[barmar]

pclayton, on Aug 11 2006, 11:15 AM, said:

A few terrorists oversea won't move the polls much. Are the Republicans even seen as 'tough on terror' anymore?

That's the point, isn't it? The Republicans have lost that image, and the conspiracy theorists think that this stunt was pulled so that they can respond in a tough way, to get it back. Maybe it's too late, but what do they have to lose?

[Gerben42]

Quote

All of this very scary and real feelings I have, makes me more appreciative of terra firma. Trains look even more appealing to me now.

I cannot even imagine stopping to take planes because of this. There are thousands and thousands of planes flying around and you'll be probably be safer in a plane than at home. It's just that plane crashes and things like that get on the international news and other things do not.

[hrothgar]

pclayton, on Aug 11 2006, 06:15 PM, said:

A few terrorists oversea won't move the polls much. Are the Republicans even seen as 'tough on terror' anymore?

Oh, the Republicans are still viewed as plenty tough, however, folks are figuring out just how incompetant they are...

Look at Georgie boy. The guy's entire history is a consitent record of failure, followed by bailouts from friends of his dad. He was a failure at school, in the military, and at business. His early political "success" was governor of Texas, which is largely a ceremonial position and his legacy certainly wasn't a distinquished one...

He was put on the presidential ballot ballot for two reasons:

1. A lot of folks correctly beleived that Shrub's intellectual laziness would allow them to pillage the country
2. His name lead a large number of folks to assume that they supporting his dad in early polls. (This is where the myth of Bush's invincibility in 2000 primaries came from)

Sadly for us all, 2000 didn't turn out to be a "caretaker" presidency. The US needed one of our best in the White House. Instead we ended up with George W. Bush. I fear that the world will be paying the cost for a long time

[the saint]

cardsharp, on Aug 11 2006, 10:34 AM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 10 2006, 11:15 PM, said:

1A: Shania Twain's records, CDs, tapes, DVDs, whatever, should be removed from the shelves until she realises that it is incorrect grammar to sing "That Don't Impress Me Much".

Grammar, lesson 1:
I don't
You don't
He, she, it, that doesn't

... if she really insists on abbreviating "does not".

Roland

For definitive answers on questions regarding American and British English, I recommend this excellent blog - separated by a common language.

Lynne, a Scrabble playing friend of my wife, has also written (on the Scrabble boards) that the Americans speak (and spell) the Old English of the Pilgrim Fathers, whereas we have been infected by the French. So who is really speaking English?

Paul

See, it was never the Islamic Fundamentalists trying to subvert us, it was the French all along!! As usual...

(Please note, this comment is a joke, I love France and the French - most of them most of the time - and I am only writing this so yet another of my posts is not taken far too earnestly again when it did not merit it)

Other comments on previous quotes: Trains are you mad? I commute and they do my head in! And did any of you know, I was on the same train the London 7/7 bombers took into London that day. Makes me feel safe!?!? Won't change though because then they win. Gerben and Helene are quite right.

[keylime]

The absolute garbage that some assert as "fact" is nonsense.

If it wasn't for President Bush, the US would have become another battlefield for world supremacy between the West and the Islamic fanacticals. Instead, we have quite rightly taken the fight to them. It's simple an extension of the Monroe Doctrine that President Bush is exercising, and for that I am grateful.

The 2006 election is going to boil down to not what the Republican Party can do in terms of repairing their image, but how willing the American people are able to forget that 9/11 happened with mostly Saudi Arabian nationals as the attackers, and how tolerant they will be of the Democratic Party's steady move leftward towards an anti-war policy.

History is about to repeat itself, and it's not going to be good for the Democrats. We're about to experience the 21st century form of McGovernism. Americans for the most are not going to vote for a party that is so disorganized and polarized. Furthermore, Americans like winners - and the Democrats haven't been that since 1994. That's when the gradual change back to conservatism began. Lastly, the Democrats frankly can not win the 2008 election unless a candidate like Joe Lieberman, a style of liberal civility, returns to the party. Tell me what platform they can offer when Bush has lower taxes, protected the country, and even through the gross and deliberate misleading the media has projected upon him, has HIGHER satisfaction ratings than Congress?

The foiled plot was a collective effort on the part of many parties. I commend the CIA, MI-5, and the Pakistan authorities.

Lastly, I am very pleased to hear that Israel is going to push to the Litani River and then encircle the militant strongholds. My hope is that my beloved friends in the IDF are safe as they do the work that is required of them to enforce a winning solution.

Free Israel, win peace!!

[joshs]

pclayton, on Aug 10 2006, 11:12 PM, said:

I'm a little cynical myself, but I think I'll let the whole mess sort itself out before I rush to any judgement.

Midterm between elections, I don't think anyone has anything to gain by trumping up a non-event.

If I am inconvienced and can't bring shampoo on my trip to Hawaii this December, I guess I'll just have to buy 45 SPF when I get there

The bigger isues are:
I am not sure I will take any long flights if I can't bring a bottle of water along. I tend to get very dehydrated and sick.
Part of my wedding present to a friend is a great bottle of wineI just bought which I was bringing to their wedding next week. So I now have a choice between not bringing it, or putting it in stored luggage and risk it breaks. I will have to bring a second piece of luggage since I am unwilling to have it break and ruin my suit....

I think this no liquid thing is going way too far....

[Gerben42]

And it's not like someone couldn't have figured out before someone might possibly try this. But without some "news" they would have no chance imposing these "security measures".

It's going to be Nineteen Eighty Four before you know it...

[mike777]

helene_t, on Aug 11 2006, 06:46 AM, said:

I agree with Gerben. This kind of hysteric reactions are just what the terrorists are aiming at.

I see Europe has imposed a more drastic reaction than America. No electronic devices at all are allowed as carry ons for the near future? I understand this is all of Europe not just Britain and includes planes that stopover between USA and Asia/Africa destinations.

Add on top of this that in Britain all the police need is a suspicion to search which is a lower standard than in America.

[jtfanclub]

keylime, on Aug 11 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

It's simple an extension of the Monroe Doctrine that President Bush is exercising, and for that I am grateful.

Um, the Monroe Doctrine says the United States, and only the United States, can interfere with the internal workings with countries in Central and South America. Extending it means what, exactly? That the United States and only the United States should be allowed to interfere with the Middle East?

[kenberg]

Gerben42, on Aug 10 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

It seems to me that if we make the security checks even stricter than they are now the terrorists are winning.

I think this argument should be given early retirement. The terrorists may indeed be winning, but winning does not consist of forcing us to adopt inconvenient security measures. One might as well say that the axis powers won World War II because they forced us to adopt rationing of gas and meat, forced Detroit to convert automotive production to tank production, and kept kids such as myself from buying an honest stick of gum. (I still can recall being in the back seat of a car c.1947 and being given my first stick of real gum.) Real winning and losing, as opposed to the metaphorical sort appearing in arguments, is a very serious business. Personally I don't care that much which party the next president belongs to. ( I generally vote Democratic. I prefer that the corporations not own everything.) I don't wake up in the morning worried about whether homosexuals can or cannot get married (I prefer that they can but I understand arguments to the contrary). I hope instead for a forcefull and effective response to the terrorist threat. It's not my only issue, but it's a big one.

[barmar]

joshs, on Aug 11 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

I am not sure I will take any long flights if I can't bring a bottle of water along. I tend to get very dehydrated and sick.

They're not going to stop serving beverages on flights. Why do you have to bring your own?

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Aug 11 2006, 08:51 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Aug 10 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

It seems to me that if we make the security checks even stricter than they are now the terrorists are winning.

I think this argument should be given early retirement. The terrorists may indeed be winning, but winning does not consist of forcing us to adopt inconvenient security measures. One might as well say that the axis powers won World War II because they forced us to adopt rationing of gas and meat, forced Detroit to convert automotive production to tank production, and kept kids such as myself from buying an honest stick of gum.

This argument shows why it's a false analogy to call the campaign against terrorism "war".

In a war, the two parties are fighting about something, such as the control over a disputed land area. Both parties want to win that control with as few losses as possible. One strategy may be to target civil buildings of the enemy in order to indirectly target it's warfare capacity or to demoralize the public opinion in the enemy country (this might or might not backfire, but destruction of the enemy's civilians is not a goal per se. It does not encourage the enemy if you stop the production of chewing gum as long as this step does not indirectly reduce your warfare capacity.

Unlike an army, a terrorist group's financial and recruitement basis is extremely elastic and is strongly related to their succes in achieving media attention and creating hostility between ethinic groups.

[pbleighton]

I think not being allowed to bring toothpaste, etc. in my carry-on is ridiculous. I travel a LOT (for my sins in a past life, which must have been glorious indeed), and I very much resent having to check my bag. This is much worse than having to take off my shoes, as it adds 45 minutes to an hour instead of a minute to my flight time (as it did yesterday).

I don't feel one bit more secure for this nonsense, and a WHOLE lot more pissed off.

Peter

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on Aug 11 2006, 01:04 AM, said:

I've had a number of thoughts about this whole affair:

1. I'd really like a better idea just how "serious" this threat actually was. I very much believe that its possible to take down a 747 using some form of liquid explosives. Its unclear to me whether the individuals that we're arrest necessarily had the technical and organizational savy to carry out this type of attack. As sad as it may be, I've become extremely cynical about these sorts of announcements. For the most part, I think that they're more propaganda jobs by the American government than anything else. I have a bit mroe respect for the British, but even so...

Interesting post at Andrew Sullivan's web site

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/t...k_terror_p.html

[mikeh]

keylime, on Aug 11 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

The absolute garbage that some assert as "fact" is nonsense.

If it wasn't for President Bush, the US would have become another battlefield for world supremacy between the West and the Islamic fanacticals. Instead, we have quite rightly taken the fight to them. It's simple an extension of the Monroe Doctrine that President Bush is exercising, and for that I am grateful.

The 2006 election is going to boil down to not what the Republican Party can do in terms of repairing their image, but how willing the American people are able to forget that 9/11 happened with mostly Saudi Arabian nationals as the attackers, and how tolerant they will be of the Democratic Party's steady move leftward towards an anti-war policy.

History is about to repeat itself, and it's not going to be good for the Democrats. We're about to experience the 21st century form of McGovernism. Americans for the most are not going to vote for a party that is so disorganized and polarized. Furthermore, Americans like winners - and the Democrats haven't been that since 1994. That's when the gradual change back to conservatism began. Lastly, the Democrats frankly can not win the 2008 election unless a candidate like Joe Lieberman, a style of liberal civility, returns to the party. Tell me what platform they can offer when Bush has lower taxes, protected the country, and even through the gross and deliberate misleading the media has projected upon him, has HIGHER satisfaction ratings than Congress?

The foiled plot was a collective effort on the part of many parties. I commend the CIA, MI-5, and the Pakistan authorities.

Lastly, I am very pleased to hear that Israel is going to push to the Litani River and then encircle the militant strongholds. My hope is that my beloved friends in the IDF are safe as they do the work that is required of them to enforce a winning solution.

Free Israel, win peace!!

I like your first sentence: it is such an apt description of what follows

I listened, the other day, to an interview on an American public radio station. The interviewee, whose name I missed, spoke about how the American political right has become so successful and why the Democrats have struggled and may continue to struggle.

His thesis is that the main problem for Democrats is that too many of them believe that voters are rational: that if the Democrats can show that the Republican platform is fundamentally flawed or unfair, then the voters will, being rational, vote against the republicans.

He said that this was an error: humans think in terms of 'frames' and 'analogies'.

Thus any Democrat advocating the withdrawal from Iraq is confronted by accusations that to do so would be 'to cut and run': a phrase that caries with it a notion of cowardice. No one is going to want to vote to act in a cowardly fashion, least of all Americans who are brainwashed since kindergarten into an incredibly patriotic, macho self-image.

He suggested that the Democrats should counter this frame by stating that 'we have won the war in Iraq'... we are now 'occupying Iraq', not conducting a war.

In a similar vein, don't buy in to the 'war on terror'. It is NOT a war, any more than the 'war on drugs' is a war, or the 'war on poverty' (which is no longer a vote-winner despite the existence of a permanent underclass of in excess of 30,000,000 people in the US) was a war.

You don't fight terrorists with army divisions, except when the terrorists have become interwoven with the fabric of another state... such as Afghanistan. You fight terrorists with the tools you use against organized crime... which is precisely what terrorism is... a group of people committed to conducting unlawful acts in concert.. only the motivation is different.

Use surveillance, use infiltration, track and intercept the money flow, obtain warrants and intercept mail or email or phone calls, and so on... exactly what our goverments are doing.

The invasion of Iraq may have had many motives, but it was never properly a counter-terrorist operation, as Bush and his controllers have acknowledged when pressed. The WMD issue was not a terrorist issue: it was a fear (whether legitimate or convenient, is irrelevant) that a state might use that technology on its neighbours, either in actuality or as a threat.

If the Democrats lose again, as they might, it will be because far too many Americans prefer to believe than to think... it is so much easier to do as one is told.... and the cynical use of terror alert levels prior to the 2004 election is a good reason to wonder just how real the latest threat was.... it may well be more of the same mind-control exercise the Bush administration has as perhaps its only real historical claim to success.


BTW, claiming that Bush's tax cuts are a good idea is a classic example of buying into a frame. Almost NO reputable economists think that the tax cuts are sustainable or that they have created any true wealth. What everyone agrees upon is that they have effected a truly enormous redistribution of wealth: from the middle class and even from the already destitute underclass to the upper 5-10% of the population. The wealthy, especially those who earned their wealth, did so as a direct result of the infrastructure in the country... and the wealthy use far more of that infrastructure than do the poor (think who uses the justice system... the vast, vast majority of civil lawsuits are between businesses, even tho it is the tort and criminal cases that get reported). Thus the wealthy should pay far more tax... they are merely repaying the country. But republicans frame tax as the government confiscating hard-earned money, so 'everybody' wants lower taxes even when it is irrational to do so.

Finally, does anyone really believe that a Democratic President would not have invaded Afghanistan????? Heck, Clinton was a prime mover against Serbia, and that dispute had no direct impact on the US.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Aug 16 2006, 07:37 PM, said:

keylime, on Aug 11 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

The absolute garbage that some assert as "fact" is nonsense. ~~snip~~

I like your first sentence: it is such an apt description of what follows

let's examine what he said, cause i'm interested in which parts you find nonsensical

Quote

If it wasn't for President Bush, the US would have become another battlefield for world supremacy between the West and the Islamic fanacticals. Instead, we have quite rightly taken the fight to them.

aside from the "if it wasn't for president bush" part (since i'm not totally convinced just who's running the show), do you disagree with the "fight them there or fight them here" concept? if so, why?

Quote

The 2006 election is going to boil down to not what the Republican Party can do in terms of repairing their image, but how willing the American people are able to forget that 9/11 happened with mostly Saudi Arabian nationals as the attackers, and how tolerant they will be of the Democratic Party's steady move leftward towards an anti-war policy.

which part(s) of this is nonsense?

Quote

Americans for the most are not going to vote for a party that is so disorganized and polarized. Furthermore, Americans like winners - and the Democrats haven't been that since 1994. That's when the gradual change back to conservatism began. Lastly, the Democrats frankly can not win the 2008 election unless a candidate like Joe Lieberman, a style of liberal civility, returns to the party. Tell me what platform they can offer when Bush has lower taxes, protected the country, and even through the gross and deliberate misleading the media has projected upon him, has HIGHER satisfaction ratings than Congress?

i personally would have gladly voted for joe liberman (i'd do so today, if i could)... but that aside, is all of the above nonsense or just part of it?

maybe there are some errors in analysis... maybe there aren't...

[mike777]

We can all disagree on how best to fight the war, but if we cannot even agree on the term war and all it means to the average man and woman on the street we are losing.

If you think this is just some police action we are all in trouble.

If the best the Democrats can come up with is that the American public is too stupid/lazy/etc to understand nuisance we are all poorer for that. We need the best and the brightest from both parties to get a handle on this issue.

I do agree that the Republicans frame the tax debate as confiscation but they also learn to come up with new taxes and ways to spend it. It is just that the Democrats do an even better job of it.

To be fair we do vote these guys and gals in so.......

It does seem to be a race between Alaskan Reps and Hawaii Dems on who can bring home more pork. I guess with the Reps in power they are winning.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Aug 16 2006, 08:21 PM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 16 2006, 07:37 PM, said:

keylime, on Aug 11 2006, 12:10 PM, said:

The absolute garbage that some assert as "fact" is nonsense. ~~snip~~

I like your first sentence: it is such an apt description of what follows

let's examine what he said, cause i'm interested in which parts you find nonsensical

Quote

If it wasn't for President Bush, the US would have become another battlefield for world supremacy between the West and the Islamic fanacticals. Instead, we have quite rightly taken the fight to them.

aside from the "if it wasn't for president bush" part (since i'm not totally convinced just who's running the show), do you disagree with the "fight them there or fight them here" concept? if so, why?

Quote

The 2006 election is going to boil down to not what the Republican Party can do in terms of repairing their image, but how willing the American people are able to forget that 9/11 happened with mostly Saudi Arabian nationals as the attackers, and how tolerant they will be of the Democratic Party's steady move leftward towards an anti-war policy.

which part(s) of this is nonsense?

Quote

Americans for the most are not going to vote for a party that is so disorganized and polarized. Furthermore, Americans like winners - and the Democrats haven't been that since 1994. That's when the gradual change back to conservatism began. Lastly, the Democrats frankly can not win the 2008 election unless a candidate like Joe Lieberman, a style of liberal civility, returns to the party. Tell me what platform they can offer when Bush has lower taxes, protected the country, and even through the gross and deliberate misleading the media has projected upon him, has HIGHER satisfaction ratings than Congress?

i personally would have gladly voted for joe liberman (i'd do so today, if i could)... but that aside, is all of the above nonsense or just part of it?

maybe there are some errors in analysis... maybe there aren't...

1. the nonsense is the bald assertion that only George Dubba saved the USA from having to fight Islamic terrorists on its soil..... that is complete and utter nonsense.

I have no trouble with the US led invasion of Afghanistan: the taliban were sheltering and assisting an organization that had committed a horrendous crime... and, as such, the Taliban in essence committed an act of war against the US.

But calling the assertion that George Dubba is the saviour of the Western world 'nonsense' is an underbid.


2. What does the remembrance of 9/11, and the identity of the terrorists, have to do with who should win the election? Afghanistan is a non-issue according to the polling reports I have seen, and, contrary to what an astounding number of Americans seem to believe, the 'war in Iraq' had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Now, the Afghan situation ought to be an issue, because the current state of Afghanistan shows what happens when an invader pulls out without carrrying through with promises to help build a nation. Thus, it ought to be a lesson to Democrats that the US should stay in Iraq and it ought to be a lesson to Republicans that Iraq is more then an opportunity for Haliburton and numerous private contractors (some of whom are of very questionable ethical or moral calibre) to get rich. But the American public (as is the Canadian public... I am not anti-American in this, it seems to be a universal trait in western society) has a very short attention span, so Afghanistan is an non-issue.

No, according to what I have read and heard, the issues are the price of gas, the cost of health care, the 'immigration problem' and the war in Irag.

The immigration problem is another classic example of the power of the 'frame'. Illegal immigration is an issue for one reason and one alone: the habit of American emploers hiring illegal immigrants. Prosecute the employers, and they will stop hiring, and the jobs for which the immigrants come into the country disappear. Not only would fewer immigrants come (why bother?) but many of those here now might well go back home.

9/11 has nothing to do with the price of gas, altho the unrelated war in Iraq does.

Health care is a farce... other civilized countries have great health care systems, in terms of universality, at reasonable costs, but the US way is to sacrifice the health of the undeserving poor (if they weren't undeserving, they'd have trust funds like so many of the top 5% of the population) on the altar of 'free enterprise'.

So to say that the election is related to 9/11 is absurd... the only relationship between 9/11 and the 'top issues' lies in the mind of republican propagandists and their victims.


3. It may well be true that the Democrats will self-destruct: a number of respected commentators have made that very point. The nonsense lies in assertion that Bush has 'protected' the country.

While the opinions of foreigners counts for very little in the US, it surely ought to mean something even to the most insular, parochial American that a country so closely linked to the US as Canada voted, in an opinion poll, that Bush represented a more serious threat to world peace than did bin Laden.

Bush, and his cohorts, have arguably increased the number of people who hate the US by the greatest margin in the history of the country.

That represents 'protection'? Well, America is famous for the protection rackets that used to and maybe still do form a significant part of gang revenues, so maybe the use of the word 'protect' is more appropriate than it seemed.

And to assert that the media has distorted matters... if it weren't so serious for the rest of the world, I'd laugh. I have seen and read the treatment afforded Bush by Newsweek and Time: the articles read as if written by White House staffers.

So, while the analysis of why the Democrats may lose has merit, the slavish adoration of the most inept and dangerous president your great country has ever elected that I see reflected in the post is truly nonsensical... at least that's the way it appears to a fellow North American.

Let me add, that as a Canadian, my 'right' to comment on Ameican politics is miminal at best... but the truth is that what happens in the US impacts the rest of the world (and Canada in particular) to an extent probably unimaginable to an American. What happens in Canada is the next thing to inconsequential to most Americans: the converse is not true for us... nor for, shall we say, Iraqis?

[mike777]

I can understand non Americans being confused by our politics. We are confused by it.

In general our elections are on a couple of issues.
1) Economics, the perception on who can help me...I mean me not us the most if we vote for them.
2) Abortion. This issue is often talked about indirectly rather than directly, judges, etc....This is really the most divisive issue in American politics and has been for over 30 years.
3) Now it will be security..despite the divisive issue of Iraq most people are really asking who can protect them better.....
4) It has been shown and I believe it that often the person "most liked" who will win for President and in Congress the incumbent has a huge advantage...huge..even in Conn.

My best guess right now is that the general feeling is that most Americans feel the republicans are doing a poor job and the democrats have no idea....a race to mediocrity and a close race.....

[Winstonm]

Just vote NO.