What's wrong with "Anybody but Bush"?

[BoredShirtless]

Coyote hit the nail on the head as per the possibility of new bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Attempt to hold both bilateral and multilateral discussion concurrently, and North Korea will simply stonewall one series of talks by attempting to renegotiate with each change of venue.

What? Why the fuck would North Korea try and sabotage a resolution to the situation the region is in? The North Koreans have an interest in solving the problems too, you know.

Why give North Korea an outlet to hijack the multilateral process by rehashing every issue with the United States alone?

The North Koreans, Japanese, Russians, Chinese and South Korea WANT FUCKING BILATERAL TALKS! Therefore, nothing will get hijacked UNLESS the United States steps aside and lets it happen. I repeat; what fucking harm can come by sitting down and finding out WHY they want bilateral talks? They want to negotiate with you in private; why don't you swallow your fucking arrogance, and do it?

Certainly we’ve already made attempts to “go the bilateral route” – only to be tricked in bad faith out of tens of millions of dollars in aid.

So then fuck bilateral diplomatic missions for all time. You jackass. And like the United States has never gone back on a promise before anyway.

[Slartibartfast]

What? Why the fuck would North Korea try and sabotage a resolution to the situation the region is in?

Because they're the bad guys, dontcha know?

[Lord Poe]

Having worked for a company that continually replaced one boob with another, I'd happily put in a different boob that the devil I know.

Some were better than others, one was a particularly stupid fuckhead. But you still look forward to the replacement, just to get rid of the current fuckhead.

But you know, the business never took a nosedive. My bi-weekly check never bounced. True, the President of the company isn't the boob I was talking about; my direct superior was. The replacement boob was never SO bad that the company would nosedive into bankruptcy before the C.E.O saw the problem.

What I'm getting at is, there's no way things could get WORSE at this point by replacing the current boob.

[Coyote]

Durandal's and MIke's points are well taken, and certainl;y make sense. I'm not waiting for the Perfect Candidate because I know no such thing exists... but while I understand that taking a risk for change is sometimes one's best option, I'm simply saying that I see as litle incentive to change as to stay.

My critical assessment of Kerry in no way insures a vote for GWBush. I'm most likely to go third party or write-in. I've held me nose and voted for the "smaller pile of shit" prety much since I started voting in the '88 elections. I guess I'm just tired of making what I see as a sort of Sophie's Choice of crappy candidates.

The biggest advantage Kerry has is that the world seems to have a high initial assesment of him and for some reason they really like him even though his stated policies are not much different from Bush's. If for no other reason than he's a fresh face, they might be willing to cut him some slack. Typically the first 100 days of a Presidency there's a "honeymoon" phase where the new guy can do no wrong.

But again, my refusal to join the Kerry back-slapping league isn't a statement about Bush being better. A lot of people who hate Bush seem to be the ones jumping up and down in glee at the thought of a Kerry Presidency... I just don't see it.

I wish I could write-in Mike Wong! At least he'd kick the schools in the ass. No more Creationist texts. No more religion in government.

Is there still time to contact Schwartenegger and ask for pointers on how to get in the system?

[Durandal]

Post prop ad hocter prop fallacy. Europe’s choice about whether to support the American invasion was already made even when their intelligence agencies were providing some of the basis for our assessments of Saddam’s potential stockpiles. Germany and France went so far to declare that they would not support any invasion of Iraq absolutely regardless of whether Saddam was found with no nuclear weapons, or with one hundred.

It was bullshit intelligence then, and it's bullshit intelligence now. The same detractors were making the same arguments; the administration simply turned a deaf ear to all opposition. Witness Cunnilingus Rice's recently exposed lie about those nuclear missile tubes.

As for Germany and France refusing to help with the invasion regardless, they called for more time for inspections and then called for peaceably disarming Saddam had weapons been found. But everyone knew back then that Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons, except of course, for the Bush administration.

Baseless conjecture. Support your argument with examples of Europe’s unwillingness to support the War on Terror. Explain what steps Kerry will take to coax more cooperation than already occurs.

Don't be ridiculous. I said that I'd trust Kerry more to get the job done than Bush, not that Kerry was guaranteed success. There's something about this "relative" thing that seems to be escaping you.

Certainly it can’t be his doomed position on North Korea. Or his silly declaration that the chief focus of his foreign policy agenda would be secure nuclear waste disposal at sites in the former Soviet Union.

How about his stance on stem cell research? Or his goal to repair America's image in the world? Or the fact that he harbors no desires to turn America into some modern crusader nation? Or his decided lack of a one-way radio to Jesus Christ? Or that he has preached sensitivity in the War on Terror, while this administration has derided it? Want me to go on?

I seriously hope you wouldn’t contemplate trying to tell me his protectionism could result in anything remotely positive for the American economy.

And let’s not get started on the issue of whether Kerry will somehow oblige Europeans to close this magical “cooperation gap” you and other supporters of his keep claiming exists in the War on Terror, irrespective of Iraq. Surely you’re not claiming Europe’s been cutting its nose just to spite its face.

Strawman bullshit. I'm getting sick of this shit. Once more:

IF I HAD TO TRUST ONE CANDIDATE TO FOSTER INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, I WOULD TRUST KERRY OVER BUSH. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT KERRY IS GUARANTEED TO DO IT. IT MEANS THAT HE HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF DOING IT THAN BUSH, AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW THAT'S TRUE.

In fact, the only thing one can commend Kerry on are his social goals. Of course, given that he’ll never meet them anyway (the country on the whole is far, far too conservative), and that they’re secondary to the economic and defensive well-being of the nation, there’s even less reason to vote for him.

Except toward the laudable end of running a pack of lying conservative shit-stains out of Capitol Hill, yeah, there's no reason at all to vote for Kerry. You seem to think I'm ashamed that I'm voting for Kerry because I don't like Bush. I'm not. Kerry is clearly the better candidate. He's not going to solve all our problems, but he's not going to start crusades because God told him to.

[Darth Wong]

I love the way the Bush people completely ignore the message of profound contempt for other countries that would be sent if the American people re-elect Bush after all that he's done. It's as if they want to pretend the last 4 years simply didn't happen, and both candidates would start out with a clean slate vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

[Iceberg]

I love the way the Bush people completely ignore the message of profound contempt for other countries that would be sent if the American people re-elect Bush after all that he's done. It's as if they want to pretend the last 4 years simply didn't happen, and both candidates would start out with a clean slate vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

Not the whole last four years, just everything from Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations on. That was the part where the US government's foreign reputation really started to spiral down the shitter.

[Edi]

I love the way the Bush people completely ignore the message of profound contempt for other countries that would be sent if the American people re-elect Bush after all that he's done. It's as if they want to pretend the last 4 years simply didn't happen, and both candidates would start out with a clean slate vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

Not the whole last four years, just everything from Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations on. That was the part where the US government's foreign reputation really started to spiral down the shitter.

Actually, they were flying really low already, what with the rejection of the Kyoto treaty, the ABM treaty controversy and the rejection of ICC before 9/11. The Bush team had a below average reputation to begin with after just four or five months in office. The WTC attacks wiped those concerns away and put most of the world squarely behind America on terrorism and the Afghanistan expedition, but right after that, when Bush, Rummy, Rice and the other neocons started beating the Iraq war drums (what with all the demands of support earlier and then snubbing those offered of their own free will to help already on the record) that they went from low-flying to crash and burn. And after they had crashed and burned, they nuked the wreckage afterward. That's how it looks like for most politically aware common folks outside the US.

Edi

[tharkûn]

Kerry is Bush-lite

Yet again, you completely ignore the fact that two managerial candidates for a failing plant would probably present very similar plans for fixing the mess because once a situation gets bad enough, your options narrow considerably. But for the umpteenth fucking time, no one in his right mind, given two similar arguments from two candidates, would pick the guy who got them into this mess in the first place. I'm sick of saying this and then seeing you ignore it so you can repeat your broken-record argument.

As for your assertion that Kerry would not be much different from Bush, that's just plain and simple bullshit. You can point to certain key policy initiatives, but one of the most important things is what he will lack, which is Bush's rabid determination to turn America into a Christian theocracy and his remarkable ability to piss off other countries. You're saying that he can't magically make them pour troops into the American-Iraq meat grinder; that may be true, but he won't continue pissing them off the way Bush will, and that will have long-term benefits.

Like it or not, George W. Bush is Al-Quaeda's recruiting poster boy, and if America re-elects him, it sends a message to the rest of the world: "we don't give a fuck what you think, we still support our monkey-boy, his agenda, and his actions."

Look Mike the reason I don't buy your analogy is that it isn't a binary choice with no reprocussions.

Point blank another 4 years of Bush is worth it, if a sizeable protest vote gets the Democrats to shape up.

Bush wants to turn the US into a Christian theocracy? Well fine, just as soon as he can manage to get a fillibuster proof senate majority he can. Like many of Kerry's plans, these iniatives by Bush suffer from one drastically fatal flaw ... they don't have a chance in hell of making it through the senate. Hell if there is a fillibuster proof majority for theocracy, then there is a whopping 7 seat difference between stopping the fillibuster and being to override the damn president. This is not a parliamentary system; if the fundies have the votes to get cloture I'd be damned surprised if they don't have veto override. Besides do you really expect people like Chaffee to go along for the ride?

It is very much like Kerry's healthcare plans, if done properly they might be an improvement ... good bloody luck getting Hillarycare 2.0 past the congress. Such differences as the candidates have are tempered by the fact that the senate is NOT going to let those bills get through.

And yes Kerry will continue to piss off the world. The world backs Kyoto, it failed 95 - 0. US noncompliance will continue to piss people off. Supporting Israel, don't tell me you don't know how third rail that is in American politics or how the Jewish vote and political contributions break down by party - yep Kerry will maintain policies that piss off the world there. Bilateral North Korean talks, those will do wonders for relations with Japan, China, and South Korea

Yes Kerry might be marginally better, but it is marginal. I find it FAR more pressing to reform the parties that get the minimal and marginal benifits Kerry would bring over Bush.

You keep viewing this as choose Bush or choose Kerry and contininiously neglect the option to choose neither. Moron A, lesser moron B, or protest votes in hope of reforming the system. If the only choices actually were Bush and Kerry then yes, your logic makes sense, seeing as this is NOT a binary choice I must respectfully disagree that ABB is sufficient reason to vote Kerry.

[Darth Wong]

Look Mike the reason I don't buy your analogy is that it isn't a binary choice with no reprocussions.

You're full of shit; it is a binary choice, and your refusal to admit that doesn't change the fact. Only one of two men are going to get elected come November: Kerry or Bush. There is no realistic third option.

Point blank another 4 years of Bush is worth it, if a sizeable protest vote gets the Democrats to shape up.

That's fucking stupid: stay with the guy who originally fucked up the company in the hopes that he'll stop screwing up, and in 4 years you can get a better replacement than the mediocre candidate you've got right now? Bush has kept almost none of his 2000 campaign promises, remember? Why reward that, or any of the catastrophes he's perpetrated since then?

...Such differences as the candidates have are tempered by the fact that the senate is NOT going to let those bills get through.

Such a compelling reason to reward gross incompetence and dishonesty

And yes Kerry will continue to piss off the world. The world backs Kyoto, it failed 95 - 0. US noncompliance will continue to piss people off. Supporting Israel, don't tell me you don't know how third rail that is in American politics or how the Jewish vote and political contributions break down by party - yep Kerry will maintain policies that piss off the world there. Bilateral North Korean talks, those will do wonders for relations with Japan, China, and South Korea

Funny how previous leaders, even bellicose ones such as Reagan, did not piss off others the way Bush did then. Or does it not occur to you that Bush's knack for pissing off other countries extends beyond policy? His arrogance and dismissal of those countries' concerns fuels the anger of their people. Previous administrations would at least try to work with other countries rather than just telling them to fuck off. And dismissing the importance of that anger is precisely the mistake the Bush Administration made before invading Iraq, moron.

Yes Kerry might be marginally better, but it is marginal.

What part of "record of gross incompetence and dishonesty" do you not understand, exactly?

I find it FAR more pressing to reform the parties that get the minimal and marginal benifits Kerry would bring over Bush.

I'm tired of this idiotic red-herring of yours. Your wet-dream fantasy of forcing both parties to reform themselves with your protest vote has no bearing on a discussion of whether one should choose Bush or Kerry, especially when you are actually saying you want Bush in power and using this tortured reasoning as a flimsy justification.

Yes! Follow the Tharkun plan! Reform both parties by rewarding incompetence!

[Darth Wong]

Let me explain something to you, since the corporate analogy apparently did not penetrate your thick skull: there are several reasons companies will fire and replace a worker, and "ironclad guarantee that the new worker will be much better in future than the old one" is usually not one of them. You fire a worker based on past performance, not future promises. You fire a worker in order to send a message that whatever he was doing is not tolerable. The new guy might not even have any better qualifications or wonderful promises than the old one, but it doesn't matter; you cannot afford to reward incompetence.

Companies routinely practice an "anybody but this clown" policy in their staffing decisions, and you have failed to explain why their reasoning should not apply here. Your "it's not a binary choice" argument is your only real defense, and it's a joke because any realist knows that despite the bullshit rhetoric, it is a two-horse race. When rhetoric meets reality, reality wins.

[Agrajag]

I'm tired of this idiotic red-herring of yours. Your wet-dream fantasy of forcing both parties to reform themselves with your protest vote has no bearing on a discussion of whether one should choose Bush or Kerry, especially when you are actually saying you want Bush in power and using this tortured reasoning as a flimsy justification.

His argument entirely falls apart when you consider that voting to put Bush in, either by voting for him or voting in this fictional protest vote against Kerry, does absolutely NOTHING to make the point the Republican party who is responsible for putting this deficient candidate in office in the first place!

NOTHING will get THEIR attention more than sending them packing in November. Right now it's the Republican party we want to impact. The dems we'll get to if Kerry screws up.

[Iceberg]

Here's a news flash for those who think their independent-party votes are not wasted: The United States Government has TWO elected representatives who are not major-party affiliated in Congress: Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT), both of whom caucus with the Democrats (Sen. Jeffords was also elected as a Republican). We have not had an independent President since George Washington. The US political system is BY DESIGN skewed to the two-party model, by making every important race winner-take-all. The only way an "indie" Presidential candidate will win ANYTHING is if one of the major parties fucks up SO BADLY that even its "core" voters won't support it. PERIOD.

[tharkûn]

You're full of shit; it is a binary choice, and your refusal to admit that doesn't change the fact. Only one of two men are going to get elected come November: Kerry or Bush. There is no realistic third option.

Protest vote.

That's fucking stupid: stay with the guy who originally fucked up the company in the hopes that he'll stop screwing up, and in 4 years you can get a better replacement than the mediocre candidate you've got right now? Bush has kept almost none of his 2000 campaign promises, remember? Why reward that, or any of the catastrophes he's perpetrated since then?

Because as you keep ignoring the point isn't to replace Bush, reward Bush, or anything else. It is to punish the democrats in a manner that can't be ignored. Spoiler voting is the single most powerful force of institutional change in American politics. It quite literally destroyed the Whigs and enshrined Clinton's "third way" into political orthodoxy.

Why reward Bush, because it is necessary for a GREATER PURPOSE.

Such a compelling reason to reward gross incompetence and dishonesty

Yes the compelling debate over which dishonest moron is going to dick over the world less is reason to vote for EITHER of them.
Such gross incompotence, from both parties, is perfect reason to reward NEITHER of them with my vote and vote spoiler.

Funny how previous leaders, even bellicose ones such as Reagan, did not piss off others the way Bush did then.

Yes millions of people weren't opposed to missiles in Europe, the European press didn't denounce him as a cowboy, and of course everybody emphatically supported bombing Libya

Sure Reagan didn't get it as bad as Bush, but then Reagan had the ever looming Soviet threat which forced the world to accept things they wouldn't otherwise. Likewise Reagan had to share time as people got pissed off at people like Andropov, Thatcher, and Botha.

Previous administrations would at least try to work with other countries rather than just telling them to fuck off.

Remind me again when did Reagan notify the British government he was invading Grenada? When everybody and their brother in Europe was against Star Wars, what was Reagan's response? The big difference is that back then people where scared of the Soviets, today they are scared of bunch of fanatics in caves ... it just lend itself to the same sort of forced comradery that the cold war did.

What part of "record of gross incompetence and dishonesty" do you not understand, exactly?

The part where Kerry voted for most of it. On the charge of incompotence we have two candidates who both have exhibited it in spades.

I'm tired of this idiotic red-herring of yours. Your wet-dream fantasy of forcing both parties to reform themselves with your protest vote has no bearing on a discussion of whether one should choose Bush or Kerry, especially when you are actually saying you want Bush in power and using this tortured reasoning as a flimsy justification.

Yes! Follow the Tharkun plan! Reform both parties by rewarding incompetence!

What happened with Perot? The left wing of the democratic party lost control and we saw fiscal discipline adopted as a basic party value. What happened when the abolitionists began to actually vote on slavery? They destroyed the present parties and began to actually get legislation limiting slavery pushed through the ranks. Historically voting third party is the most effective way to change the parties; a sizeable third party voter turnout leads to fundemental changes in the parties or their demise.

Reward incompotence, vote for one incompotent over another.

[The_Last_Rebel]

You know, if King George had just given us equal representation in parliament, we wouldn't have to worry about this. We're stuck with either someone who's really agressive, or someone who can't make up his mind.

The problem with 'anybody but Bush' is it's a piss-poor criteria for choosing a leader.

I'm just going to vote for the person I agree with the most, and so will most people.

BTW, I would very much like to see the actual documented PROOF that Bush wants to make this country a Christian Theocracy. Not wild accusations that get thrown about like wiffle balls around here.

I'll bet it's as concrete as the evidence Iraq had WMDs.

[tharkûn]

NOTHING will get THEIR attention more than sending them packing in November. Right now it's the Republican party we want to impact. The dems we'll get to if Kerry screws up.

Which president followed Clinton? Oh yes sending the republicans packing really sent them a message

But as far as messages go I suggest you contact your local Whig and ask them if they got the message.

Here's a news flash for those who think their independent-party votes are not wasted: The United States Government has TWO elected representatives who are not major-party affiliated in Congress: Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT), both of whom caucus with the Democrats (Sen. Jeffords was also elected as a Republican). We have not had an independent President since George Washington. The US political system is BY DESIGN skewed to the two-party model, by making every important race winner-take-all. The only way an "indie" Presidential candidate will win ANYTHING is if one of the major parties fucks up SO BADLY that even its "core" voters won't support it. PERIOD.

The point is not to elect a new party, it is to put pressure on one or both of the pre-existing parties to GET THEIR BLOODY ACTS togethor. Giving your vote away to least incompotent candidate provides NO incentive to reform.
Historically third party candidates have had the most profound effect on American policy when they have a good showing. From Fremont to Perot, historically when a third party does well, things change. Either one party co-opts or one party dies.

The US was not designed to be a two party system. Madison wanted a many party system, Washington wanted none, and Jefferson viewed them as a necessary unavoidable evil.

[Durandal]

NOTHING will get THEIR attention more than sending them packing in November. Right now it's the Republican party we want to impact. The dems we'll get to if Kerry screws up.

Which president followed Clinton? Oh yes sending the republicans packing really sent them a message

But as far as messages go I suggest you contact your local Whig and ask them if they got the message.

So what the makes you think the Democrats will "get the message" when you protest-vote for the Wonder Chimp?

[Iceberg]

So to send a message to the less-incompetent party, we should re-elect the party that's made the United States into a pariah among nations? "Messages" can wait until the biggest incompetent who has EVER sat in the oval office has been given the pink slip.

[Axis Kast]

As for your assertion that Kerry would not be much different from Bush, that's just plain and simple bullshit. You can point to certain key policy initiatives, but one of the most important things is what he will lack, which is Bush's rabid determination to turn America into a Christian theocracy and his remarkable ability to piss off other countries. You're saying that he can't magically make them pour troops into the American-Iraq meat grinder; that may be true, but he won't continue pissing them off the way Bush will, and that will have long-term benefits.

First of all, Bush isn’t about to turn the United States into a Christian theocracy; that’s just you trying to bandy about the same kind of scare tactics you and yours keep insisting Republicans always use. Bush may attempt to seek a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but it’s unlikely that he’d find enough support among the states to effect that kind of change. The same goes for the courts vis-à-vis Roe v. Wade. Like Kerry, Bush talks a big game when it comes to social issues, but neither of them is very likely to radically change the current status quo. Since politics is about making the pragmatic choice, it makes little sense to support either candidate on the basis of their social agendas, because their real source is the American public, not the politicians themselves.

As for Iraq, we’ve been down this road before. Unless you can actually identify any long-term benefits of a Kerry victory in terms of European cooperation in some sphere or another, your argument is shit.

[Darth Wong]

Because as you keep ignoring the point isn't to replace Bush, reward Bush, or anything else. It is to punish the democrats...

That in a nutshell is your entire argument. Rather than punish the one who's been causing all of these problems, punish the ones who, in your opinion, didn't do enough to stop him.

Pathetic.

[tharkûn]

So what the makes you think the Democrats will "get the message" when you protest-vote for the Wonder Chimp?

Because they managed to get it the last few times it has happened.

So to send a message to the less-incompetent party, we should re-elect the party that's made the United States into a pariah among nations? "Messages" can wait until the biggest incompetent who has EVER sat in the oval office has been given the pink slip.

Ever? You have got to be kidding me Jackson, Grant ... there are presidents who make Bush look downright decent.


No we shouldn't re-elect the the republicans, we should not vote for incompotent parties.

That in a nutshell is your entire argument. Rather than punish the one who's been causing all of these problems, punish the ones who, in your opinion, didn't do enough to stop him.

A protest vote would punish the republicans as well, however I seriously doubt they would interpret it as such. As I've said before, the backlash if Bush does push for a theocracy and does live up to the board's doomsday scenarios will be substantial.

If the democrats want to get votes then they need to have a candidate cable of earning them. If other people beleive the problems with the system are less important than putting Bush-lite into office; then they are fine to vote for Bush-lite. I view the problems of the system as being paramount.

[Darth Wong]

That in a nutshell is your entire argument. Rather than punish the one who's been causing all of these problems, punish the ones who, in your opinion, didn't do enough to stop him.

A protest vote would punish the republicans as well, however I seriously doubt they would interpret it as such. As I've said before, the backlash if Bush does push for a theocracy and does live up to the board's doomsday scenarios will be substantial.

Wake up Mr. Rip Van Winkle, he is pushing for a theocracy. And you still present no cogent case for arguing that the ones who failed to do enough to stop him deserve punishment more than the guy who actually did all of this.

[SirNitram]

For the idiot brigade who screech how we should reform the democrats! REFORM THE DEMOCRATS! why should we not vote against Bush to reform the Republicans from their present path of neocon retards who are steadily obliterating America's place in the world?

[Axis Kast]

What? Why the fuck would North Korea try and sabotage a resolution to the situation the region is in? The North Koreans have an interest in solving the problems too, you know.

Are you on fucking crack cocaine? How the fuck do you characterize their decision to shit all over the ’94 Agreed Framework? Jesus Christ. What do you want us to do? Bend over and take it up the arse?

The North Koreans, Japanese, Russians, Chinese and South Korea WANT FUCKING BILATERAL TALKS! Therefore, nothing will get hijacked UNLESS the United States steps aside and lets it happen. I repeat; what fucking harm can come by sitting down and finding out WHY they want bilateral talks? They want to negotiate with you in private; why don't you swallow your fucking arrogance, and do it?

We know what the North Koreans want out of bilateral talks – a forum by which to circumvent and renegotiate whatever decisions multilateral talks produce. We also, incidentally, know why the Russians, Chinese, and South Koreans want bilateral talks: they’re stalling.

How you can sit here with a straight face and suggest we’ll get something out of the same kinds of bilateral discussions that have already yielded only problems in the past is beyond me.

As for Germany and France refusing to help with the invasion regardless, they called for more time for inspections and then called for peaceably disarming Saddam had weapons been found. But everyone knew back then that Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons, except of course, for the Bush administration.

You’re missing the point. Germany and France had already declined to support us before Bush went ahead without them. It wasn’t our unilateralism that pushed Germany and France away; it was their refusal form the outset that prompted our unilateralism. Bush didn’t “break” anything.

Don't be ridiculous. I said that I'd trust Kerry more to get the job done than Bush, not that Kerry was guaranteed success. There's something about this "relative" thing that seems to be escaping you.

Yet more references to a nebulous “job” you refuse to define. I’ll ask you one last time: what areas of cooperation in the War on Terror will Kerry improve that Bush cannot? Whose contributions will Kerry coax in the War on Terror that Bush has been unable to encourage himself?

How about his stance on stem cell research? Or his goal to repair America's image in the world? Or the fact that he harbors no desires to turn America into some modern crusader nation? Or his decided lack of a one-way radio to Jesus Christ? Or that he has preached sensitivity in the War on Terror, while this administration has derided it? Want me to go on?

Kerry’s stance on stem-cell research isn’t enough to win him my vote.

You already know I stand with Bush on the notion that the United States needs to bring democracy to the Middle East. We’ve discussed the stagnation of that region of the world before, and the horrible self-perpetuating circle of violence it’s produced. As for that Jesus Christ shit, it’s just you and Mike Wong circle-jerking over Darwin’s grave.

IF I HAD TO TRUST ONE CANDIDATE TO FOSTER INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, I WOULD TRUST KERRY OVER BUSH. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT KERRY IS GUARANTEED TO DO IT. IT MEANS THAT HE HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF DOING IT THAN BUSH, AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW THAT'S TRUE.

To what fucking end, you blithering moron? To foster international cooperation on an issue in which only we are interested? It’s not gonna’ happen. To foster international cooperation on an issue in which all parties share some interest? It’ll happen anyway. Get it through your thick fucking skull: unless you can prove Europe is purposely holding back something in the War on Terror just to spite George Bush, your arguments about how Kerry will accomplish things that Bush cannot are purely wishful thinking.

Actually, they were flying really low already, what with the rejection of the Kyoto treaty, the ABM treaty controversy and the rejection of ICC before 9/11. The Bush team had a below average reputation to begin with after just four or five months in office. The WTC attacks wiped those concerns away and put most of the world squarely behind America on terrorism and the Afghanistan expedition, but right after that, when Bush, Rummy, Rice and the other neocons started beating the Iraq war drums (what with all the demands of support earlier and then snubbing those offered of their own free will to help already on the record) that they went from low-flying to crash and burn. And after they had crashed and burned, they nuked the wreckage afterward. That's how it looks like for most politically aware common folks outside the US.

Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Treaty is a talking point for environmentalists here at home who never followed the document’s actual story and instead invented a lie. When the British Deputy Prime Minister tells the world that the treaty was killed and buried in Europe, I don’t see any reason to suspect he’s lying.

The ABM treaty revocation won’t hurt anyone. Russia and China aren’t about to start an arms race – not that they could, anyway. If people are upset, it’s only because of a misunderstanding of the implications of our decision, and an irrational, unfounded fear that China and Russia still plan to match our military, pound for pound.

As for the ICC, Bush is totally correct. It’s for nations that don’t have global interests and who can’t police their own. We’ll persecute our own criminals, thanks very much.

[Edi]

Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Treaty is a talking point for environmentalists here at home who never followed the document’s actual story and instead invented a lie. When the British Deputy Prime Minister tells the world that the treaty was killed and buried in Europe, I don’t see any reason to suspect he’s lying.

Personally, I wouldn't give a damn about rejection of the treaty if the US was otherwise committed to reducing its waste emissions, but it isn't, so you'll not get a free pass with this copout.

The ABM treaty revocation won’t hurt anyone. Russia and China aren’t about to start an arms race – not that they could, anyway. If people are upset, it’s only because of a misunderstanding of the implications of our decision, and an irrational, unfounded fear that China and Russia still plan to match our military, pound for pound.

That does not change the fact that Bush's handling of the ABM issue caused a lot of ill will. He was downright insulting about it. Whether the treaty is relevant anymore is beside that point.

As for the ICC, Bush is totally correct. It’s for nations that don’t have global interests and who can’t police their own. We’ll persecute our own criminals, thanks very much.

The US has so far demonstrated a total inability and lack of will to investigate demonstrated crimes committed by its soldiers, or even to investigate if such crimes have taken place. So you can fuck off with that particular lie.

Edi