Well Free, we're just going to have to agree to dissagree on these issues because it's obvious we are not going to come to any kind of consensus on them. I think we can both agree that we hope one day to see a time when discussions like this a purely academic and don't represent a real dividing strife in our country and the world. I think we both want to make America and the world a better place, we just have a difference of opinion on how to get there. At least the goal in agreement is the bst one.

And just so you know, yes, I am a ponytailed hippy musician artsy fartsy guy. I do fit the liberal stereotype, at least one from 20 or so years ago.

Aye, but the problem that arises on the right, is that people are inherently selfish. If left to individuals, those that need will rarely get that which they require. The haves prefer to feed their own wants, rather than help others that truly need.

And that is the other difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that it is up to the government to bridge the gap for those that need, whereas the conservatives believe that it is a mixture of the charitable nature of those with plenty and those that need just working a bit harder and they'll be able to afford whatever they need. Which is kind of ignorant of history, given that every time there has been a completely free market, the haves keep having, and the have nots keep suffering.

HELL YEAH MAN USA RULES EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IS STUPID USA USA USA!

I think judging by the current polls you guys shouldn't be allowed to vote. How much can one President fuck up for you idiots to change your vote? Americans would probably vote for Nixon again if given the chance.

If voting required a IQ test America wouldn't be in this unforunate situation.

So... you're an Aussie? :O

Funny you should mention that, some site did a study on average IQs by state and compared their 2000 election results. Higher IQ states tended to vote GORE, while the opposite for BUSH.
But it was a joke :P

Australia is practically an American state anyway (much to my own repulsive disgust) so in a generation I doubt there'll be an "us" and a "you" Tony

And we can still give our allegience to a queen!

Heh, I'm not Australian. I just have common fucking sense.

I genuinely thought this election would be a democratic landslide. I should really stop overestimating the intelligence of the average American

I can see why you would think that this would be a democratic landslide. A news report today said that 40,000 people were double registered to vote in New York & Florida. One democrat in New Mexico registered to vote 20 times. Just last week a man was busted for trading crack for democrat voter registrations. He was enlisted by the head of the local NAACP. Clearly, Kerry is trying for a landslide, by any means possible.

Luckily, some Americans are smart enough to get the facts for themselves. The economy was declining when Clinton left office. Bush limited this to the shortest recession in our history. We were attacked repeatedly over the past few years by Muslim extremists and Bush gave the only meaningful counter attack. Jobs are created by helping small business and Kerry wants to tax the hell out of them. Thank God that Americans are smart enough to check the facts and vote Republican.

What "news report" was this? Sorry, but I'm just one of those smart Americans who wants to see the facts for myself, rather than be guided by someone who makes them up.

Check this link. If you click on Florida in the table of contents, you can scroll down to the story about 46,000 double registered voters. (I know it is a GOP link, but it has newspaper articles in it)

http://www.gop.com/media/voterfraudarticles.pdf

If you don't want to scroll through all those articles, or the document is too big, check out this link.

http://www.gop.com/demvoterfraudwatch.html

No offense, but isn't it a little innapropriate to suggest people visit a republican website to get information. Isn't that a bit biased, not to mention a poor source for the info considering they will never mention their own indescretions? Each side of the floor is making big mistakes, from registration fraud to voter suppression. Do a Google search on the subject if you want to get informed. but dont go to either the Republican or Democrat sites because you will only get one side of the story.

I knew someon would have a problem with it being a republican website, that's why I pointed out that they have a collection of articles from independent newspapers. The fact that they compiled the articles to prove their point, does not make the facts any less true. I was asked for the facts, I gave the facts. It is not inappropriate to give people what they ask for. If you believe these facts, as reported by mainstream media, are incorrect, I welcome the info.

There are no facts in modern media, all information is malleable.
There hasn't been real objective journalism since Vietnam.

Nice generalization! In fact, there are facts in modern media, you just have to know where to look. For instance, when I read my local newspaper, I pay the most attention to the last two paragraphs. That is usually where the give you the entire story and facts, that they wanted to bury when highlighting their liberal agenda in the headline and beginning of the story. They know they can't leave out key facts, they just bury them.

My recommendation: Listen to any major network news or NPR for the liberal side of a story, then conservative talk radio for the "right" side of the story. If you don't have time for that, check out FOXNEWS. While many of the anchors are right-leaning, they do a good job of bringing on guests and commentators from both sides. Hannity & Colmes is a prime example.

I merely suggested that the information would be one sided, not citing the issues of fraud and suppression Reps are currently facing themselves. On top of that, I stated that neither side of the floor was doing it right, and suggested that people get their information from somewhere other than either of the parties sites. Is there something wrong in that?

I just don't think it's "inappropriate" to visit a party's site, when they have already compiled other's news stories. Considering Ayatollah Krispies asked:


What's wrong with going right to the news reports? I wasn't asked for a link to a completely neutral third party individual working in the voter registration office of the individual counties that make up the suspect precincts which were complained of in a news story.

Don't meant to overexagerate, but it's much easier to go to the compilation of stories, rather than telling Ayatollah Krispies to go google the web.

Because it's just the one side of the issue. You can't tell me that the GOP o the Democrats are going to go out oftheir way to present a list of stories that cast stones in their own houses do you? Please tell me you aren't telling this poor guy to rely on a partisan biased political website for news! That's not only innappropriate, it's irresponsible. If he wan'ts to be informed, he has to be willing to do the work for it.

People living in generalised houses shouldn't throw stones.

It's all bent, it's all subjective because of who those "journalists" work for, the pressure of rating and advertising revenue and their own opinions which are not removed by their editors (rather encouraged).

If there were a truly objective media, there'd be bland statement of factual evidence, no adjectives, no detailed or colourful description, no opinion and therefore no entertainment value to people who don't give a shit. The fact that you suggest the best policy is to get one opinion from one medium and another from a different medium in an effort to get a balanced flow of information only stands to support my wild generalisation.

This "poor guy" didn't ask to be informed or to work for it or where to get a balanced answer. He asked me where I saw the news reports about voter fraud that I previously referenced. I pointed him to a collection of compiled news reports on the GOP website. Obviously these supports back up what the GOP is saying, but that does not make them untrue. Especially since they are reports by other newspapers and outlets and are merely compiled by the GOP.



Actually, I suggest you get information from FOXNEWS channel, because they bring all the colorful characters together and present both sides in an exciting way. Nothing like watching the DNC chairman and the GOP chairman being interviewed together at the same time. That's journalism!

No, that is sensationalism.

I disagree. When there is a journalist asking the questions and pointing out the inconsistencies, it is journalism. The conventions were sensationalism. IMHO

What if the questions of the "journalist" favour one viewpoint? What if the composition of the camera on the Republican guy is framed from beneath his face, which is generally connected subconciously in the human mind with ominous evil? What if one of the debaters shouts down his opponent without the "journalist" intervening? What if Rupert Murdoch sends his news producer a memo telling him that he wants the Democrat to lose so they give him less air time, no close ups? What if the majority of advertisers during the show's timeslot stand to gain more from Republican policies and threaten to pull their advertising money if the Democrat wins?

It's sheer entertainment, people are watching to see one of the candidates get embarassed and whipped by the other. Modern media doesn't work the way you may think it does

The question is, to which side is it biased? Each side says it's biased towards the other, and each side has "proof" to back it up. There are other ways to get news and information, but they require more work on the part of the public. The problem is that the public at large is unmotivated, and will accept what they are given at face value, because hey have trust that those giving the information will be level and fair. So the question is, "Who is taking advantage of the public and for what gain?" I have my own thoughts on the subject, but I don't know enough to say they are "right". I have seen and read things that help paint my viewpoint, but there are always ways to refute something.

"Merely compiled by the GOP" and then posted under ridiculously misleading headers -- like this one, for example, which on the GOP site somehow falls under the heading of "Democrat Voter Fraud Watch," despite the fact that not a single Democrat -- elected offical, registered voter, etc. -- is identified as such in the actual article. In fact, the word "democrat" doesn't make it into the article.

Thanks for helping me to learn the facts. Such as they are.

At least you know where one man stands. He didn't vote for something.....before he voted againts it.

Jumping criminy, not that line again. Let me break that down into as simple a manner as I can.

Yes, John Kerry did vote to fund $87 billion to the troops for supplies. What he voted AGAINST was the way it would be paid for. Kerry outlined, and voted for, a method that would temporaraly reverse the Bush tax cuts on those who make $400,000 a year. The biggest thing to understand is that about "one third of one percent" (or around $300,000) of the money would go towards getting the troops supplies. The bill has repeatedly been referred to as a "blank Check" upon which the administration could write it's war price.

So he voted FOR the bill
but he voted AGAINST the funding method.

Look it up. I've read two or three pages of google searches to break this down, and I'll tell you, only about a quarter of them bother to point out the spending method point or the amount to the troops point. It's hard to get through the spin and the bloggers with more opinion with fact (and that's on BOTH sides, Freeman, not just the right) , so just read what you can. I agree it sounds bad until you hear the facts.

If you don't have time for that, check out FOXNEWS. While many of the anchors are right-leaning, they do a good job of bringing on guests and commentators from both sides. Hannity & Colmes is a prime example

It should be noted that Colmes, the only significant left-wing anchor on Fox News, is an oaf.

I'm not old enough to vote. I've always been fairly moderate. Bush's finest hour was Afghanisthan. His worst may turn out to be Iraq. From the beggining I didn't see the need for this war. That hasn't changed, though I now see why the administration did it. To set up a democracy in the Middle East, an example to inspire the rest of the region. Bold plan... it just seems like the many variables weren't taken into account. [/i]

No, that's their public rationale for why they did it. The true reason was to provide a long-term source of profit for the military-industrial complex. What's making Bush and Cheney so crazy is that Kerry will cut off the excessive, bleeding spending in Iraq if he gets into office.



Yes, well, Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon and Genghis Khan never questioned themselves either. Whereas Harry Truman, the president who brought an end to WWII, went to his grave wondering if he'd done the right thing.

The unexamined life is an arena for children, fools and despots.



Don't start expecting people to think for themselves when it's so much easier to quote a sound bite. It's too late in the game.

Is it that, or personal grudge on behalf of Dubya?

I just cant forget his wonderful comment (paraphrased):

"That man tried to kill my daddy".

Not "That man tried to assassinate the President of the USA". Nope, it was about Dubya and his dad.

I cant trust in any legit reason for invasion that Bush gives. Everything he said turned out to be false (most likely *knowingly* false), and he had personal grudges all over the place.

The rest is history.




Can someone from the US try visiting:

http://www.georgewbush.com


Its supposedly Dubya website...I just want to see if the site works, before I comment further.

Yeah, it works for me because its powered by my American red blood. If you have dirty un-American blood, it won't work!

Well thats exactly it.

Apparently a few select countries are not allowed to access Dubyas site.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 01,00.html

"The US President's re-election aides said today it had cut off access to its website from certain foreign countries "for security reasons", but declined to elaborate. "

Funny, I thought Australians and Brits were allies of the US? Now we're security threats?

Kind of stupid. Then again, this is Dubya.

I'm not saying it's not retarded. I'm guessing they fear a hacker threat or some shit. It's been that way for a few days now, I hear. Its not like there's anything there they don't want you to see (as far as I can tell). It just seems like a silly response. (insert joke about silly reponses by Bush here)

Bush is just a tool of the PNAC. He's led a relatively unremarkable life, both personally and politically, and his "faith-based" agenda was palatable enough to the masses for the GOP to institute him as figurehead. His success has been due to the people that have surrounded and supported him his entire life. If his name were George Johnson, none of us would ever have heard of him.

Tired of all the polls out there? I found a site that averages all of the polls. It gives a pretty good view of the big picture.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Hmm, true points. I still believe however that Bush, at least in his mind, truly thinks he's accomplishing some great achievement in spreading democracy, so to speak, across the world.

It's not as much about democracy and freedom as it is spreading the American ideal. It's the new imperialism. Putting American forces in place to police the world to enfore our ideals, none the least of which is the Judeao-Christian ethic so many people cling to. The Neo-Cons tried to start this in the late eighties with Bush1. When he lost his office and Clinton came in, he pretty much killed all their plans, that's the reason they attacked him so hard, because he took a lot of the old war horses out of play and benched them. They hit him with scandel after scandel, but teflon Bill came right back. This longevity had a very negative result; it gave the neo-cons time to plan. When Gore ran in 2000 they hit him like smart missle, with laser like effiancy. They fronted a hyper relegious zealot(who hypocritacally enough has not attened church while in office), and through subtle media brainwashing, as well as some not so subtle voter disenfranchisement, got the election into the supreme court where the conservative majority placed Bush2 in the oval office. When that happened all the old players were back in the game. Bushs job approval was abysmal those first months, but it didn't make any difference, they just needed an event to catalyse their plans.

9-11

According to the lawyer representing many upon many of the 9-11 families, a man who also attended college with Rumsfeld and the gang in Chicago, those individuals had be playing with the idea of how to turn a democracy into a virtual dictatorship, using internal methods secretly sanctioned by the government, to enforce a major cultural changein the populace that was more in line with their view of rule. That was thirty or so years ago. But for these wealthy and priviledged people, they could afford to wait. They are right about one thing, everything changed after 9-11. The patriot act, Afghanistan, Iraq, the institution of a new aristocrisy with the economic divide getting wider. A panic button hard wired into the American conciousness, color coded to reinforce the emotion, all connected to the idea of a war that doesnt end. The ultimate in shadow enemies that can ensure the military-industrial complex never runs low. The new cold war.

Terrorism.

They could be anywhere, or anyone, strike at any time, do massive amounts of damage, and dissapeer without a trace. And even if we do get some, there will always be more to take their place. An unyielding tide of enemies to constantly threaten and provide an excuse for anything the administration sees fit. It would have worked out perfectly, except for one problem.

Us.

The people of the US, the ones not willing to blindly roll over and accept at face value the things we were told. We researched in silent, scouring the globe for any shred of truth, and did we find it. We spread question and fact in the face of a media so blinded by the spectacle of war, and so fearful of the retribution of an administration that would not tolerate dissent. We, the people. Not liberal or conservative, but Patroit. We who love America and her people so much that we would not see her fall to the cancer that lay so deep within her womb. We are not only patriots of this country, but of the world, believing in the true tenants of freedom; that all men choose how they want to be free. We don't want to see the rise of a new global empire, we want peace. But the first step to peace is the painful process of cutting away the cancer within us. To do that, we must all take a really long, hard look at ourselves and decide what we want to be as a nation. We can continue to divide the world, or we can once again reach out to unite it. If we can help wipe out poverty and despair, there will be little need for terrorism. It's not going to happen overnight, but we were so close at one point to really beginging to see it form. We can get back there.



Projbalance in 2034!!!!

Noonch....

Well not all of us share that particular American ideal. My America, while it may only exist in my head, is full of people who care about more than money and power.

We are few, and yet, we are not so few.

Blue States vote Smart | Red States vote Dumb

The truth can be a nasty thing. I don't want to think those people are stupid per say, but they do tend to follow gut, emotional/responses more than people who have spent time learning how to think and reason.

I love it.

People who don't share your beliefs must be dumb.

Nice elitisit attitude.



Well, I voted early. So for me this election is over. Thank goodness.

Well, I do posess L33T Skllz.

And I don't believe people who don't share my beliefs are dumb, just the ones who don't aspire to a greater ideal. I know plenty of people who are dumb not because of what they believe but because of the choices they make. The ability to erason must be grown like any other ability, and there are a LOT of people who don't bother to expand this ability. When you have an ability to reason that has atrophied, you make bad choices, and THAT makes you dumb.

Now there's something I can agree with.

I'm just glad this election is almost over. Then we can just go back to complaining about every decision whoever wins will make.

America is a lot like Disneyland. Once you see how things actually work, the magic dissapeers, adn the only way to keep that sense of innocense is to convince yourself that what you see is all there really is.

I'd advise you to do a little more learning than simply what you see on ACA or on Today Tonight. You dont have to have a 'cure for cancer' to get a clinical trial going. There are hundreds of clinical trials going for all sorts of things. They havent found a cure for one type of cancer. They've found a treatment that seems to show promise, as have many others all around the world.

As for that guy in WA, its interesting. But of course like any current affairs show, the fun is in the selective reporting. Good of them to show happy survivors. Pity they cant get to show those that didnt survive his treatment. Simple deal is that in the past 100+ years, there are many treatments that have had varying degrees of success. Curing some proportion of patients is nice, but as I understand it the research shows his work results in little improvement in outcome compared to other treatments used. Shit even William Coley in the 1890s cured something like 20-25% of cancer patients. Doesnt mean that his treatment was so fantastic, and in fact its ability to cure cancer in those patients was more of a side effect of the treatment than anything targeted to the cancer.

Anyway, whats the point of this? Australia lags far far far behind the US and Europe in this sort of research? Do we have the brains and ability to match? Definitely. We just dont have the money because the Libs are fucking tighwads that wont invest in research unless its for defense, agriculture, or unless its going to earn them a quid very quickly....which excludes areas like cancer research.

There have been clinical trials for melanoma 'cures' for many many years. But alas, the actual cure rate for late stage melanoma in the clinic simply hasnt risen too much in the last 30-odd years. Like I said, a lot of things have the potential to cure (as of the preclinical and possible phase I levels), but in the end dont have the clinical effect that researchers hoped for. Its just the nature of the beast, cancer is a very complex disease and its just so heterogeneous. Even a certain type of cancer at the same stage will vary from person to person. Its great that people are constantly coming up with potential treatments, but I'd wait until the clinical trials are done before I start talknig about cures. Usually when you see something in the paper or on TV, its as much about advertising and getting funding as about letting people know that you've got a great treatment.

And we arent lazy. But we didnt get into the game late, either. The issue here is money. There simply isnt enough money being put into research. Labs dont have consistent funding, so jobs are year-to-year prospects. Post-docs study at uni for 4 years, do another 4-odd years of a PhD, and then get bugger all money. So the poor funding leads to poor pay and poor job security, and so people leave here to work in the US. We arent lazy, we arent dumb, we arent behind the times. There just isnt enough money going into the system here. We lag woefully behind the level of funding that other developed countries give (relative to GDP). Things will never improve here until the money is increased.

Too close to call right now...

BUSH WINS!! haha

bush may win. doesn't mean it is a good thing.

God, if Bush wins I'm going to give up on America...