I would like to point out that this (http://slate.msn.com/id/2108379/) makes him go UP in my estimation!

Does speaking whatever the listener wants to hear make Kerry "multilingual?"

Y'know, ironically, I really prefer the ultra-rich, diplomatically-minded, French-speaking, New England-living type...much better than the blunt-speaking, English-mangling, Southern-living type. If only Kerry and Bush would switch ideologies and character, I'd be the happiest voter in America!

I find it strange that Bush and co. were critizing Kerry for actually being able to speak another language (and for people aplauding this). Bush cannot even speak English properly so whats his problem with people speaking French? I thought people would want a leader with a brain.

I understand that the Americans don't like the French because Fox News used to run footage of Chirac meeting with Saddam. However, if the footage was to run further it would show Don Rumsfeld congratulating him on Kuwait.

You know, some people say (yeah, FOX style) education is a burden that prevents you from seeing things as they ought to be -- black and white -- and when you eventually are able to communicate with outlanders you cause suspicious that you might be a traitor. Like Hanoi-John aka Monsieur Kerry :rolleyes:

In the end we are talking about a country where the current president campaigns against his opponent on that he has a french cousin (http://www.google.de/search?q=cache:DmHQm8dcVgoJ:www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx%3Fid%3D3983+Former+French+Environment+Mi nister+Is+Kerry%E2%80%99s+First+Cousin&hl=de). But then, in this age of terror, isn't that pretty great compared to the President's family having a cozy relationship with the Bin Laden's? Nevermind.
That this nonsense actually resonates in notable parts of America's backwoods population -- many of whom don't even own a passport that would allow them to cross America's borders -- is the really scary part.

But you recognise hillbillies not only when they speak but also by the gifted (http://www.teesnthings.com/ProductImages/2004-election-t-shirts/republican-t-shirts/kerry-sucks-tee-shirt.jpg) messages on their t-shirt (http://store6.yimg.com/I/neuse_1789_219035) :rolleyes:

:lol: A German, who's probably never been to the backwoods of America, expounding on what resonates with the backwoods population. That's rich.

I'm sure this (http://www.cafepress.com/aroseisarose.11106345) resonates with the German mainstream population. :rolleyes:

BTA,
you're pretty much right about that one.

As for appeal, the stuff is over and over on Fox and in the mouths and on the websites of the GOP dittoheads. It does resonate -- I do not invent that. We might disagree about the use of the term Hillbilly or backwoods population -- having never been to the backwoods of America I use it as an insult, not as a description of actual people by where they live. Being a "Hinterwäldler" is a problem of mindset IMO.

And yes, haveing (unfortunately) never been to America (yet), I was limited to explore the internet-parrallel-world of that part of America. Web-site delving I saw, I read and now I know and I'm scared :p

And yes, I've been stereotyping :p

When you do get over here Rags, it would be my honor you show you around. I'll drive you around in my muddy 4-wheel drive Ford pickup (don't bump your head on the gunrack) while we chew tobacco (grew it myself), discuss the NASCAR points standings and listen to the Dixie Chicks.

Wait...scratch the Dixie Chicks...that 8-track tape is somewhere along the side of the road on Highway 41...the Dixie Chicks went pinko.

Happy to join you in sterotyping.

Well i'm sure a wee bit of stereotyping is not going to cause anyone any harm, after all the Germans and Irish have been stereotyped for many years.

Yes it can be very offensive but Ragusa's are mild compared to what I have received in the past.

Dear Hacken, I don't think you really get my point:

The riding on the fact that Kerry can speak *french* (he-he-he) is IMO a very illuminating point about Bush's campaign, maybe one of the most telling.

What did the french do? So it is France's fault, and their failt alone, that they delayed Americas rightous march to revenge 911 -- oblivious of the divine nature of America's fury? Just a point: Did America play any role in this or were they just the innocent victims of Frances envy and rivalry? Gimme a break. Please.

The Kerry-France pseudo-argument builds on the bias argument of the US right. The liberal-bias works by giving the American right the feeling to be at least persecuted minority whose voice isn't heared -- if not a majority that is being ridden roughshot by the liberal elitists controlling the media! Boo-Hoo! It works with fear -- fear to be not heared, fear to be left aside.
And for the GOP propagandists the liberal elitists like John Kerry aren't happy with controlling public opinion with their biased media -- they also sell out America's interests to their overseas cronies!

This line of argument works with fear of treason, national sell-out. So it also invokes patriotism of the own followers -- The country is in danger when John Kerry wins! Unite!

Bush's election campaign builds on a feeling of insecurity, and xenophobic and anti-intellectual sentiments in the US. Now that's something to ponder about.

The Kerry-France point implies that someone who can speak a foreign language like french -- and even has french relatives -- might be tempted not to serve America's interests first. That is not only insulting, it's defamation. It's what's underneath I dislike.

Sure, not all Americans feel the appeal of this -- but the fact that it is used over and over again on the GOP campaign tells me that there is a point to it -- the point that it works.

I just read an article about Saddam's interrogation (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=905). In found one thing particularly striking. Dr. Jerrold M. Post, a psychiatrist, profiled Saddam in captivity for the CIA and concluded that he is “not psychotic.” But Post said that the former dictator has a distorted worldview because he has had very little experience outside of Iraq.

Maybe speaking french and having made travels overseas to see the world, and having talked *with* (not just *to*) people there is a healthy thing for a head of state. Just a point.

/me combs his blonde hair, mutters his morning prayer ending with "... and Bush sucks!", straightens his lederhosen and goes to have beer, sausages and sauerkraut for dinner ...

[ October 21, 2004, 12:08: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Bush's election campaign builds on a feeling of insecurity, and xenophobic and anti-intellectual sentiments in the US. Now that's something to ponder about.
Sorry, I just couldn't let this quote go unanswered. :)

As opposed to Kerry...

Who is attempting to scare (http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041015/NEWS09/410150395/1001&lead=1) younger voters into voting for him by claiming Bush is secretly planning to re-institute the draft and send them to war.

or

Telling Americans that Bush is responsible for the lack of flu shots (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/politics/main650240.shtml) when it was British regulators that shut down the company making the vaccine.

or (still see the above link) scaring senior citizens that Bush will privatize social security and/or reduce benefits.

Just trying to keep the threads "fair and balanced" :D

TGS - There's one problem with that argument - most of what Kerry is saying is true.

First the false stuff. The flu shot stuff that Kerry is spouting is complete rubbish. Yes, we were expecting the UK to supply 1/2 of our total flu shots this year, but it's certainly not Bush's fault that this British company got shut down at the last minute, after those shots were already manufactured. I dislike Bush as much as anyone, but he didn't drop the ball on this one.

On the draft: This isn't that far fetched. We don't have enough troops in Iraq. The Iraq war is polarizing the entire middle east against the U.S., and that has the potential to turn into a s***storm of epic proportions. If Bush continues with his pre-emption policy on terrorism, we are going to need more troops. Moreover, many in the Armed Forces are being forced to sign on for another tour, whether they want to or not, and thus there is, in effect, a backdoor draft right now.

As for Social Security: Based on Bush's own words, that essentially what's going to happen. Bush's proposal: Instead of paying into social security, allow people to invest that money in other ways - i.e., the stock market, ergo private. If that happens, we've got a major problem. The baby boomers are going to start collecting benefits in 10 years, and if we aren't taking in nearly as much money from Social Security i.e., people who are still working and thus paying for the current people's benefits, where is that money going to come from? Unless we screw them all over, which would be pretty much unforgivable, considering these people paid into that program their entire lives.

@Aldeth

1. The draft. Bush has said repeatedly that there will not be a draft. Anyone with a little common sense should be able to figure out that a draft would be political suicide for generations. Today's kids are so babied that it would never happen unless there was an actual invasion.

2. Allowing people to invest some of their social security investments (and I use that term loosely) makes a tremendous amount of sense. It is time that the government and the people made social security what it was originally intended to be. That is a safety net and/or a supplement to peoples retirement. I have no sympathy for people who retire without any assets. In regards to the baby-boomer generation retirement. They are perhaps the wealthiest generation this planet has ever seen. Without a doubt there should be a test to see if you even qualify for benefits. There is no way in hell that Bill Gates should be allowed to collect his $24,487 (the maximum someone could collect in 2003).

There are many different definitions of the truth. I don't consider what Kerry is saying as the truth. I consider it fear mongering equal to if not exceeding what Bush is accused of.

@ Snook
Bush has said repeatedly that there will not be a draft. Bush has also said repeatedly that Iraq had WMD. Bush has also said repeatedly that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war. Bush also said "Osama: Dead or alive." Bush also said "I'm a uniter, not a divider." In fact, nearly everything Bush has said regarding this war has come to be proven false.

So when people say things like "Bush says there won't be a draft, so there won't be!" - despite the fact that our military is currently stretched to the breaking point and the Pentagon has designs on Iran and North Korea - I'm sure you'll forgive me if I'm more than a little skeptical.

I never quote blogs, but if you can shoot down Kevin Drum's (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004802.php) logic on this one, I'll eat my own head.
If George Bush is reelected, will he reinstate the draft? Merely asking the question has raised such howls of indignation from conservatives that it's pretty clear this question is hitting pretty close to the warblogger bone.

And why shouldn't it? After all, Bush has made his military stance clear: he will take the fight to the terrorists. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Iran will not be allowed to build nuclear weapons.

But everyone knows this is meaningless rhetoric given our current military strength. In Iraq alone, there's virtually unanimous agreement that we're too undermanned to successfully fight the growing insurgency there, which means there are only two realistic options: pull out or increase troop levels. "Staying the course" is a recipe for defeat.

So what's going to happen? Bush says he won't pull out, and it's also clear that as long as he's in the White House (and maybe even if he isn't) we won't get any serious assistance from other countries. What's more, as this Defense Science Board report makes clear, there are no more Army troops available right now, and Donald Rumsfeld knows perfectly well that his "modularity" initiative won't change that. So where will the additional troops come from? Not from the National Guard, that's for sure.

Basically, then, the troop strength question boils down to this:

Bush will not pull out of Iraq, but he also cannot afford to lose there. And while he doesn't have the political courage to say this before the election, there's clearly only one way to turn things around: more troops. More American troops. All the fatuous Rumsfeldian "by gollys" in the world won't change that simple reality. There's no reason to think that Bush will change his philosophy of preventive war in a second term. Neither the neocons nor the garden variety hawks that control his administration will allow that. Unless you're an incurable optimist, this means more wars in the Middle East. Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Does anyone truly doubt this? There are only two ways to prevent this: serious negotiations, including concessions from the United States, or military action. But Bush has refused to negotiate with Iran, and there's no reason to think this will change in a second term. That means it's either military action or a nuclear Iran. And if it's military action, that means more troops. A lot more troops.

The conclusion to all this is pretty obvious: either George Bush dramatically changes his military policy in a second term or else we're going to need a lot more teenage boots in the Middle East. A suprising number of moderates seem to be desperately pinning their hopes on the former — based on some wishful thinking that I have a hard time grasping — while conservatives are loudly blustering that the latter is just laughable — although they don't present any particular evidence for this. In the end, they like sounding tough, but as long as an election is on the line they aren't prepared to level with the country about the logical consequences of that toughness.

It's easy for me to be philosophical about this: I'm 45 and I have a bad back. No tours of duty in the Khyber Pass for me. But if I were 18, or if I were the father of a 16-year-old, I'd be taking a much closer look at the plain realities of George Bush's policies and setting aside the pre-election happy talk. It's naive to think he's suddenly going to become a new man in his second term, and it's foolish to think his current policies won't lead to further wars. After all, that's what a lot of his supporters are actively rooting for. As this Zogby poll shows, it looks like draft-age men are finally starting to realize this.

Bottom line: You can vote for Texas bluster and a draft, or you can vote for real-world common sense and a volunteer army. It's naive to think you can get one without the other. If you're planning on voting for Bush, that's fine. But can you really, after all that's happened in the last 2 years, say with any certainty that when Bush promises no draft, he can actually keep it? WOULD actually keep it? He doesn't exactly have the best track record for accuracy and proper planning, you know. And as a man of reasable health and of draft age, I'm worried.

Under a second Bush term, the draft is extremely likely, period. "Anyone with a little common sense" can see that. Denying this is as foolish as it is pointless.

IMO, a draft is just as likely regardless of the President.

Kerry has said he isn't leaving Iraq to fend for itself, and IMO his ability to garner foreign support is highly questionable.

Kerry has also said he will add 40,000 troops. Where is he going to get them if nobody is volunteering? If they are volunteering, then neither Kerry nor Bush will need a draft.

The Pentagon doesn't want draftees because they are not effective soldiers; simply throwing bodies at a problem isn't the way to solve it.

I've heard that one way to address the shortage of quality volunteer military personel would be to allow a higher number of GED holders to enlist. Currently, only a small percentage (vs High School graduates) is allowed.

The number of qualified applicants who have only a GED has been estimated as high as 12,000, and they are currently on a waiting list.

I agree with BTA...we'll see ru-up bonuses and elistment bonuses (which at this time are rather historically low) before we see anything. There are far more effective means that the military can employ to increase their ranks...draft is not even on the horizon.

I sure haven't seen the Bush camp try to use horror stories...like the ones about "how can Kerry defend the US, if he can't even defend himself from the swift-boat vets"...that's a real horror story...one that I predict will come true if he gets elected.

Oh, and Rags...I understood you, I was just poking fun...so, you comin or not?

There is no way that the US will reinstitute a draft. There will be, regardless of who wins the election, a massive increase in funding for the US military in 2005. Here is a rather interesting article on the subject from web page (http://web2.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo?page=basicsample)

Three things, fellas.

Bush's election campaign builds on a feeling of insecurity, and xenophobic and anti-intellectual sentiments in the US. Now that's something to ponder about.Hmm...I don't FEEL anti-intellectual...

I think it's one of the great ironies of this campaign that the Republicans and Democrats have seemingly reversed their traditional foreign policy perspectives. Now the Democrats are preaching the virtues of isolationism, cutting foreign aid, increasing border barriers, contempt for cultures unready/unfit for democracy, and fear of the stereotyped Other (remember Kerry warning during the debate that illegals slip across the border every day -- and, gasp, "some are even from the Middle East"! -- probably looking just like Bush's secretary of energy!).

Second, BTA puts it exactly right:

The Pentagon doesn't want draftees because they are not effective soldiers; simply throwing bodies at a problem isn't the way to solve it.US armies, like US corporations, are heavy on training and technology and light on manpower. A draft would disrupt the economy that feeds the war machine, poison the political atmosphere, and mangle materiel. It would be much easier to drawdown troops from oh-so-critical hotspots like Europe. And the only reason the US has lots of troops in place is because it cares about the ultimate government of Afghanistan and Iraq. Preemption by itself doesn't require a lot of troops -- it's regime change that bogs down soldiers. If war broke out, the US could flatten Iran or North Korea without going through the regime-change motions.

And third...not to ruin the humorlessness (http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001882.html) here or anything, but...I'm PRO-FRENCH. I meant this thread ironically. D'accord?

@ TGS

I can't add any more to the draft discussion that hasn't already been said by someone else since my last post. However, I would like to go back to the SS issue.

First of all, let's say Bush does allow people to privately invsest some of their funds that would normally go to SS. Let's say 25% just for the sake of arguement. Even with this relatively low percentage you are going to have huge shortfalls in paying the people who are of retirement age. That's simple math. Now onto some of your other points:

It is time that the government and the people made social security what it was originally intended to be. That is a safety net and/or a supplement to peoples retirement. I have no sympathy for people who retire without any assets. You and I have very different opinions about this. I view SS as a main source of income for aging people who never made it. If you have no sympathy for people who retire without any assets, and don't think that we need SS for this very purpose, then truly there would be no need for SS whatsoever, as people who retire with adequate savings do not rely on SS as a main income source. I tend to think that you are like me: one of the fortunate. Fortunate in that we are educated people, and even from a relatively young age, we have some form of retirement plan set up and are investing a percentage of our income (in my case 5%) from every paycheck. We're not the people that SS was developed for. However, we also don't want SS to be a handout, and therefore all who pay into it, are entitled to get something out of it.

In regards to the baby-boomer generation retirement. They are perhaps the wealthiest generation this planet has ever seen. Without a doubt there should be a test to see if you even qualify for benefits. Your statement is true (that the baby boomers are some of the wealthiest people on the planet) because they are the oldest non-retired people in the U.S. Generally, as you get older, you get more work experience and command a higher salary. That's just common sense, and I imagine (in the white collar world at least) this has been the standard for quite some time. Whether you are talking about now, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 100 years ago, I'm willing to bet that people in their 50s made more money than people in the 40s, 30s, or 20s.

The point is though that just because many will make it, doesn't mean all of them will. And that, I maintain is the true purpose of SS. I also think that just because you are financially secure does not mean you should get reduced or no benefits. That doesn't make any sense at all. If you paid into a system all your life, and then did not receive as much or perhaps even nothing at all, you would in effect turn SS into an handout. It would almost be as if you were punishing the people who were successful. If you weren't going to get as much in the way of benefits, and privatization was an option, you'd be even MORE likely to invest elsewhere, because anywhere else you choose, you're likely to get some return on that investment.

One more thing. I do not deny that the average person could make much more money by investing what they pay into SS every year in the stock market. This is almost certain. In this regard privatizing SS seems to make sense. But the problem with that is this wasn't an option before, and we will have people who have paid into this system for years getting stiffed on the benefits. I already have paid thousands of dollars into SS in the limited amount of time I have been working. I don't have my paycheck in front of me, but I think I pay over $100 every two weeks into SS. People of my parents age have paid tens of thousands of dollars into SS. After all that, if they were suddenly informed that they would not get full benefits, that would just suck, and would be patently unfair. Especially considering many people may have planned their retirements by including a $24,000 annual benefit from SS. (And in case you're wondering if I'm arguing this way for the benefit of my parents, I should state now that my parents do NOT have SS as their sole, or even primary source of income in their retirement years.

Dam, the shocking part is what can be mistaken for a fluency in French in some parts. But I think Kerry would be so better off, if he had taken some lessons in Spanish. Would be way more groovy in the latin hemisphere. Anyways, he managed to go into a Swiss School for a year withoug picking up a single word Swissgerman. But if he had stayed where he was and would have gotten the citizenship of that canton, he'd be eligible for the Swissguard. Wouldn't that bug (not nerve) Chevy ?

There is no way that the US will reinstitute a draft. There will be, regardless of who wins the election, a massive increase in funding for the US military in 2005. Here is a rather interesting article on the subject from web page That's a great article. Yet it doesn't convince me. That is to say, the proposal of raising the salaries to overcome the shortage in manpower is probably the by far best course of action. Yet, it also spells political suicide, at least that's the way I deem the reaction to a sudden rise in taxation to previously unkown peaks. Bush isn't fond of doing unpopular things, so the course will be inaction as long as possible. Until late 2006 I speculate. But in any case, Bush has to be re-elected. I don't want the war bills to go to the wrong address.

[ October 23, 2004, 00:14: Message edited by: Iago ]

I think it's one of the great ironies of this campaign that the Republicans and Democrats have seemingly reversed their traditional foreign policy perspectives. Oh, yes, even domestically. This is so ironic: Rupublicans defending high govenment spending, more government intervention in people's lives, changing the Consitution in an effort to circumvent state law and an increase in executive power.

I can see why Grey supports all of these programs. Are we seeing the return of Hamilton's "high Federalism" to our government? Jefferson and the real "Republicans" - those of 1800 - (today's Democrats) were for less government spending, an increase in power of the legislature, greater states' rights and less goverment intervention in people's lives. America may be returning to the fundamental arguments of its roots.

I can see why Grey supports all of these programs. Are we seeing the return of Hamilton's "high Federalism" to our government?I hope so!

Though seriously:

Oh, yes, even domestically. This is so ironic: Republicans defending high govenment spending, more government intervention in people's lives, changing the Consitution in an effort to circumvent state law and an increase in executive power.Given that Kerry is defending yet higher spending and also defends a powerful presidency (since he'll need it against a Republican legislature), I'll assume the focus is on the two middle points -- and probably referring to the two Republican bugbears of constitutionally undoing abortion and homosexual marriage.

Several commentators have described the race as a contest between an activist conservative and a reactionary liberal. But even that's too simplistic. Take federal funding of abortion, which Kerry more-or-less supported in the second debate when he said that the gov't should support the constitutional rights of the poor -- implying, given the original question and the flow of his answer, that the gov't has a duty to pay for the poor to have abortions. And he insisted in the third debate that he would have a litmus test to make sure new Supreme Court judges would uphold Roe vs. Wade.

So conservatives are "activists" in the sense that they want to reverse the decision and go back to the way things were before free abortion was mandated on the states; and liberals are the "reactionaries" that want to preserve this relatively new interpretation of read-between-the-lines constitutional rights. Similarly with homosexual marriage -- the conservatives are "activists" trying to maintain millennia of marriage history while the liberals are "reactionaries" preserving the Court's right to rewrite the Constitution and human institutions at will.

So which side is being more intrusive into people's lives? Those that want to force people to preserve life or those that want to force others to permit life be taken? Those that want to force people to keep marriage the way it's always been, or those that want to force people to accept a watered-down redefinition? I think both sides are being intrusive, because that's the nature of gov't -- it has a responsibility to take sides, and even refusing to take a side supports one position over the other. They're just supporting different kinds of intervention and constitutional rewrites -- 'cept the rightists want to straightforwardly add new amendments while the leftists just want the power to reinterpret the past according to the imagined future without bothering with formal changes.

But this is WAAAAY off topic. It's almost midnight and I'm rambling. And it deviates from my main point: that I really wish Bush could speak French!

Grey - the man can't even speak ENGLISH, imagine how he would mangle French (although to be charitable, English is probably harder to learn, even though he's had decades to master it).

I see this election as a referendum on Bush's performance -- he gets an F+ in my book (he failed miserably, but he was really confident of his answers). He needs to be fired before he does any more harm with his pet Congress (the supposed pit bull that has laid down on its back, spread its legs and said "scratch my belly, please").

Kerry doesn't have a lot going for him other than being not-Bush, so if he tries to speak another language, what the heck, I'll give him a little credit.

Given that Kerry is defending yet higher spending and also defends a powerful presidency (since he'll need it against a Republican legislature), Wishful thinking, Grey. That still remains to be decided. And even if that is the case in 2004, by 2006 Dems may have the advantage in at least the Senate. Let's also consider that Senator Byrd had to get out his old, tattered copy of the Contitution, which he carries with him, and wave it at the Republican Bushies on the Senate floor in an effort to remind them that we still had one. He commented on "Meet the Press" that Shrub had less respect for the congress than Nixon did.

While I did mean to focus on those two issues - abortion and gay marriage - and we will not agree on them, I was also thinking of the Unpatriotic Act. Which books are YOU reading? More government intervention is on the way, Bush promised, with version two of the Unpatriotic Act, soon to be coming your way. Due process? What is that anyway...? IMO, it's similar to Hamilton's beloved Sedition Act, but mostly in its disregard for the Bill of Rights and its sharpening of the executive "fangs."