The Politics Of The 9-11 Dead

[archibald]

I originally posted this in another thread, but deleted it to avoid conflict in a thread that had a different intent.

As some of you know, I like politics, and understand that the game is played hard and played to win. In fact, I like it that way. That's what makes it fun.

I also make no secret of my partisanship, and I probably won't convince some of you that I've become pretty disheartened over the last couple weeks, not as a partisan (I think my party will do well in November), but as an american, at the way a line I never thought would be crossed is being crossed. Big time.

It seems to me that every institution that is intended to protect our system of government--Law Enforcement, Intelligence, the Media, Religion, and even the entertainment indusrty--is being used by those to advance the political fortunes of those in power. If I'm wrong--do me a favor: show me how the following links below don't show that the above is true. Believe me, I'd be grateful. Because if this is what it takes to win elections in the 21st century, I don't wanna go there.

Saturday, January 21, 2006; Page A01

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove offered a biting preview of the 2006 midterm elections yesterday, drawing sharp distinctions with the Democrats over the campaign against terrorism...and describing the opposition party as backward-looking and bereft of ideas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6012001853.html

Sept 8 2006

When President Bush and his top aides gathered in July to sketch out a strategy for the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, it was clear to all that they had to try to reset the clock — back to a time, before Iraq, when portraying Mr. Bush as a steely commander in chief was a far simpler task, and before Hurricane Katrina, when questions about the administration’s competence did not weigh so heavily.

From those discussions emerged the speeches Mr. Bush has delivered over the last week, the leading edge of a remarkably intensive and aggressive campaign in which he has tried...[turn]the conversation... back toward the broader war on terror.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/us/polit...ect.html?ref=us

On the same day President Bush announces that all of the masterminds of 9-11 whom we have caught will go on trial , Al Queda releases a video starring several of the men, now captured, mentioned in the president's speech.

"Al-Jazeera broadcast Thursday a previously unshown video of the preparations for the Sept. 11 attacks, in which al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden is seen meeting with some of the planners in an Afghan mountain camp.

Al-Jazeera did not say how it obtained the video, ... Islamic militant Web forums said the entire video would be posted soon on the Internet. Such advertisements in the past have come a day or two before the video appears on the Web."

The very next news cycle, a previously unknown "American Taliban" appears to describe upcoming plans by Al Quaeda.

Thursday's was the fourth in a series of long videos that al-Qaida has put out to memorialize the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, said Ben Venzke, head of IntelCenter, a private U.S. company that monitors militant message traffic and provides counterterrorism intelligence services for the American government

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=900672

While CIA officials say they have not been able to authenticate the 75-minute tape, an agency spokesman says it "appears to have been produced by al Qaeda's media organization, al Sahab productions." The tape is marked with the same logo and graphics seen on previous videos released by al Qaeda.

The man on the tape is identified only as "Azzam the American." U.S. officials say they had not previously known of the nom de guerre. His face is never fully visible and he makes no reference to where in the United States he might have lived

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206661

Back in 2005, an interesting note appeared on the website of, Christian Youth With a Mission a group founded by long time conservative activist and huge republican donor, Loren Cunningham. The institutes website described a film project they were working on as the "Untitled History Project."

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:yGNh7...lient=firefox-a

Industry publications were soon talking about a project about the 9-11 attacks

...."being filmed relatively quietly. No production announcement has been made, and it's being shot around town under the nondescript working-title "Untitled History Project."

http://jam.canoe.ca/Television/2005/07/27/...

The nature of the project was revealed via a scoop to FOX News and as the first film ever to recieve permission to film at CIA headquarters.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163964,00.html

Produced by:

UHP Productions Ltd. [ca]

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0163444/

Aired on ABC with much controversy and admitted falsehoods, aired by ABC as The Path to 9-11

And directed, as it turns out by Cunningham's son.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001491.php

and..."partly based on information from Bush administration PR official"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609070004

Today, we get previously unreleased videos.The majority of links to the most recent tapes (there actually have been two tapes released this week) can be found on conservative and RNC funded blogs.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...ly+released%22+

According to a news story, the tape was:

"was turned over by Michaels to federal prosecutors and the FBI Wednesday in a secret meeting at a midtown hotel. While she told NewsChannel 4 about the rendezvous, she declined to comment on what was discussed, as did the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office."

http://www.wnbc.com/News/1463815/detail.html

[Pugwash]

I don't get it.

[ryyannon]

I don't get it.

Heavy - but REALLY heavy political cleavages in the U.S. with BushCo and the Repub Neo-cons playing the role of Reptilian Illuminati Proto-Fascist Enslavers from Outer Space for the Democrats - who are seen as hopeless, brainless, lying Socio-Commmie MoonBat Traitors aching to don burkas and sleep with any enemy who wants to destroy American in a final, fuzzy and feel-good orgy of liberal sentiment.

Other than being vastly less entertaining, it's sort of like a flame-war thread with TTK: you pick your side (or just stand on the sidelines) with your popcorn and watch the action.....

So as not to further politicize (and polarize) this thread, I won't say which side I lean toward (neither really, since it's not a black-and-white situation - which makes me some sort of detestable middle-of-the-roader for some), except to say that yes, I would be willing to put my life on the line to defend certain principals which I consider to be non-negotiable. Have done it once, would do it again.

But like I've said above, RWG is no place to do this......

Addendum:

Can't resist posting this item, picked up from GoogleNews, typical of the current domestic (and global) political climate:

Syria Says US Behind Attack On Own Embassy

September 13, 2006 6:03 a.m. EST

Ryan R. Jones - All Headline News Middle East Correspondent

Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - Senior Syrian government official have accused the US of being behind Tuesday's assault on its own embassy in downtown Damascus.

A Baath party official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told WorldNetDaily, "We in the government are 100 percent sure America was behind this attack, which is not the same as other attacks by Islamic groups."

He explained, "Only the Americans can succeed in carrying out an attack just 200 meters from President [bashar] Assad's residence in the most heavily guarded section of Syria."

The official charged that Washington had orchestrated the attack to "prove Syria is filled with terrorists and to put us in a weak position" in order to extract political concessions. Following the attack, Bush administration officials said they hoped the incident had convinced Damascus of the dangers of Islamic terror and the need to cooperate with the West against the phenomenon.

The US and several of its European allies have repeatedly demanded over the years that Damascus close down the local offices and training camps of several organizations hostile to Israel and the West.

The identities of those who attacked the US embassy Tuesday have not been revealed. Three of the gunmen were killed by Syrian guards during the assault. A fourth was reportedly captured.

[Pugwash]

Other than being vastly less entertaining, it's sort of like a flame-war thread with TTK: you pick your side (or just stand on the sidelines) with your popcorn and watch the action.....

This much I get, but there's far too much reading off-site needed to comprehend the OP's point. I don't get what point he's trying to make.

Too much effort required.

Hey, Archie, how about one paragraph explaining the post? Elevator-Pitch it to me. 30 seconds ... go!

[Watchwatcher]

Arch,

no disrespect intended. i'd rather talk about watches.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Watchwatcher

[archibald]

@ watchwatcher: I have no problem w/ Loren, his boy, his organization, or any partisan or non-partisan group that does good for that matter. But let's face the undeniable facts: 1) The evangelical christians have chosen sides politically in America, they are extremely active in politics, and they have close ties to the bush administration. 2)As my post proves beyond any doubt, Loren funded, produced, and had his son direct The Path to 9-11. 3)The Path to 9-11 contained several scens, each of which blame Clinton for not doing his part to stop 9-11 and which, by ALL accounts (including the entire Republican membership of the 9-11 comission), were made up out of whole cloth. In fact, ABC was forced to edit and add discaimers to the film in the days before it's airing.

Clearly, The Path to 9-11 was a good bit more than a "docudrama."

@ pugwash: My basic point is this: The Bush Administration, whether you agree w/ their policies or not, has crossed a line--and IMO that line is using the deaths of my two close firends (a 6 year colleague on the plane and a three doors down neighbor in the Pentagon) to get votes. The links are intended to demonstrate how this is being done:

--2 articles outlining the strategy itself--a series of speeches and legislative initiatives during the week of the 5 year aniiversary, and a larger political strategy to remind america of the horror of 9-11 while portrating the Democrats as weak on terror.

--2 articles which describe 2 tapes, neither of which can be independly varified as having been given to the media by Bin Laden. The tapes are authentic to be sure. What strikes me as odd is the timing of their release--the first, which centers around several of the 'masterminds" whom we have captured was released hours after Bush announced that those people were going to be face trial. Unless Osama wants to give the president a hand, why would he release a tape that "stars" guys we have caught on the very day Bush's "message of the day" centers around the capture of these guys? The second, showing an "American taliban," was released on the very day the "message of the day" (comments by the president, speeches by the director of homeland security and the FBI head) was that there are terrorist cells in the US made up of American citizens.

There are only two possibilities: either the CIA knew which tapes Al Quaeda was going to release and then the administration formed their daily PR message around those tapes, or that the tapes were in our possession and released by us to support the PR message. Either way it just ain't cool. Conspiracy theory? Sure. But, in the context of the larger strategy, does anyone have a better idea? "Accident" just doesn't fly. Twice.....Nothing happens by accident in politcal PR, definitely not twice.

--a few articles which prove that the path to 9-11, which all agree is a partisan document, was produced by a partisan group allied with the Administration to be aired on september 11.

--finally, an article that shows that the latest tape, released by the justice department on 9-12, has been in their posession for some time before.

My allegation is this: That the administration is bringing all of it's resources to bear--the governemt agencies under its control as well as their usual network of supporters--to use 9-11 in general, and it's 5 year anniversary in particular, as the centerpiece of its self-described political strategy for the 2006 elections.

[Pugwash]

My allegation is this: That the administration is bringing all of it's resources to bear--the governemt agencies under its control as well as their usual network of supporters--to use 9-11 in general, and it's 5 year anniversary in particular, as the centerpiece of its self-described political strategy for the 2006 elections.

Ok, I get it now, and this isn't news. I'm surprised Bush hasn't thrown himself on a grenade to get the plubcans back in yet. He will probably do that towards the end.

Welcome to Politics. All politicians want is to remain in power at any cost, and this has been like that since the beginning of politics.

[TJGladeRaider]

Clearly, The Path to 9-11 was a good bit more than a "docudrama."

My basic point is this: The Bush Administration, whether you agree w/ their policies or not, has crossed a line--and IMO that line is using the deaths of my two close firends (a 6 year colleague on the plane and a three doors down neighbor in the Pentagon) to get votes. The links are intended to demonstrate how this is being done:

--a few articles which prove that the path to 9-11, which all agree is a partisan document, was produced by a partisan group allied with the Administration to be aired on september 11.

--finally, an article that shows that the latest tape, released by the justice department on 9-12, has been in their posession for some time before.

My allegation is this: That the administration is bringing all of it's resources to bear--the governemt agencies under its control as well as their usual network of supporters--to use 9-11 in general, and it's 5 year anniversary in particular, as the centerpiece of its self-described political strategy for the 2006 elections.

And your point is?

I don't know, and I am too busy/lazy to look, but were you equally offended when that miserable little fat fuk liberal sucker of moose appendages, Michael what's-his-name, produced his little anti-Bush docudrama that the liberals, and their friends in media, pushed as if it was the Holy Grail.

I admit that I have been alive since TV first became widely available, and I acknowledge that the use of docudrama propaganda is a new, and troubling political tool, but don't even think about playing this off as a Republican invention.

Bill

[Watchwatcher]

<<made up out of whole cloth>>

arch, unless you know what was taken out, how can you make that judgment. all we know is that Clinton successfully twisted the arm of ABC to remove things that were not consistent with the 'Clinton version' of history... and we all know how completely unbiased and reliable that is...

all i am saying is that anyone who knows loren c., also knows that he would not be associated with a movie or any other form of media, which was intentionally untruthful. as you read the bloggers whose imaginations have run wild by connecting dots and coming up with right-wind conspiracy stories, you also find that they completely discredit themselves when they take a guy like cunningham and his organization and refer to it as 'cultish' or some kind of wacko 'reconstructionist theocratic' political movement... these ridiculous remarks come from people with their own agenda... i leave you to figure out what that is....

[r11co]

And your point is?

I don't know, and I am too busy/lazy to look, but were you equally offended when that miserable little fat fuk liberal sucker of moose appendages, Michael what's-his-name, produced his little anti-Bush docudrama that the liberals, and their friends in media, pushed as if it was the Holy Grail.

I admit that I have been alive since TV first became widely available, and I acknowledge that the use of docudrama propaganda is a new, and troubling political tool, but don't even think about playing this off as a Republican invention.

The hallmark of a weak argument - two wrongs make a right...

[TJGladeRaider]

The hallmark of a weak argument - two wrongs make a right...

Hardly.

The point the original post aspired to make was obscure, causing me to address the possibilities that I see.

Should you elect to reread the original post, and my reply, I think you will see that I am making two separate, and distinctly unrelated points. In an attempt at simplicity, let me try again.

IF the issue raised is the sad, and troubling, trip down the mass-media propaganda lane, I agree that this is disturbing.

IF the issue raised is an allegation as to the deceitful nasty nature of the conservative Republican right, as evidenced by their apparent support of a sad, and troubling, trip down the mass-media propaganda lane, that boat don't float. The liberal left started this political propaganda docudrama nonsense.

Let me try to put this into a clearer perspective for you.

Let us suppose that a terrible dispute arose causing the Japanese see fit to drop an atomic weapon on a couple of major metropolitan areas somewhere in the US and someone launched into a long, desultory, rambling Philippic that seemed to be saying that the use of atomic weapons targeting cities is evil, and/or the Japanese are genetically predisposed to unthinkably evil behavior as evidenced by their inhumanity of this unconscienable act.

I might well pen a response to the effect that this sort of warfare is inherently evil, but the Asian genetic predisposition to unthinkable behavior assertion doesn't wash in light of the fact that we did it first. Unless the reader lacked the intellect of the average house plant, they could not possibly construe that to be a weak argument, or a suggestion that two wrongs make a right.

If, for some reason, that explanation leaves you confounded and confused, by all means, have another go at it.

I am here to help.

Bill

[robertrinaustin]

The hallmark of a weak argument - two wrongs make a right...

How about not an arguement, just an observation. In politics, all is fair game and you will see it this fall. Ultimately, both sides will point to the other and claim with righteous (sp?) indigantion that the can't believe they opposing party would stoop to such a low.

In my opinion, both are headed in the wrong direction.

Edited September 15, 2006 by robertrinaustin

[TJGladeRaider]

How about not an arguement, just an observation. In politics, all is fair game and you will see it this fall. Ultimately, both sides will point to the other and claim with righteous (sp?) indigantion that the can't believe they opposing party would stoop to such a low.

In my opinion, both are headed in the wrong direction.

It's a shame - just pitiful, but the truly sad thing tro me is, they are doing what works. The reason I find that so sad and troubling is that the general population are a collection of C-Student sheeple that vote according to whatever whim someone can induce.

I guess we have all read the thing that gets passed around every year, explaining what ultimately happened to the people who framed and signed out Constitution. Frankly, the fact that they died over it, or wound up losing evrything doesn't mean much to me - intelligent men with vision took a big risk and it cost them.

I could accept that if that's all there was to it. What bothers me is, those who survived the Revolution should have been OK, but the people who gained so much, evidently gave not one rat's ass for those that survived, and allowed them to die in poverty.

Anyway, I guess this rant business has no bearing on watches, but it troubles me. I'd like to think that people are fundamentally good, moral souls, but I suppose the truth is that the bulk of my human brethren are no better than I am.

Bill

[oswald]

May as well blame everything on the Illuminati, the Bilderburgers or the Rosicrucians. Bottom line is that folks that we, as Americans, trust to keep us safe were asleep at the switch and the bastards snuck in and pulled of a brilliant attack.

The f#@kers had been saying for years that they were serious and now we know...

Screw blaming someone. It's just too late for that.

Work the problem folks...

[Watchwatcher]

REMEMBERING 9/11 -

The Path to Hysteria

My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism.

BY CYRUS NOWRASTEH

Monday, September 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.

It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. No reference to Abby Mann, for instance, with whom I worked on "10,000 Black Men Named George" (whose hero is an African-American communist) or Oliver Stone, producer of "The Day Reagan Was Shot," a film I wrote and directed. Clearly, those enraged that a film would criticize the Clinton administration's antiterrorism policies--though critical of its successor as well--were willing to embrace only one scenario: The writer was a conservative hatchetman.

In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.

The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

"The Path to 9/11" was intended to remind us of the common enemy we face. Like the 9/11 Report itself, it is meant to enable us to better defend ourselves from a future attack. Past is prologue, and 9/11 is merely another step in an escalating Islamic fundamentalist reign of terror. By dramatizing the step-by-step increase in attacks on America--all of which, in fact, occurred--we are better able to see the pattern and anticipate the future. That was the point of the series, its only intention. Call it the canary in the coal mine. Call it John O'Neill in the FBI.

Despite intense political pressure to pull the film right up until airtime, Disney/ABC stood tall and refused to give in. For this--for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses--Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve every commendation. Hence the 28 million viewers over two nights, and the ratings victory Monday night (little reported by the media), are gratifying indeed.

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment.

It's good to have come to something approaching the end of this saga, whose lessons are worth remembering. It gave us, for one thing, a heartening glimpse (these things don't come along every day) of corporate backbone in the face of phenomenal pressure--and an infinitely more chilling one testifying to the power and reach of politically driven hysteria. A ripe subject for a miniseries, if ever there was one.

Mr. Nowrasteh wrote the screenplay for "The Path to 9/11."

*****

[archibald]

Hardly.

The point the original post aspired to make was obscure, causing me to address the possibilities that I see.

Should you elect to reread the original post, and my reply, I think you will see that I am making two separate, and distinctly unrelated points. In an attempt at simplicity, let me try again.

IF the issue raised is the sad, and troubling, trip down the mass-media propaganda lane, I agree that this is disturbing.

IF the issue raised is an allegation as to the deceitful nasty nature of the conservative Republican right, as evidenced by their apparent support of a sad, and troubling, trip down the mass-media propaganda lane, that boat don't float. The liberal left started this political propaganda docudrama nonsense.

Bill

The original post aspired to make required reading the links. The assumption is that the republican right is deceitful and nasty. The point itself is that they are, in this case, defiling the sacrifices of the 9-11 dead by politicizing historically less politicized government agencies and using their own entertainment industry operatives (which I don't object to except they tried to promulgate outright lies) to do the same thing they have, like you do above, criticized Liberals for doing.

@watchwatcher

As far as the path to 9-11's accuracy and Lorne's participation in anything untrue: Every member of the 9-11 commission--republican and democrat--said the film was filled with inaccuracies that incriminated Clinton and they did see the deleted scenes. Lorne has been proven to be responsible for the film's production. But of course you are free to believe whatever you want despite facts which aren't even questioned by his public defenders.

norwash himself claims to not be a conservative activist. You take him at his word. Others might want to look at his record:

--He wrote an article called: “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.” Reads a lot like activism to me. Feel free to read it.

--He has described Michael Moore as “an out of control socialist weasel,” which, whether you agree or disagree w/ this assessment, is a common reaction among right wingers to Moore's work.

--He is a regular interviewer for and contributor to right-wing websites like FrontPageMag. Take a look at front page mag and let me know if you think it is nonpartisan.

[Isoroku]

I bet a transition from a two party system would do wonders for the whole right vs. left thing. To think that Clinton Admin. didn't have a heapin' helping of responsibility in not taking oppurtunities on Osama and Al-Qaida is absurd. 9/11 happened about 8 months after Bush took office ( it is not a inconsiderable period of time, nor is it alot). That being said, the CIA offered various reasons for not capitalizing on the oppurtunities on Osama & Co. Among those reasons are collateral damage/civilian casualties....and sometimes the reliability of the source of the information that lead them there.

Most who know me from the original RWG days think that I usually adhere to a more conservative perspective....which is true in terms of fiscal policy and foriegn policy....and I have long since lost faith in Bush, whom I voted for twice.

To think that one party is the "good guys" is ridiculous...Two parties, and a gentlemen's agreement. As long as there are only two, they are virtually garaunteed taking turns running the executive branch, always having at least some sway in the legislative, and take turns leaving long-term impacts on the juducial.

To the liberals, I say become a political capitalist, and the same to right-wing zealots. If the only two choices were Ford and Chevy, we wouldn't have the two best sedans on the market (Accod and Camry)

I say offer real choice and apply market priciples to politics like the Europeans do : Offer numberous parties that more accurately represent the demographic make up of a nation, that will not only offer an alternative to two BIG parties sharing power and wasting resources, but also have to REALLY compete for you vote.

Who should I vote for? I believe in the right for gays to marry (from a constitutional perspective), universal health care for children (not able bodied adults), and pro-active environmental legislation with real teeth....I also support for a, as Bush put it, "forward leaning" foriegn policy. That means lock n' load if they other guy doesn't wanna play ball. I believe in modest tax (preferrably flat across the board) levels for all Americans, rich, middle class, small business, etc. I have disdain for those who care more for the rights of violent criminals than the rights of the victim...

So who should I vote for? Neither of the two parties in our two party system represents me nor do they represent many others.

By the way....Bush using the 9/11 dead, if true, is quite dispicable...but I'm willing to bet that Democrats wouldn't do anything differently. If the Democrats were as much sheep as liberals say, there is no way they would survive in Washington. Michael Moore is a socialist weasel, who would certainly capitalize on any deaths/suffering/misfortune/ etc. that Bush would if he thought it would get him any attention.

Heat is my favorite movie.

Edited September 21, 2006 by Isoroku

[jjajh]

@Iso

Great post

As to...

Who should I vote for? I believe in the right for gays to marry (from a constitutional perspective), universal health care for children (not able bodied adults), and pro-active environmental legislation with real teeth....I also support for a, as Bush put it, "forward leaning" foriegn policy. That means lock n' load if they other guy doesn't wanna play ball. I believe in modest tax (preferrably flat across the board) levels for all Americans, rich, middle class, small business, etc. I have disdain for those who care more for the rights of violent criminals than the rights of the victim...

Right on! I would add universal health care for the elderly as the current social security and medical coverage systems are in a shambles.

I luv Poly Sci majors

[Pugwash]

I would add universal health care for the elderly as the current social security and medical coverage systems are in a shambles.

Global universal health care is by far the best idea. That way, you can treat anyone withoutn any bureaucracy at all. If they are in hospital, they're entitled to care, they get treated. How much tax money would that save on medicare bureaucracy?

Health Care is a mark of a civilised society. Limiting it by age makes no sense because somewhere, someone will unjustly die.

I never understood the fear of universal free health care. Are the fit and healthy afraid of paying for the sick?

[Isoroku]

If they are in hospital, they're entitled to care, they get treated.

Limiting it by age makes no sense because somewhere, someone will unjustly die.

I never understood the fear of universal free health care. Are the fit and healthy afraid of paying for the sick?

1.) I don't think just being alive entitles one to health care. Put in in perspective. Americans over eat more than anyone. We are making ourselves fat, sick, and incredibly unhealthy. WE ARE DOING IT! Maybe we should throw a fit because we are sick and the Europeans aren't helping Americans pay for our quadruple by-passes because we can't stay away from Double-Quarter Pounders with cheese. Hey, Europeans are more healthy than Americans

2.) You are half right. Able bodied 27 year olds should be able to pay thier own way. ( Assuming a reasonably affordable health care system is in place, which I admit is not always the case) Universal health care or no, there will always be people unjustly dying.

3.) Fit and healthy paying for the sick? Then why be healthy if someone is gonna foot my Gastric Bypass? Seriouslym though....I have problems for the hard-working healthy and fit paying for the lazy healthy. Why is it my responsibility to help someone who doesn't want to help themselves when I have two little ones I am already repsonsible for? If a sick person cannot provide for thier own health care, then yes....but if some guy in his late 20's just doesn't feel liking getting a job needs to see a doctor, then that's on him.

The thing in Europe is that there are fewer people who abuse the system. Perhaps a cultural thing....from what I gather from friends who live across the pond. Universal health care without restrictions would be a disaster in the U.S. There is no way our society could handle that responsibly. Those who don't or haven't lived here must realize that this nation lives in a state of excess....we don't order hambuger, small fries and a coke once a month. We go a few times a week and get the Double Quater Pounder with Cheese Meal and Super-size the Mo-Fo....and EASY ICE! We use our homes as ATM machines to buy plasmas and [censored] we can't afford otherwise. We finance cars for 72 months or lease them for 60 months so we can have that 550i BMW even though we can only really afford a nice loaded Camry.

Universal health care works under the assumption that the citizenry isn't hell-bent and having over 80% of it's population OBESE by the year 2025 and absolutely refusing to exercise more than the few calories burned by posting on forums....

think of it this way, if you would:

Take Johnnyboy (an icon of fitness if there ever was one) and make a 300,000,000 person nation of all johnnyboys....

Take someone who is overwieght, eats like [censored], smokes, and gets little to no physical activity everyday...and make a 300,000,000 nation out of a bunch of him(s)...

I can assure you that one of these two scenarios will be a viable successful universal health care system...the other will go bankrupt yesterday.

[Pugwash]

The thing in Europe is that there are fewer people who abuse the system. Perhaps a cultural thing....from what I gather from friends who live across the pond. Universal health care without restrictions would be a disaster in the U.S. There is no way our society could handle that responsibly. Those who don't or haven't lived here must realize that this nation lives in a state of excess.

Maybe because you have to pay for health care you have to get the most out of it and if it were free, you'd stop abusing it?

Take Johnnyboy (an icon of fitness if there ever was one) and make a 300,000,000 person nation of all johnnyboys....

Take someone who is overwieght, eats like [censored], smokes, and gets little to no physical activity everyday...and make a 300,000,000 nation out of a bunch of him(s)...

I can assure you that one of these two scenarios will be a viable successful universal health care system...the other will go bankrupt yesterday.

This is your current health insurance system. The difference is, everyone pays a private company that's out to screw them. Imagine health insurance without the paperwork and overheads and need to [censored] over its customers to turn a profit: that's universal health care.