You make this too easy...
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsWe can vote for George Bush 1 or George Bush 2.
Absolutely incorrect.
Nice try.
And none of the others listed below has a chance
But you agree American's vote for them...yes?
Beats me. Do they?
Post by Count 1- Anyone voting for them is
Post by clark wilkinsexecuting a protest vote only. Any American who wants to have his vote
count
Post by clark wilkinsfor anything has a choice - vote for Bush 1 or vote for Bush 2.
Which is exactly what I said.
Noooo....what you 'exactly said' is preserved above.
"We can vote for Bush 1 or we can vote for Bush 2."
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsNeither candidate has anything to offer America.
So what do they have to offer America?
1) Lower Social Security
2) No end to the war
3) Increased taxes
I love taking apart your posts - they're so much fun.
Really?
Then you should try it sometime.
Post by Count 1Above your write they
offer nothing, then you list three things they offer.
In case you didn't notice - Those are negatives.
/;^)
Post by Count 1I haven't even had to access their platforms yet, check out their promises,
and already I've been able to make you look like a complete tool.
Check the mirror.
I accessed their platforms on Social Security and posted them.
As usual, you snipped them out - Which is the usual thing you do when you've
lost an argument and don't want others to know it.
Oh! And then you call me an "anti-Semite."
As your selective "snipping" pattern has already begun, I'm sure we won't
have to wait long for your "anti-Semite" charge - your next admission of
defeat.
We'll watch for it.
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by J u n oAmericans
need a more vigorous debate.
Which is a guarantee that won't happen.
The need for a vigourous debate is the gurantee that a vigorous debate
won't
Post by Count 1happen? What an incredibly bizarre statement.
Neither Bush nor Kerry want it. A genuine debate would include Social
Security, troop replacement, war goals, funding for the war, the
Palestinian question, and Israel's settlements. Neither candidate wants to
address these issues with more than a one sentence answer.
How does this address the bizarrely stupid statement you made about what
gurantees a debate won't happen?
Well -if you would think first and type second you would see that I listed
the key elements currently facing the next Administration and which must be
faced and cannot be put off until 2008. Neither candidate can get around
them and therefore a "vigorous debate" should follow on those problems.
However, neither candidate has addressed the issue - And neither will -
because you can't fund the war and Social Security without a tax increase.
Neither candidate will admit that this solution must be implemented. Each
candidate will simply give a "sound byte" answer. Kerry will say that he
plans to "improve the economy" to generate more SS funds. That won't work:
QUOTE:
Kerry, Greenspan Differ on Social Security
Sat Aug 28, 2004
By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer
SEATTLE - John Kerry (news - web sites) doesn't talk much about Social
Security (news - web sites) on the campaign trail, but he laid out some
thoughts for a voter in Everett, Wash., who doubted that the government
retirement program is really in trouble.
"We've made little fixes, little jots and jags here and there, that have
been able to change it," the Democratic presidential candidate said, noting
that Social Security has survived 20 years of predictions that its demise is
around the corner.
Those words of reassurance struck a much different tone than the warning
issued by Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news -
web sites) earlier Friday when he said that, even under the most rosy
economic assumptions, the government has promised more Social Security
benefits than it can deliver to retiring baby boomers.
"If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful," Greenspan said
in Jackson, Wyo., at a Federal Reserve conference on the challenges posed by
an aging population...
Kerry said Friday that the best way to ensure Social Security's future is
with policies that bolster the economy and raise workers' wages, letting
them contribute more to the program.
"I guarantee you, the first best thing to do to protect Social Security is
to put America back to work in jobs that pay more," he said.
MacGuineas said she disagrees with Kerry's assessment that a few minor
changes here and there will keep the system afloat, and his position that a
stronger economy can solve Social Security's problems.
"Those are pretty darn large tweaks we're talking about," she said, adding
that economic growth alone won't bolster the program because workers'
benefits increase as their wages rise, increasing the future obligations of
the system.
A number of government studies have come to the conclusion that the baby
boom wave will force the government to cut benefits, raise taxes or push
back the retirement age to preserve the benefits.
Kerry ruled many of those options out.
"I will never privatize Social Security. I will not cut Social Security
benefits. And I will not raise the retirement age," he said.
UNQUOTE.
But Kerry's "fix" won't work. Social Security is funded by a percentage of
labor compensation and benefits paid out equal taxes taken in. Improving the
economy may increase payments going in, but it also increases payments going
out.
Bush's idea, "privatizing" Social Security, won't work either. In order
for Social Security to invest in private business, Social Security must have
surplus funds - And George has used that to fund the war. He has no Social
Security funds to invest. He's already spent almost 100% of the money - And
he needs the balance to fund the war.
Thus, neither candidate has a viable solution for the pending Social
Security crisis which Greenspan has already announced is about to occur. And
neither candidate will critisize the other candidate's proposal since it
means having to also defend their own. The obvious solution of using the
money we're spending on a war we've already lost anyway to fund Social
Security will go unmentioned by both candidates because both candidate's
want to fight the war even though there are no victory conditions laid out
by either party. The only way they can fight the war on our present level of
taxation, is to continue to loot Social Security. Kerry has made it a point
to show that Bush has been looting it:
http://www.democrats.org/ssm/bushrecord_ss.html
Yet both candidate's plan to loot it and not fix it. Therefore, don't expect
it to become a debate issue of any meaningful duration.
It's the same way on the other issues. Neither wants the public to know
where they stand. Example: Where does Bush stand on the Israeli settlements?
Where does Kerry?
Post by Count 1BTW - I look forward to reminding you of
these words post debates, where I'm certain Social Security, War goals will
be discussed.
Four of the five isues I mentioned above (Social Security, Israel, troop
replacements, and taxes) will get the lip service I described. Each one will
give his sound byte answer and no one will point out the flaws. As for war
goals - Yes - they'll argue back and forth. Kerry's goal is to get the UN
to participate in the occupation while Bush is currently out of solutions.
So Kerry will be on the offensive and Bush on the defensive. So an obvious
exchange will take place. However, that exchange will not define when the
"mission has been accomplished" and our boys can come home. When the debate
is over no one listening will know whether our boys can be expected to be
home in four years or twenty-five - or how the occupation will be paid for.
IMO, that's deliberate. The failure to have a third party, such as Nader,
who can point out the fallacies of the other two sides that are just licking
each others bootheels, is only to Bush's and Kerry's benefit.
I predict neither one will commit himself on the conditions for leaving
Iraq, which one would expect to be a "war goal" (i.e. winning). Bush will
say that we'll leave "When we're asked to leave" but he's on safe ground
because no one's going to ask him to leave with the Baathists and al Sadr
still armed, especially when he has set up the system which selects Iraq's
candidates. On September 10, 2004 National Public Radio reported that the
Iraqi exiles are most likely to win the January election. Now what Iraqi
exile, if he wins the election, would ever ask US troops to leave when we
put him in power in the first place?
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3912372
As for Kerry, he now says he'll pull US troops out of Iraq after four years.
By "coincidence", that's his entire term in office. They can still be there,
on the 2008 election and he'll have kept his promise. Also, by coincidence,
he was behind in the polls at the time he made that promise. So Kerry only
talks about bringing troops back when he's desperate for votes - or
otherwise they'd stay.
No - neither one wants to bring our boys home. They can die over there in
the sand for all they care. So there's nothing for the two of them to debate
except how they each plan to lose the war. On that, I'm sure they'll have
differing strategies.
Post by Count 1I hope israel and the 'Palestinian question' aren't
discussed, as they aren't relevant, but they will probably recieve cursory
words of acknowledgement anyway.
I'm sure they won't be discussed or, if they are, they'll each give the same
answer.
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsI would say a debate that doesn't cover these issues is not very vigorous.
Or is a one sentence response to the above, in your world, a "vigorous
debate"?
I'm still looking for the 'gurantee' that it won't happen. And if you
recall correctly, the issue of 'vigorous debate was centered around the
participants, not the issues.
The participants will vigorously debate issues of no concern - such a "gay
marriages". If the isue is relevant. it will go ignored. You, youself, have
already admitted doubt that Israel and Palestinians will be a debate issue
and yet Sharon is already drawing the new borders now. In three years time,
either Bush or Kerry will putting final approval on it - and without ever
telling us what that plan is today.
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsHe would mention Israel, Bush's boss, and Kerry's source of campaign
funds -
Post by clark wilkinsso he can't be invited as he would expose the other two candidates as
foreign agents.
*Or* the people who decide who participates in the debates have simply
decided that Nader doesn't have the support to be relevant.
A good excuse but it still doesn't change the fact that Ralph Nader
would
Post by Count 1be
Post by clark wilkinsfree to point out the other two candidates are full of shit, by telling
the
Post by clark wilkinstruth - something Kerry, and certainly Bush, aren't very good at.
'The Truth' is Bush's boss is the American public and the constitution.
Wrong again. George Bush does not serve the American public. Her serves the
Republican Party (But his Pentagon advisors do not.). And his boss is not
the Constitution. The Constitution says that only Congress has the power to
declare war - Yet Bush declared it and not Congress.
Post by Count 1Not
Israel like your anti semitic fantasies lead you to.
Ahhh! Yes!
There it is! Your accusation of "anti-Semitism" that you always resort to
(along with snipping) when you're losing a debate.
/;^)
Post by Count 1And either candidates
source of campaign funds probably doesn't allow anyone - including Nader -
to conclude these people are foriegn agents.
AIPAC takes its instructions from Israel. It's no secret. Therefore, AIPAC
is a foreign agent.
Now just what should we conclude if an American politician accepts funds
from AIPAC or one of its subsidiary PAC's?
If they haven't bought his vote then they wasted their money. If they wasted
their money then they shouldn't give that same candidate money in the next
election. But if they give him money again, it means they didn't waste their
money - And that means they bought his vote the first time around.
We can trace which candidates have received repeat funding and identify
exactly who has been bought - and the price of their purchase.
Shall we?
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsNot having him present silences the voice of dissent.
In free countries nothing silents dissent. However just because someone has
a different opinion doesn't automatically qualify them to be part of any
debate in any forum.
I never said Nader had a right to be there. I simply said he wouldn't be
invited.
I'm glad to see you agree with me.
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by J u n oHe offers a different
perspective on the pressing issues of the day.
He's the only pro-America candidate.
Ironic then that so many American's will reject him.
I guess he needs to take AIPAC's money so he can get the word out.
Oh! But wait! They won't give him money if he did that, would they?
Not to worry - I hear several Arab groups are doing pretty well. Oh, wait!
The amount of money is irrelevant if the ideas being communicated *suck*.
Nader's idea that US "puppet" politicians shouldn't accept donations from
foreign countries "sucks"? Can China make donations to Canadian politicians?
Or was it his noticing that House Resolution 460 in Congress signed by 407
members of the House to support Ariel Sharon's proposal omitted any
reference to a viable Palestinian state, that "sucks"?
Post by Count 1(You can drop the Chomsky-esque "Manufacturing Consent" rhetoric now, its
tired and boring.)
Please provide a link to a foreign Arab lobby funding Nader's campaign. I
can't seem to find one. He's an Arab. It should be easy to find.
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by J u n oHis participation will
invigorate the dialogue.
i.e. expose the other two frauds who, by themselves, will not expose
each
Post by Count 1Because there is nothing to 'expose' America's vociferous and motivated
media hasn't already taken a shot at.
Bush and Kerry will keep the debate away from their weak areas, which is
virtually every issue of importance.
Bush and Kerry will try to keep their opponents 'weak areas' front and
center. This is the nature of 'competition'.
Bush is weak because he lied to America to get us in the war. Has Kerry
taken that issue "front and center"?
Bush is weak because he is bankrupting Social Security. Has Kerry made that
an issue "front and center"?
Bush is weak because he is losing the war - Yet Kerry ran against Howard
Dean on a pro war platform.
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsSo? What important issue do you think the two will debate?
Gas mileage on SUV's?
The constitutional right to Cherry sno-cones.
Probably a better chance of hearing that then a debate on how to end the
war.
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsBut neither the Democrats or the Republicans want an honest debate.
The
Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsDemocrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC and the Republicans
are
Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1run
And in that passage you succinctly make the transition from
'Anti-Israel'
Post by clark wilkinsto
Post by Count 1'Anti-semitism'. Criticizing Israeli lobbying groups by relying on anti
semitic stereotypes.
Wrong again.
Where is the "anti-Israel" statement that I succinctly transitioned from?
And where is the "anti-Semitic" statement that I transitioned to?
"The Democrats have been bought and paid for by AIPAC..." AIPAC is a lobby
group for Israel
I'm glad to see you admit that. You are now defenseless.
AIPAC is a lobby group for Israel and it is the second largest donor to
Congress.
What do they get for their bribe money?
For spending approximately $ 3 million per election on Congress, AIPAC has
arranged for Israel to receive between $ 83 billion and $ 134 billion in US
aid between 1948-1998.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
What else did they get?
Oh! They got Tom Daschle, of whom AIPAC paid 25% of his first term election
campaign costs.
Other big names on AIPAC's Congressional payroll include Trent Lott, Joseph
Biden, Christopher Bond, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Susan Collins,
Dianne Feinstein, Charles Grassley, Tom Harkin, Dennis Hastert, James
Jeffords, Trent Lott, Nita Lowey, Mitch McConnell, Patty Murray, Charles
Schumer, and Paul Wellstone. In fact, AIPAC has donated to 205 members of
Congress.
For their estmated $3 million spent every four years on Congress, Israel is
currently receiving $ 3 billion dollars in aid annually, or roughly a $
4,000 return for every dollar paid out in campaign donations/bribes.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/5/massing-m.html
Everyone should read the above link.
Post by Count 1and your allusion to them 'buying democrats' relies on age
old stereotypes of jews using their wealth to manipulate elections.
Here's an article on that very subject from the respectable Wall Street
Journal:
Linked Donations?
Political Contributions From Pro-Israel PACs Suggest Coordination
Groups' Leadership Overlaps With That of AIPAC, A Lobbying Organization
It Denies a Linkup in Giving
By JOHN J. FIALKA staff reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
WASHINGTON -- When Idaho Senate candidate John V. Evans decided he needed to
raise big out-of-state money for his race last year, he went to the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, one of Washington's most powerful
lobbying organizations. Despite the initials in its name, "AIPAC emphasized
constantly that they were not a PAC (political action committee)," which
gives money to candidates, says Mr. Evans, a Democrat and former governor.
"But they noted that there were Jewish organizations all over the country
that had their own PACs and that if we would contact them, they would be
able to help us."
Indeed, AIPAC did much better than an ordinary PAC could do for Mr. Evans.
By federal law, a PAC is limited to a maximum contribution of $5,000 per
race, and groups that coordinate their spending are counted as one PAC under
this limit. But AIPAC steered Mr. Evans to a series of supposedly
independent organizations-- many of them run by people with ties to AIPAC-
that gave him $204,950 for his losing race against Republican Sen. Steve
Symms.
According to a computer-aided analysis of 1986 Federal Election Commission
reports, despite AIPAC's claims of non-involvement in political spending, no
fewer than 51 pro-Israel PACs-most of which draw money from Jewish donors
and operate under obscure- sounding names-are operated by AIPAC officials or
people who hold seats on AIPAC's two major policymaking bodies. The study
shows that 80 pro-Israel PACs spent more than $6.9 million during the 1986
campaigns, making them the nation's biggest-giving, narrow issue interest
group.
The analysis shows that three of seven "regional chairpersons" a AIPAC
direct PACs and 26 more PAC chairmen or treasurers sit on AIPAC's 131-member
executive committee, which meets four times a year and sets overall lobbying
strategy. Twenty-two more PAC leaders hold seats on a second, advisory body,
the 200-member national council.
Similar Spending Patterns
While the pro-Israel PACs represent diverse and supposedly bipartisan Jewish
communities in almost every major city and region in the country, their
spending patterns are remarkably similar. For example, of $3.9 million given
directly to candidates, the pro-Israel PACs focused their power on three
Senate races, spending $642,000 on Democrats in South Dakota, Idaho and
California. In these races, only one $5,000 donation went to a Republican.
AIPAC leaders, including its executive director, Thomas A. Dine, refused
repeated requests for interviews on the group's relationship with the
pro-Israel PACs. Reading from a prepared statement, an AIPAC spokeswoman
says the group "denies most forcefully that any such (spending) coordination
occurs," and insists that the interlock with pro-Israel PAC leaders "is a
function of the nature of political activism and in no way connotes
affiliation or connection."
But the overlaps between the organization and the pro-Israel PACs begin at
the top. For instance, the Los Angeles-based Citizens Organized Political
Action Committee was founded by the wife of AIPAC's chairman, Lawrence J.
Weinberg. And Citizens Concerned for the National Interest, located in
Chicago, was started by Robert H. Asher, AIPAC's president. Neither could be
reached for comment.
* * *
The race that experienced the biggest influx of pro-Israel PAC money was the
Senate race in South Dakota, where Democratic Rep. Thomas Daschle's
successful campaign received $229,480. The PACs and people associated with
them spent another $91,000 to help the state's Democratic Party finance an
unprecedentedly lavish get- out-the-vote drive, including computerized voter
lists, statewide phone banks and paid operatives who scoured remote Indian
reservations for Democrats needing a ride to the polls.
The effort on behalf of Mr. Daschle infuriated Stanford M. Adelstein, a
Rapid City developer, a former AIPAC executive committee member-and a
Republican. "I'm angry. I really, in a sense, gave up on AIPAC," says Mr.
Adelstein, who estimates that half of the state's 150 Jewish families are
Republican.
Mr. Adelstein says he went to great lengths to get Jewish contributors to
listen to incumbent GOP Sen. James Abdnor, and he helped arrange the
senator's mid-campaign trip to Israel, where Mr. Abdnor promised to soften
his long-held stand against all foreign aid. But Mr. Abdnor was unsuccessful
in stemming the flow of funds to his opponent.
Mr. Abdnor wasn't the only target of pro-Israel money to visit Israel last
year. Mr. Zschau and Sen. Symms also made trips there and had warm praise
for Israeli leaders and their prospects for future U.S. aid. The pro-Israel
PAC money, however, went almost unanimously against them.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:GnABIkQtvmAJ:home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-08.htm+Democrats+AIPAC+donations&hl=en
I guess the Wall Street Journal believes in that 'buying democrats' relies
on age old stereotypes of jews using their wealth to manipulate elections."
And the Wall Street Journal noticed this too:
Anti-Zionist's Candidacy Was Helped By Jewish Contributors in California
By JOHN J. FIALKA
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
LOS ANGELES-Edward B. Vallens, a 67-year-old retired contractor, is an
avowed anti-Zionist. Just how he wound up with $120,000--much of it from
Jewish contributors-to stage a television blitz in the final hours of the
1986 California Senate race still bothers him.
The $120,000 might seem like a small amount in a race that consumed $24
million and is believed to be the most expensive Senate race in history. But
it is part of a larger story that might have affected the outcome of the
close, bitter race between Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston and his
unsuccessful GOP challenger, then-Rep. Edwin Zschau.
A key figure in the story appears to be Michael Goland, a Los Angeles
developer who is one of the largest donors to the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee and who has been active in opposing candidates he views as
being unfriendly to Israel. He recently agreed to pay a $5,000 fine for his
role in running television commercials attacking former GOP Sen. Charles
Percy of Illinois in Mr. Percy's losing 1984 race; the commercials were
illegal because the source of the financing wasn't disclosed.
Mr. Goland, who couldn't be reached for comment, surfaced in the California
race at a May 1986 reception for Mr. Zschau held by Jewish supporters in Los
Angeles's San Fernando Valley. According to the accounts of both Mr. Zschau
and campaign manager Ron Smith, he confronted the candidate and, in Mr.
Smith's words, "said, 'I'm going to get you just like I got Percy.' "
A few weeks later, Mark Barnes, the operator of a Los Angeles political
consulting firm, was approached to produce and buy time for a television ad
for Mr. Vallens, the Senate candidate of the American Independent Party. Mr.
Barnes says he can't divulge who his clients were. About that time,
Libertarian Party candidate Rreck McKinley says he received a call from Mr.
Barnes, who said he represented some potential contributors. Mr. McKinley
says that when he pressed for more information, Mr. Barnes said he was
working on behalf of Mr. Goland. Mr. Barnes confirms that he called Mr.
McKinley but denies mentioning Mr. Goland's name. Mr. McKinley says he
rejected the offer.
Mr. Vallens says that in mid-October, as his campaign struggled along with a
few thousand dollars, he received a call from Mr. Barnes promising $120,000
from "very conservative Republicans who don't want Zschau in there." Mr.
Vallens was told to go to a Los Angeles television studio, where he made
commercials asserting that he, and not Mr. Zschau, was the only real
conservative in the race.
The commercials ran at least 60 times on Los Angeles and San Diego stations
in the final hours before the election. Mr. Vallens, hitherto a political
unknown, got 109,856 votes. Mr. Smith claims the ads siphoned off Zschau
votes and depressed voter turnout in heavily Republican Orange County. Mr.
Zschau lost the election by 116,000 votes.
The Los Angeles Times found two of the donors worked for companies
controlled by Mr. Goland and another who lived in a house that is owned by
Mr. Goland. One $4,000 check came from Mr. and Mrs. Michael Altman. Mr.
Altman says he is a close friend of Mr. Goland's and that he is treasurer of
Young Americans Political Action Committee, a pro-Israel PAC of which Mr.
Goland is assistant treasurer.
http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-08.htm
So tell me? Would this be an example of that "old stereotypes of jews using
their wealth to manipulate elections?"
Post by Count 1You
might be able to get away with that in some groups - but here you can be
guranteed that I will hold you to a higher standard.
I see. You want to hold me to a higher standard? Let's do that. Here's a
current election campaign in Georgia in which AIPAC has an interest in who
wins "Zig Zag" Zell's vacating Senate seat.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407026.html
But you believe they're not trying to influence who wins, right?
And here we have Democrats fighting other Democrats for Jewish money:
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030117/us16.shtml
And here Kerry scrambles to AIPAC's tune:
http://www.jewishmonmouth.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=122746
He even found he had Jewish ancestors!
Here Bush goes after the Jewish campaign dollar:
http://www.peacenow.org/PNintheN/nationaljournal.html
But hey! No influence pedaling going on here, right?
Post by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsPost by Count 1Post by clark wilkinsEver hear the expresion, "Spitting into the wind"?
Ever figure out what it means?
It means what you're doing now.
It means you shouldn't engage in futile behaviour, like pretending you can
debate me. As you constantly discover, it can only end up bad for you.
/;^)
::Clark::