Great article L0ki.

agreed

all them fancy words makes we wish i had me some book-learnin'

Your opinion doesnt really matter. As a citizen of New York that will vote democratic, your vote will be discounted.

Thank you electoral college.
I haet you!
I hope your football team does bad.

The thing is, I take umbrage at the laziest Admin. biz.

I put alot of hard work into most of those articles.

Alot more work than I probably should have.

If this (and its comments) could be tied to 'Mindless Zombies' 'The rise and rise ' and a few other link comments ,forums, and journal entries, we would have a powerful, ongoing political essay the likes of which I have never seen.

is it too late to get reagan's corpse on the ballot?

Boy, do I have a response to this article! And damn, am I short on time!

First, what Vas says in the comment on Megarad.

Second, who gives a damn about some of these issues?
Those constitute a very, very simple tests that do not nearly
expose anything (really) about the integrity and the philosophy of the government, especially where it counts.

I propose that any test to which the actual answer would be 'yes' or 'no' (although politicians never say either) is an *invalid* litmus test.

Really, is being a president all about guns and abortion? Fuk no! The problem is that you reduce a very, very complex multidimensional problem to a few points that the common man can wrap his head around.

Look, although I have personal views on these matters, even if people were allowed to perform abortions using RPGs, I would say that is not what presidency and government is all about.

Government is, first and foremost, about the economy and the well-being, care and responsibility for the people and the environment. Government is about relations with the rest of the world, establishing trade, cultural and otherwise ties to other nations. Government is about integrity and responsibility. Government is about adapting the vision *and the approach* in response to unexpected things that come up -- the good (like the tech boom) and the bad (like terrorist attacks). Every moment of every day, government should be working for *you* -- and if everyone can say that, that would be my test of success.

Now, let's step away from the ideals and talk presidential candidates. Since there will be *a lot* of issues a president would have to face, I abstain from simple lithmus tests and, instead, propose these general criteria to apply to any presidential candidate, and I really hope you agree with me.

(a) Is the president-to-be DEVIOUS?
(b) Is the president-to-be RATIONAL (read: smart)?
(c) Is the president-to-be HARD-WORKING?

DEVIOUS =
(i) tells colossal lies
(ii) greedy; puts special interests above those of people more often than not
(iii) squanders the trust of the people, their money, and their lives for personal vendettas or completely off-the-wall causes
(iv) builds a machine to suppress dissent, spread words that speak louder than actions
(v) favoritist: puts only friends and supporters in key positions
(vi) non-transparent: does not expose reasoning behind any of the decisions, does not expose daily agenda or what is currently being worked on

SMART =
(i) fully understand consequences of actions; think them through
(ii) understand economics and esp. NEW-WORLD economics (with high-tech in the picture)
(iii) able to put together a kick-ass cabinet of people with opposing opinions, so truth can be born in an argument
(iv) able to adapt to situations, good or bad, and make most of them
(v) able to interface well with the rest of the world, and articulate a point

HARD-WORKING =
(i) spends time and effort to do his fuking job

After doing much reasearch about both candidates, here's what I concluded:
Bush: (a) Devious; (b) Not smart; (c) Lazy
Kerry: (a) Not devious; (b) Smart; (c) Hard-working

About the big minus. Yes, Kerry does oscillate in his decisions. That gives me all the more faith in the fact that he will put together a cabinet of people with differing opinions, which, after duking it out, will converge on some optimum. If you think about it, being mobile is also good for adaptation.

On the other hand, I personally find him to be honorable. One example: how many of the rich kids you know would go to fight wars, instead of hiding in their daddy's fat wallet?

Opinions?

Unfortunately too much populalist attitude has weasled its way into this election.

A few questions I have asked myself:

Am I better off today, than I was 4 years ago?
NO! Plus the immediate future is completely hazy and not very promising.

Do I have Faith/Trust that the current administration is capable and Competent?
NO! I don't see direction. I see plans laid out that do nothing to better my life, but the lives of corporations and Rich white folk.

So some might think I'm falling into the Anybody but Bush category. RONG. I believe in the process that puts forth a canidate for President. The DNC has not arbitrarily picked Kerry, rather they have put there trust in what they believe is the best man for the job.

The biggest problem I have with LOki's logic is this: He infers that because Bush is now a known commodity, that equals good. With that logic Bush should be president for life.

We won't know how good a President Kerry can be until or if he occupies the Office.

Watch the Debate tonight.

bobo??

Request: please make comments on the article on MR, not LS.

YES! -- DO AS SHENANIGANS SAYS! DO IT!!!!!!

Crackalakin -- YOU! respond in MR.

DO IT!

I posted below that line. Nya Nya.

FUK, beat me to it

Reasons for kerry:

a) looks like an easter island statute

b) does a good robot impression

c) reminds me of my favorite munster.

Reasons for Bush:

a) makes up his own new words

b) chance of seeing him be attacked by a rogue pretzel again.

c) 'nucular' I can never get enough of that.

How is a voter supposed to choose, its a tie.

http://johnkerrymonster.cjb.net/

Well, shit...
John Kerry Page

You can help to
defeat John Kerry ,before its to late

I don't like kerry. I don't agree with his plans and he's non-devious, smart and herdworking. That means he'll set out to do what he promises, he has the brains to accomplish it and he has the drive to carry it through.

I don't like bush. I don't agree with his plans and he's devious, not smart and not hardworking. That means he probably won't try to do what he promises, whatever he wants to do he doesn't have the brains to get done and, in any case, won't see it through.

As I am voting for the lesser of two evils, Bush has to be the logical choice.

I like design of John Kerry's website better.

If you even listen to a word of that lying piece of shit, you're a traitor! You know the President of the United States is the only proper candidate. This is a democracy. If you can't vote right, don't vote. All wrong votes will be held against you.

Do you seriously want a one party system? Welcome to Iran, Cuba, Syria, China , Burma,Iraq as was, The USSR as was, etc.etc.etc. Need I go on? Grow a brain, idiot!

'There are none so Blind as those who will not see'

Mr. JohnCleland -- you are the winner!

You have just highlighted the exact paradox that is plagueing me.

Should I vote for the guy who will competently execute a political policy aggenda that I disagree with, or should I vote for the guy who, through incompetence, will fail to execute a policy aggenda that I disagree with?

I suppose that's the challenge being made to the bushysux crowd -- sort out this paradox; show me what the brilliant and industrious John Kerry (Our Savior (TM)) is going to do that I'm going to like soooooo very much.

'Kerry and Edwards have a record of fiscal discipline that is absent in this administration, and they have promised to live within the budget principles that helped lead this nation to balance the budget. Their plan will cut the deficit in half in four years, increasing economic confidence and keep interest rates from rising.'
One good reason to vote for Kerry.

L0ki,

With this sentence:

'Let me clarify -- I'll accept any politician attempting to ram his bullshit down my throat as long as I'm allowed to hold a gun while he's trying.'

you, sir, have reduced yourself to an biochemical automaton, and all of your arguments are automatically annulled. Given that sentence, any pretense of 'logic' or 'thinking' is just that, a facade. The funny thing is, the democrats are really not going to take away your guns, unless you're into automatic meat grinders.

Like I said, the adminstration's stance on gun control is not important, and that's not what government is about. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraqis were allowed to possess AKs, sniper rifles, RPGs, and even anti-tank mines, to their heart's desire. I guess you would b happy with that government then.

Time will tell you what Kerry will do, not me. Like I said, I don't care, but I anticipate a profound improvement over the alternative. It's not what he will do, it's what Bush and Co won't do that matters.

Regarding 'the lesser of two evils,' I'd rather see a reasonable man's decision followed through than a complete moron's decision executed in a half-assed manner. There is no paradox, not really.

To the rest of you, sign this:
'Dear President Bush,

,

'Coaltition' of the Deceived'

Look, anyone who thinks the Bush administration is incompetent is an utter idiot. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the rest are VERY smart and have almost 30 years of expierience between them. They know what they are doing. They're only problem is lack of planning for the military situation in Iraq.

Experience does not equal competence.

I mean I think they have acomplished what they set out to do so far. There is no big disaster for them. Its for us. Their constituents are doing great. Its just they aren't concerned with the general population. And while the middle east burns the oil price will sky rocket and this will be excellent for the Carlyle group, halliburton, etc.

Yeah $50.00 a barrel and rising!

Just an oddity I noticed when I clicked the ECHELON link QWERTY posted on Megarad and was wondering if anyone else had it happen. Every time I clicked a subheading on that page (from the ACLU strangely) my system tried to access my floppy drive. Maybe I should just put on a tinfoil hat, but could it be they're looking for data from the systems reading that page?

Thre is no prejudice, just frustration. And I really don't have to explain myself, especially since it's pretty self-explanatory. But I'll do it anyway.

(a) re-read your quote:

'I'll accept any politician attempting to ram his bullshit down my throat as long as I'm allowed to hold a gun while he's trying.'

Basically, to you any politician is golden if you get to hold a gun. To me, that makes you a mini-Heston with a grossly narrow view of politics, and no critical thinking.

(b) re-read my paragraph:

'Like I said, the adminstration's stance on gun control is not important, and that's not what government is about. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraqis were allowed to possess AKs, sniper rifles, RPGs, and even anti-tank mines, to their heart's desire. I guess you would be happy with that government then.'

This is to support the obvious claim that gun rights make no bearing
whatsoever on the quality of government.

(c) re-read my other paragraph:

I am no oracle at Delphi, but I can extrapolate. I extrapolate Bush and Co's agenda, and Kerry and Co's agenda. I like more than the other, and the uncertainty in one is more than offset by the certainty of the flaw in the other.

To Asherondcs (is that really you? regular Asheron's DCS is captialized):

I define competence as ability to do your job. The job of the people whose names you list is to serve the interests of American people, as a whole. Therefore, they are incompetent.

'Basically, to you any politician is golden if you get to hold a gun. To me, that makes you a mini-Heston with a grossly narrow view of politics, and no critical thinking.'

Not an explaination, and an incorrect conclusion.

'This is to support the obvious claim that gun rights make no bearing whatsoever on the quality of government.'

Not an explaination, and you're wrong.

Thanks for playing anyway, and thanks for illustrating my point perfectly.

I give you a counter-example regarding Iraq -- sufficient to break your ideology. Your response? 'I am wrong' Whoo-hoo! Congratulations! Reason prevails!

Saying 'you're wrong' does not make me wrong, and does not make for a compelling argument.

You have some evidence that Hussein had no reservations what-so-ever about letting his average citizen be armed? You have this, right? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Just in case you cite footage of Iraqis shooting AK-47's, I will suggests dropped weapons, and looted armories. I will suggest carefully staged and controlled media events. I will suggest that in no way would a guy like Hussein let any member of any family who was subject to his brand of 'benevolent rule' have a gun.

And you're still wrong, WAY wrong, and I already made my argument which you've been carefully avoiding.

Keep trying.

Sure, read this regarding guns in Iraq. Actually, many others will enjoy this fun link (and the original NYT article):

CLICKY

And if you agree that the choice of the country is not important for my counter-example, I can swamp you with an assload of references to Afghani gun ownership (I even remember reading about artillery).

What was my point again? That the stance on gun control should be of the least importance when evaluating leadership.

I seem to have missed your agument. What are you referring to?

'... I can swamp you with an assload of references to Afghani gun ownership.'

I defy you to 'swamp' me with examples of government sanctioned gun ownership. I'm sure that if you did not belong to the taliban, any gun you owned would get you beheaded, or some other example of 'justice' would befall you.

'That the stance on gun control should be of the least importance when evaluating leadership.'

I will continue to insist that you are wrong about this -- tragicly and irrefutably wrong.

Aha, this article seems to sum it up nicely. Thank you!

I say, no no no! And I won't go into 'you can legally buy guns right now,' 'how lethal a weapon do you really need, it will be an arms race' and 'everyone goes crazy, bitter, depressed every once in a while, it's easy to kill with a gun' debate. Instead, I'll stick to my point.

A politician can 'respect' you and your choices, but not do anything for the country's well-being!

Do you understand that? That the government has a _function_, not only attitude. And the latter is meaningless without the former.

Iraqi and Afghani governments (in whatever form), according to your point of view, had a lot of respect for the choices of citizens. YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT TRUE. Thus, guns don't measure respect and should be thrown out of the equation or their imprtance should become negligible.

But, more importantly, do you see how these governments failed in their function?

That is also why I am disatisfied with the current administration, and call them 'devious.' Because they talk the talk, but either don't do much about the situation, or do something very dumb.

These governments did not 'sanction' gun ownership, they permitted it.

What, my example about open-air gun markets in Iraq does is not good enough for you? See the photos in the NYT article... I think one country as a counter-example is sufficient.

But if you want more, than the evidence about gun ownership in Afghanistan is plentiful, and I will let Google satisfy your appetite, as I have a job to do. Weapons were avilable to everyone, for centuries; why do you think it's a traditional custom to fire them during weddings?

LOL - I like that 'irrefutably.' It seems that we're back to the 'you're wrong' type of argument. Nothing makes my day like refuting the irrefutable :)

Nicely skirted -- thank you.

^^^ Is that all?

I think that you two should settle this in the circle of death.

I think you two should shut up. You're both smart and cool people and it pains me physically to see you two pretending like there's a fourth, demented Stooge to mimic.

I especially like how gun rights went from 'no bearing
whatsoever on the quality of government' to something about the 'function' of government. Way to, how did you put it? -- oh yes, I see it; 'stick to [your] point.'

I wonder if you would hold your position with the same conviction if instead of 'gun rights,' we were talking about 'free speech.'

I wonder if a government's failure to curb 'free sppech' would remain equivalent to 'permission' for you. And that despite an official and consitent (yet poorly enforced) policy of anti-sedition, you would still be saying that the policy is 'meaningless' in evaluating that government, or a politician who endorses it.

I would hope not. Because when it comes to the right to free speech, and the right to keep and bear arms, the former is meaningless without the latter.

I will never submit to the notion that a governement's, or politician's regard, or lack of regard, for the rights of the people can ever be considered 'irrellevant' to the character and quality of a government or a politician.

CTFU

It'll never end. LoKi Smells Blood.

CrackaLackin doesn't realize yet that it doesn't make a shits worth of difference how good his arguments are or how unimpeachable his sources are.

LoKi will just say they don't count and attack again.

I fear that October is going to be a long month.

Easy now azron.

All arguemnts are air-tight, and all sources are unimpeachable if you simply accept their premises -- which I'm understanding that Crakalakin and I have not yet come to grips with yet.

Despite the name calling and tone of this discussion, I see progress; maybe not resolution, or neat conclusion, but there's merit.

CTFU, OVAR?

ROGER THAT!
This is growing hair.

In an attempt to settle this, you need to look at the war histories of Iraq and Afganhistan. Similar to the US following WWs 1&2 a lot of soldiers had come home recently from war, Iraqis from the what was? 10 or 12yr war with Iran and Afghanis from the war against Russia. I'd submit that as following the wars America has fought a lot of weapons came back either as souveniers or were just never returned to armories (poor controls in Iraq's case and the fact that Afghanistan was a hodge podge of tribes that fought with what few weapons they already had/were fed by US aid or seized from Russia).
The trade in weaponry is trade in old/used weapons in a black market fashion for the most part. There are probably great finds over there for gun collectors as Mujhadeen in Afghanistan started their war with surplus (WW1 & prior) US armament.
As far as the seeming preponderance of weapons freely displayed? THey stayed hidden for the most part as my Albanian friends pre-fall have told me. They would have to move their guns around almost daily to keep from having them seized and only brought them out for large celebrations where they knew the police/military wouldn't bother to attempt to seize them because of the potential for revolt/incident. The people in Albania that had weapons and weren't bothered were the 'loyal' communists, much as I would propose the Iraqi's you see in the pictures were the loyal rape you in the ass and torture your dog Baathists.

Vas, I intsigate only because this thread is one of the largest I've seen on a submitted link.

At the risk of being struck down by lightining from Vas's ass ---

RONG!

See the photos of Iraqi weapons markets in the article (this is pre-invasion). No smuggling, no concealment or conspiracy. Come and buy.

Also, AK-47s are, by no means, a WW1 weapon. I have also seen Dragunov Sniper rifles (1965) in photos of bins of weapons that citizens surrendered. The stock RPG is RPG-7 (circa 1961, also from the former USSR). Ineffective against an Abrams, but can still whoop a Humvee, and kill a dozen of soldiers. The list goes on and on, too short on time to elaborate.

I also think this discussion is making a good bit a progress, besides all the flak (which is kind of fun actually, because no offense is intended).

I will pray for your souls.

Appeals to my human heart will go unheeded.



This thread has been minipals'd!!11!

PST...LOKI...I am voiting for Kerry
I have no concrete anything to go on
I just 'hatebush'
Thats right , no reasons, just dont like him
and as for kerry , he is 'not bush' so he wins
oh yeah
PS :0) <--clownnose sez 'bushsux'

Its simple, the right to carry a gun is a fundamental freedom and the sine qua non of full citzenship as opposed to the subject status experienced by europeans.

It is therefore inalienable in within the context of a society that preserves and respects the concept of individual soveriegnty. Any political leader that attempts to outlaw firearms can thus be viewed in the same light as one who would abolish the right to silence or freedom of thought or expression. Once you know a politician wishes to disarm you, (ar at least restrict your right to bear arms) it is clear that they are a crypto facist with no-more respect for autonomous freedoms, self determination or individual rights than adolf hitler of joseph stalin. No amount of nuanced argument pruporting to show that gun control is just a single issue by within a larger framework of can alter this fact.

Voting based upon a candidates view of the secon ammendment is just as rational (if not more so), than voting against a canidate because they would do away with the first, fourth, fifth ammendment rights. NO one would suggest that it is irrational to vote against a candidate solely because he wished to outlaw private propoerty or freedom of the press without first weighing his stance on ther issues. How is this any different.

KERRYSUXS

(Let's see if we can get the comment count over 100).

Well, Kerry is the guy when it comes to the National Debit. I mean the index has moved by 2% simply at the prospect of him becoming president.
He will reduce the out of work to iraq possible nukes ratio by 37% in the first 6 months in office , then another 29.8% in the following 3 months. How can anyone not vote for him? I dont get it . There are the numbers right there.

As for bush , economic indicators that came out today for consumer confidence just shows how he is unable to build up this economy. Additionally, he is not able to say several words I like.

The important issues here are being ignored is all i am saying , the jobless rate is up 2% this month , the iraqis are NOT voting yet and the easter bunny Is STILL the house majority leader.

Jesus christ people , how can you not see the clear choice?

Well, Kerry is the guy when it comes to the National Debit. I mean the index has moved by 2% simply at the prospect of him becoming president.
He will reduce the out of work to iraq possible nukes ratio by 37% in the first 6 months in office , then another 29.8% in the following 3 months. How can anyone not vote for him? I dont get it . There are the numbers right there.

As for bush , economic indicators that came out today for consumer confidence just shows how he is unable to build up this economy. Additionally, he is not able to say several words I like.

The important issues here are being ignored is all i am saying , the jobless rate is up 2% this month , the iraqis are NOT voting yet and the easter bunny Is STILL the house majority leader.

Jesus christ people , how can you not see the clear choice?

WTF? DOUBLE HED'D!

And the count rises.

the debates did much to sway my opinion. i guess i take a 1950's/60's approach. i very much wanted to hear from both viable candidates. i am socially liberal but fiscally conservative, so i really had to hear them both. Bush's ratings have been falling since the debates(as it should). the mass drive to get the college age folks to vote(traditional non-voters) will affect the outcome of this election
may the best Democrat win (teehee)

'Well, Kerry is the guy when it comes to the National Debit. I mean the index has moved by 2% simply at the prospect of him becoming president.'

... wut?

'He will reduce the out of work to iraq possible nukes ratio by 37% in the first 6 months in office , then another 29.8% in the following 3 months.'

... wut? I don't think I was reading this correctly -- instead I must have been staring at your boobies.

kerry gets my vote. I'm even voting early....

Ahh, Crack, you either miss or ignore for sake of your argument where I say they STARTED hte war with old weapons and seized others from the soviets after battles. As far as the pictures in the NY Times article where and when were they taken? Pre or post '91? Central/Northern/Southern/Eastern Iraq? The Kurds had nominal control of Northern Iraq even pre '91 and heavier control post '91. Post '91 the south of Iraq was basically free of Saddam's forces. Eastern Iraq borders with Iran, a country they had been at war with for 2 decades, where would most of those souveneirs come back into the country? Central Iraq's Baghdad area would be the only anomoly I would have a hard time figuring out.

USA via CIA helped arm them also. Mujahadin=teh fuckers that flew into towers.

THANK YOU RONNY AND OLLIE NORTH

Stump. I think the article is from Baghdad, because pre-war, that's the only place where the journalists were allowed to roam. I also think that particular reporter has been in the country for a while.

You make it sound like a bunch of 'noble savages' have taken over the arsenal of the Soviet invaders armed only with their trusty flintlocks and muskets. Ha-ha! I'd like to have seen them try that.

(a) The irony is that many weapons were actually brought to the region by the USA. For example, many Su-25s were shot down by cutting-edge Stinger missiles.

CLICKY

(c) Eastern Europe sold their weapons in the Middle East freely and eagerly, during and immediately following Cold war.

Here's one report for your amusement:
CLICKY

From that article you will learn that Bulgaria was especially active, selling weapons to Lebanon, Palestine, etc. Immediately post-cold war, there was a big sellout too.

But all of this is beside the point. I was just pointing out that there, you had countries where everyone had weapons, or open access to weapons (maybe a weapon fetish, even). But, golly gee, that for some reason did not makes their government democratic and 'good' to its citizens. I guess L0ki might still puzzled why that may be.

If i'm in the middle East and I'm a goat/poppy farmer, fuk yeah I want a gun. Lots of them. The less civilized an area the more need for freedom to bear arms.

I'm afraid you'll have to settle with a non-automatic 22 with crazy locking mechanisms on it imposed by government regulations!! Sorry Ms. Poppy farmer!!

Loki:
Those are the facts my friend.
Additionally, the national GPA is down 2 points (yes that is Grade point average dummy)

I feel that if this administration can not get the medicare bill through the senate authorizing force on senior citizens driving over the age of 80 with assault rifles, then they shoudl be fired.

I feel the 'johns' cant prevent a dirty bomb by sacrifcing santa to the NADSAQ gods at the north pole and will STAND BY THEIR WORD TO DO SO!


Take that!

PS LOKI: You may also like to know that Bush is trying to get an amendment to the constitution to ban ALL arms for anyone in Cazenovia that makes Boob jokes at Weifs of bowels like creatures. So cast your vote, but BE CAREFUL!

Crakalakin - 'I guess L0ki might still puzzled why that may be.'

Ah. The old ignore the premise, supply you own bullshit, and claim it stinks gambit!

Try again.