| Subject: Re: ELECTION 2004 |
Author:
James
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07:55:44 03/21/04 Sun
In reply to:
Crackpot
's message, "Re: ELECTION 2004" on 00:14:25 03/11/04 Thu
>Nah, he's already slipping in the popularity polls.
>Even among republicans. Although, I don't want either
>John Kerry nor George Bush in office.
I doubt he is slipping enought to lose again. But we'll see.
>
>
>Okay, which "facts" are you going by, exactly? Check
>out a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can
>Buy". Since the merging of media and
>business, and the Telecommunications Act of '96, where
>businesses can buy up the news and the media, I'm not
>too comfortable relying on their "information".
>
>Also, keep in mind that all this merging happened
>during the Clinton era. Bill Clinton should have been
>impeached for selling the sovereignty of this country.
Public Information and records. That crap in Florida was run by the elections officials of those voting districts. The Dems are pissed because they lost. But the elections officials (that is the ones overall in charge) were Dems themselves. That is verifiable fact. I don't trust the news media to give me those facts.
On a second note, who then SHOULD own the news and media if not businesses? I would personally trust a business owned media company than a government owned one.
>
>
>Economic globalization. Company's jumping up and
>shipping to Mexico is the problem. The way businesses
>are treating their employees are the problem. Still,
>how is it such a "fact" when even Alan Greenspan came
>out during 1998/99 and said the economy was "booming"?
>Although, he did say it was mostly Wall Street stock
>and shareholders who were reeking the benefits. Not
>any of us.
You damn right it was the wallstreet guys raking benefits but also a lot of middle class people made tons of money in those days. But in the end it was shallow money that wasn't backed by any real production. People would start a company and promise big things. People would catch on and invest. The stock would skyrocket then the investors would sell it off. The stock would plummet and the only thing that happened was that people lost money, jobs, or both. That's why it was a crappy economy.
>
>
>How, exactly, do you explain the New American Century
>group, then? The war would have been unjustified even
>if Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
>Simply because, not only were we selling him weapons
>and subsidizing his efforts clear until the point when
>he gassed his own people. If Saddam was ever a threat,
>it was during the eighties. That's when we should have
>taken him out. Now we're stuck between a rock and a
>hard place. Either way things go we look like
>hypocrites.
How does PNAC have anything to do with Saddam gassing his own citizens? It wasn't even around then. But I will explain it if you want. It's a conservative think-tank chaired by William Kristol. It does research and prints documents and publications on foreign policy and defense. I read their reports. If you are suggesting some sort of "vast right-wing conspiracy" you're barking up the wrong tree. But if you are suggesting that it is neo-conservative policy that sometimes bites us in our own ass then I agree. But At the same time a policy of non-interferance would probably land us in a third world war.
>
>>Gay marraige/civil unions: It is a fact that there are
>>people who do not get the same rights or equal
>>protection under the law due to their sexuality.
>
>That doesn't mean it should continue.
I agree let em get married...
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 