someone for help with your right hand while slapping them with your left will not engender much support.

And what alliances do we have around the world? We have alliances with nations that can barely send 10 men and $100 to fight in Iraq. I'm sure Al-Qaeda is quaking in their boots when the overwhelming military and monetary force that is Latvia joined us in our fight.

Same goes for Bush's recent 9/11 images in his TV ads. Tacky, tacky, tacky.

I was wondering when you or Natoma would bring that up. Those were some of the most positive and uplifting political ads I've seen. There was no bashing of any one, or any party. But I guess the left just doesn't want to be reminded exactly what happened, who lead us through it, and who continues to lead us through it.

Joe you need to back off. Many 9/11 families, firefighters, and policemen and women have spoken out against the use of 9/11 imagery for political gain ever since it occurred. Frankly I concur. Unfortunately that has not happened.

The Administration used the specter of 9/11 to push the Patriot Act through Congress. They used the specter of 9/11 to justify tax cuts. They used the specter of 9/11 to justify a war with Iraq that has seen its reasons of justification crumble to dust. And this is just for starters.

If anyone has a right to use 9/11 for political gain, and that's a big if imo, it's Rudy Guiliani. He was the one in the trenches leading our nation in the weeks after 9/11. He was the public face of that tragedy, not President Bush. I am most definitely no fan of Guiliani for his strong arming tactics in dealing with vast portions of NY communities during his tenure, but he was the one who was leading our nation in spirit in the weeks following 9/11. Not Bush.

What has the administration done to "lead" us from 9/11? Stonewalled the 9/11 commission that was created to investigate the failings by the CIA, FBI, and Administration Officials in preventing that tragedy. They sent only 50K troops to middle east in response, of which only 20K were actually on the ground in Afghanistan. Today, we have roughly 12K on the ground, most of which are keeping Kabul safe. The rest have no power in the hinterlands of Afghanistan where the warlords now rule. They let many of Al-Qaeda's leadership get away into the hinterlands of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border by not sending enough troops to the ground. We didn't have enough in Afghanistan, and we certainly didn't have enough in Iraq.

In the leadup to the Iraq war, we forgot about the war against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. They have re-established themselves in Afghanistan, along with the Taliban. Where is the leadership there? We started a war with Iraq when there were no terrorists there, and now it has become a hotbed of terrorism. Where is the leadership there?

We ignored Saudi Arabia's role in the 9/11 attacks, their continued funding of Al-Qaeda in the highest levels of their government, and continue to call them "friend." Where is the leadership?

If you want to call $1.5 Trillion additional debt, unfunded Port and Border Patrols which directly affect our national security, and continued deadly terrorist activities around the world the results of leadership, then so be it. But you won't find too many sane people agreeing with you.

 

[Natoma]

Arnold is going to mean squat for Bush in the fall.

We'll see. Does anyone want to make a wager that Bush either wins CA, or makes it much closer than Bush/Gore? (This is, of course, assuming things go relatively well for CA, and Arnold still is very popular with Californians around election time.)

I'll make that wager if you wager Texas goes Kerry......

California got rid of Gray Davis because they wanted a change. If anything, that anti-incumbent feeling hurts Bush because whatever you think of him or his policies or whether it was "his fault" or not, the fact of the matter is that he has presided over one of the worst economies in decades.

And improving every month....just as it is in CA.

Ah yes, it is improving every month. The economy added 21K jobs last month. Pretty good on the face of it, until you consider that everyone was expecting roughly 130K added jobs.

But yes, it is improving.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'll make that wager if you wager Texas goes Kerry......

Why would I wager that? Is the current governor of Texas hugely popular, and being given credit for a turn-around?

Ah yes, it is improving every month.

At least you can admit it.

 

[Natoma]

I'll make that wager if you wager Texas goes Kerry......

Why would I wager that? Is the current governor of Texas hugely popular, and being given credit for a turn-around?

You miss the point of my statement.

Ah yes, it is improving every month.

At least you can admit it.

I never said the economy wasn't getting better. It's just not getting better as quickly as republicans keep saying it is. Or was it not the Administration that said in their official budget report that the economy would add 2.6 Million new jobs this year? After predicting that the economy would add 1.7 Million new jobs in 2003? The economy is certainly improving, but americans take not only when they see the employment figures coming back.

21K for February is a HUGE improvement, when you look at the fact that December added 1K new jobs. The economy is certainly improving.

But thanks for taking out the qualifiers to my statement and trying to change the timbre of what I wrote.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I never said the economy wasn't getting better. It's just not getting better as quickly as republicans keep saying it is.

Um, exactly "how quickly" are republicans saying it's getting better? (BTW, jobs is but one measure of the economy, albeit an important one.)

Or was it not the Administration that said in their official budget report that the economy would add 2.6 Million new jobs this year?

It's called a projection. Now I challenge you to find Kerry (or the democrats in general) admit that the economy is improving, vs. going further and further down the tubes.

 

[John Reynolds]

Now I challenge you to find Kerry (or the democrats in general) admit that the economy is improving, vs. going further and further down the tubes.

During an election year? Yeah, sure, they should hop right up and say the Republican incumbent is doing a damn fine job.

That's like getting the Bush administration to admit they're losing the war on terror: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_29.html#002641

 

[Natoma]

I never said the economy wasn't getting better. It's just not getting better as quickly as republicans keep saying it is.

Um, exactly "how quickly" are republicans saying it's getting better? (BTW, jobs is but one measure of the economy, albeit an important one.)

You know as well as I do that the voting masses are "idiots." They don't care that the stock market is up 30% or that dividend payouts are up 12%. They don't care that productivity is rising at an annualized rate of 4-5% year over year. They care that their annual salaries have risen only 1-2% a year the past 3 years, barely better than inflation. They care about jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs.

The republicans projected 1.7 Million jobs for 2003. The economy actually lost 50K in that span. 2.7 Million jobs for 2004. So far, only 135K. Those statistics will be brought to the political front.

Or was it not the Administration that said in their official budget report that the economy would add 2.6 Million new jobs this year?

It's called a projection. Now I challenge you to find Kerry (or the democrats in general) admit that the economy is improving, vs. going further and further down the tubes.

Of course you won't find Kerry or any of the other leading democrats saying this. It's called politics. That's why you won't see images of Iraq in Bush's political advertisements, but you'll see 9/11.

Politics and nothing more from both parties.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

During an election year? Yeah, sure, they should hop right up and say the Republican incumbent is doing a damn fine job.

Exactly...don't the the truth change their tactics.

I don't see Bush saying "we have enough jobs." He routinely says we don't have enough...that his job isn't done.

There's a difference between lying, (saying the economy isn't improving, when it is), vs. saying "you know, it is getting better, but WE have a plan that will improve things better / faster, etc. And here it is..."

that's like getting the Bush administration to admit they're losing the war on terror:

Why, are they?

The thing is, John, we can't really assert if who is "winning or losing." The fact that Bush recongizes that we haven't "won" it, is what's important. That is, he's going to keep on fighting.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

They care about jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs.

Um, yes...and unemployment rate isn't out of control. Most people have jobs. People care that THEY have a job.

Of course you won't find Kerry or any of the other leading democrats saying this. It's called politics. That's why you won't see images of Iraq in Bush's political advertisements, but you'll see 9/11.

Another wager. I bet we WILL see images of Iraq in upcoming ads.

 

[Natoma]

They care about jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs.

Um, yes...and unemployment rate isn't out of control. Most people have jobs. People care that THEY have a job.

Joe the reason the unemployment rate has fallen is because millions of people have left the workforce, not because people are all of a sudden snapping up jobs.

If the economy and jobs pick up tremendously in the coming months, the unemployment rate will rise significantly (probably to the mid 6% range) because more people will be back in the system.

Of course you won't find Kerry or any of the other leading democrats saying this. It's called politics. That's why you won't see images of Iraq in Bush's political advertisements, but you'll see 9/11.

Another wager. I bet we WILL see images of Iraq in upcoming ads.

Not with the situation as it is today. It's too much of a lightning rod for Bush, because he is decidedly weak there, in terms of the prosecution of the war. And it opens him up to the WMD attack again, which you know the dems will pounce on if given the chance.

 

[John Reynolds]

Why, are they?

The thing is, John, we can't really assert if who is "winning or losing." The fact that Bush recongizes that we haven't "won" it, is what's important. That is, he's going to keep on fighting.

By committing one of the greatest military blunders in recent history, attacking a secular government that had virtually zero ties to terrorist organizations, and pinning the bulk of our armed forces down, depriving us of our mobility and ability to react with sufficient strength if another major crises were to appear unexpectedly. What would we do if North Korea suddenly invaded the South? Rumsfield boasted before we invaded Iraq that our military forces could handle 3-4 such engagements simultaneously, and then we quickly realized we entered the country with insufficient number of personnel to maintain control.

The international community views the Bush administration as having so much mud on its face it would take sand blasting to remove it all. And rightfully so. If you're going to fight the war on terror, methinks you need to fight terrorists and those who directly support them. We started out in the right direction, but then committed a massive fumble at the 50 yard line. And now we're committed to maintaining 10s of thousands of military personnel in Iraq for the foreseeable future and pumping 100s of billions into the country. To mock Tom Cole, methinks a vote for Bush is a vote for Osama bin Laden.