Is Dubya Stupid?

Aiden commented that it is evident that Dubya is stupid and that the US has become the laughingstock of the world. But is Dubya really stupid? Think about it:

I quote UNLV from half a year ago when we were debating prisoner of war ethics:

This war is being fought for the same reasons all American wars since the revolutionary war have been about, American financial and economic interests.

With this in mind, let us go from the presumption that the President was looking to take out Sadaam from the moment he stepped into office, not to avenge his daddy, not to make his friends rich, but because he thought it was in the best interests of the US to take out a middle eastern regime that would not play ball (so to speak) with the US. 9/11 happens providing a convenient pretext for getting the nation riled up and all set to fight. Why not take that opportunity to take out Sadaam?

Sure, the weapons of mass destruction angle was deceitful, but if that’s the case that doesn’t make Dubya stupid, it makes him Machiavellian, more shrewd than Bill Clinton ever was. The prevailing wisdom here is that if you put the smack down on the worst problem child in the class, the rest of the class falls into line. President Reagan did precisely this when Ghadaffi tried to jump bad. If the Libyan dictator would have shown he could defy the US and get away with it then other regimes might have gotten ideas. Reagan was like I got one for your ass, I’ll bomb your house! How you like me now? Ghadaffi chilled the fuck out after that. Reagan kept a lid on things because of the threat of force.

Although I’m not a fan of American intervention into predominately Muslim countries, neither am I a fan of either Ghaddafi or Saddam so I can gloat at these things and I can see the wisdom of the occasional pimp slap. If you slap one ho and the other ten fall into line, is that not the mark of a wise man? So why do people keep insisting that Dubya is dumb? Call him any other name but he is succeeding in his aims. He has won a second term in a divided country, he is accomplishing his foreign policy goals, and he has done so without having to capitulate to either Europe or the UN. These are not easy tasks and his ability to do so is not the mark of a dumb man.

He’s also lied about the motives of the Iraqi resistance. “They hate our freedom.” No, that’s not the case and he knows it. They are fighting because they don’t want to be occupied, no more than we here in the US would want to be occupied by an outside force. But he says they hate our freedom precisely because he knows that the general population here is just dumb enough to buy that argument. Again, that is not the mark of dumb man. Evil perhaps, if you value truth above all else, or good if you view US interests as trumping anything else, but in the end anything but dumb.

“He’s not good at public speaking!” Well neither am I. And on top of that I will tell you that UNLV cannot spell worth a lick. But it’s not because he’s dumb. It’s because he doesn’t care about spelling or it’s the manifestation of repressed sexual issues. But he knows his shit. Believe that.

The real question now is whether Bush is going to spend the next four years consolidating these gains or is he going to get liebenstraum happy and invade Czechloslovakia and Poland next. What happens next will either solidify his legacy as one of the great movers and shakers of the modern era or will expose him as the loose cannon cowboy that the rest of the world thinks he is. We’ll all be watching.

66 Responses to “Is Dubya Stupid?”

  1. Ghandi from the "D" says:

    Okay here is the problem Mexi:

    It is very hard to accept the words of wisdom from a guy that has avoided major issues in debates. Did he actually get caught with cocaine in the car when he was in college 1) Yes Okay did he bullshit his way into the National Guard and has a piss poor performace while he was there 2) Yes Did his father have his military record destroyed so the information stating how piss poor of a soldier he was would never be found 3) Yes.

    But to listen to him none of these things ever happened. That is just like a old dope dealer getting shot then coming out of the hospital saved. (Only by the grace of god did I make it back from the shooting) For the love of God do you really think God would save a suck ass dope dealer? GEEEEEZZ!

    Yes he has surrounded hiself with people that gave him the good suggestions you mentioned. Which were all pure genius. I agree! But the guy is not someone I would want my son to follow. Clinton inhaled but Bush snorted and probably smoked!! That is more of a problem than a little weed!

  2. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Stop quoting me!!!!! I have been doing some research on this whole Iraq war thing and I have come to believe the opposite of what everyone else believe on the blood for oil deal. In 1990 when Sadam originally invaded Kuwait oil prices were way low. I remember paying $.079 per gallon. Now Iraq’s beef with with Kuwait was that the Kuwaits were slant drilling and stealing Iraqi oil. They were flooding the market and keeping prices low. I believe Sadaam invaded to prop up the price and keep some of the Kuwaiti oil off the market. This was good for America since our domestic drilling operations were going bust after the boom in the early 80s (See Urban Cowboy).
    Then Bush and the boys thought about it and said if Sadaam takes the Arabian Pensula we are all fucked . They then took out Sadaam and kept his oil off of the Market to prop up prices. They figured Sadaam would go away after a couple of years and they could balance out the prices again. In Late 1998 gas was again $.99 a gallon. What did Clinton Do? He fired Missles and bomber Iraq for some no fly zone violations and oil prices shot up and all was well. Next comes the summer of 2001 oil os down to

  3. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    It cut the rest of my post off…..Next comes the summer of 2001 oil is down to

  4. Mexigogue says:

    Ghandi, I didn’t say he’s a role model. I said he’s not dumb. I bet they sat around a table saying ok we’re going to ride this wave of patriotism to invade Iraq. Condi, drum up a pretext. Powell, make some Cream of Wheat. No, just kidding. Help me draw up some plans. Let’s get this done.

    And damn you UNLV, I’ll quote you when it suits my purposes. So ha!

  5. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I got cut off again……anyways in summer of 2001 oil is

  6. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I keep getting my posts cut off your blog sucks

  7. Mexigogue says:

    There is probably a max number of characters that you can put in a comment. Stop being so dang long-winded! Or maybe it punishes you for spelling errors. HAHA! god I’m a riot!

  8. Ghandi from the "D" says:

    Okay when I have my first amateur night at Comedy Connections you have to write some of my material Mexi!!

  9. Julio Patel says:

    Success is the measure of intelligence. Those who
    failed to gain success are calling the successor
    ‘dumb’. That’s funny.

    It’s kinda like all the Linux/Unix/BSD geeks that
    call Bill Gates an idiot. Hey, guess what? That
    idiot has been whupping your ass for the last 10
    years.

  10. Cosmic Siren says:

    Then you get those who call the successful evil because they want to believe that the only reason they haven’t succeed yet is because they are too good to cheat people.

    Nice to see ya, JP. (Horrible joke you posted onlist 😉 )

  11. Cosmic Siren says:

    Just hunted down the last reply Aidan did.


    BTW r u aware that your country is the laughing stock of the civilised world? We already knew Bush was stoopid; now we know that a majority of the US population is fucked in the head, too. 🙂

    The guy is losing the ability to spell apparently. Weird.

  12. Julio Patel says:

    Cosmic,
    yeah, that was a bad joke. I figured with Aidan gone from the list, it might be allright 🙂

  13. Cosmic Siren says:

    heh.

    I didn’t realize until today that you were reading this blog, but then, I’m posting under a different name too.

  14. Julio Patel says:

    I’ve been reading this blog since like the 2nd or 3rd day that he put it up…I just usually post under some made-up name.

    When I open my RSS reader in the morning, this is the first blog that I read 🙂

    John (aka Mr. Golyadkin, aka Smerdyakov, aka Julio Patel, aka whoever) Lampe

  15. Mexigogue says:

    Aha! I was wondering who Golyadkin. I should have known!!!

    Oh and finna buy “The Double” next. Maybe even tomorrow.

  16. Cosmic Siren says:

    So, in other words, you already know who I am.

    (Makes me a little embarrassed considering the one contest between Rack and I.)

  17. Ghandi from the "D" says:

    Hey have you noticed that we have been mature as hell on the blog lately?

    No I haven’t noticed either. Just wondered!

  18. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I can spell It is just my typing that sucks.

  19. Mexigogue says:

    I love nitpicking with you because you’re out of punching distance. Notice I don’t fuck w Dave because at Leroy’s I would just see a fist and a star.

  20. Cosmic Siren says:

    Is maturity allowed on this blog even?
    *wink*

  21. Ghandi from the "D" says:

    Yeah Right! I wouldn’t mess with you at all

    “Crouching Tiger”

    I know I mess alot of words up and it has nothing to do with my typing.

  22. Julio Patel says:

    Cosmic,
    actually I wasn’t aware until just now 😉

    You weren’t using ‘Cosmic’ as your handle back then, were you?

    John

  23. Mexigogue says:

    T.G.I.F., thank god it’s FOODSTAMPS BABY!!!! I can’t wait to put on my parachute clothes and pop and lock all the way to Leroy’s, where’s my cardboard so I can spin on my head?

  24. Phelps says:

    I have one major dispute with your theory — I don’t think that 9/11 was the excuse for Iraq, I think it was an IMPEDIMENT. I’m going to get a little out there, but I think this group can handle it:

    I think that Oklahoma City was an Iraqi attack, as was the first WTC bombing. The first WTC bombing was masterminded by Ramsi Yousef, which was the Kuwaiti identity taken by an Iraqi agent after Gulf War I (while the Iraqis rifled through the records.) There is credible evidence that Yousef coordinated with McVeigh and could have been the John Doe #2 that disappeared off the wanted list when they picked up McVeigh. I think both of those attacks were financed by Saddam though Yousef. (The OKC bombing happened on the Iraqi equivalent to the Fourth of July. Coincidence?)

    I also have strong suspicions that the crash of TWA 800 was an Iraqi attack. I KNOW that it was a missile attack (covered up to avoid giving benefit to the terrorists and to avoid wrecking the airline industry. Happened on Clinton’s watch, but I think that Bush 41 and Bush 43 did the same things.) I thought for a while that Osama did it, but I think now it was done with an SA-8 or SA-6, and I don’t think Osama would have access to a mounted missile system. (They aren’t shoulder fired, and have to be mounted. The target was too high up for a shoulder fired missile.) Saddam, on the other hand, had piles of them, SA-6s in particular.

    I think that Saddam had an ongoing campaign against the US, but we couldn’t admit to it because we had been covering it up (both parties.) That is why we already had a plan for Iraq on 9/11, and that is why the first thing Bush asked was “was this Saddam?” He was afraid that he hadn’t invaded Iraq FAST ENOUGH. I think that when 9/11 happened, we had to go after Osama first, which meant Afghanistan, and that pushed the whole thing back 1-2 years. I think we would have invaded Iraq in 2002 had 9/11 not happened, which would have given Bush the timeline to clear out the “quagmire” that dogged him in this election. We had to take out Osama because he stuck his nose in, but Saddam had been steadily attacking us the whole time, and had to go too.

    (I also thing that is what the Prague meeting, which the Poles still insist happened, was all about. Saddam wanted to make sure that Osama didn’t step on the toes of any of his agents, and vice-versa.)

  25. Mexigogue says:

    You know the fact that you know all this stuff that I don’t really pisses me off!!!!!!

  26. Ghandi from the "D" says:

    Phelps that is a very good theory. Sounds feasible also. The SA-6’s that Osama has were given to him by the Mericans correct? Not to start anything but I know we supported him when he was at war with Afghanistan. Why is it that alot of the people that we support in War with our enemies ultimately come to hate us?

  27. Mexigogue says:

    Because you can only spank your monkey so many times before it ends up throwing up on you.

  28. Ghandi from the "D" says:

    I was trying to spell Americans earlier.

  29. Mexigogue says:

    You and Gary must have taken the same typing class.

    Actually I make just as many typing mistakes, it’s just that when I notice I’ve made one I go back in and change it (hopefully) before anyone notices, whereas y’all don’t have that option (other than Phelps). If fact if I really don’t like your comments, I can go and change them to “Yeah Mexigogue! You the DAWG!!!!” or in the case of a chick “I want you to have my baby!!!”

  30. Phelps says:

    SA-6 and SA-8 are Soviet Bloc weapon systms.

    The “we armed Saddam/Osama/Hitler” argument is tired and a lie. Take a look at Afghanistan. We fought guys with AK-47s and RPGs, not M-16s and Stinger missiles. When we went to Iraq, we fought T-72 tanks and dodged SA-3s and SA-6s, not M1A1 Abrahms and Patriot and Hawk missiles. Our F-14s (in GW1) fought Foxbats and Mirages, not F-16s and Phantoms. When we go to war with these jackasses, we end up fighting Russian and Chinese and French hardware, not American.

  31. rae says:

    Who thinks that the attack on 9/11 on the Pentagon was a missle? Not sure? check this out….. http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

  32. Mexigogue says:

    According to “Terror Inc.” (a book written about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda by a former CNN correspondent) the CIA funneled funds to the mujahideen through Pakistan so that there would be no direct link beween the US and Afghanistan (plausible deniability). US dollars likely went directly into buying some of that Chinese and Russian hardware.

  33. Phelps says:

    That’s a bad link. I’m 100% sure that the Pentagon attack was Flight 77. There are 62 dead passengers to testify to the fact.

  34. Phelps says:

    I agree that we financed the mujahideen. What I dispute is:

    1) that we gave them any sort of high technology — there is a world of difference between an RPG and a Stinger or TOW Missile

    and

    2) that we gave Bin Laden any money. Bin Laden was considered to be “all hat and no cattle” to borrow a phrase that this Texan never heard until Yankess decided it was cute to use about Bush. Bin Laden was seen by the CIA as a rich Saudi glory hound who didn’t really do anything to the Russians, and funneled the money into the warlords who actually got results against the Ruskies.

    Having looked at Bin Laden both before and after 9/11, I happen to agree with that assessment. Bin Laden really doesn’t do anything but make scary speeches and sign checks. I think we are a lot better off with Saddam in hand and with Ayman Zahahiri on the lam than anything Osama’s capture would get us. Arafat kicking the bucket would also be a major victory in the WOT.

  35. Mexigogue says:

    Back to the claim that the Pentagon was hit by a missle rather than a plane, maybe Rachael’s on to something: Those 62 passenagers might not be dead at all. Maybe they got lost by the baggage people.

  36. rae says:

    There was never any evidence of a plane wreckage…and all of the evidence- physically supports a missle…I just read on the website that issued the link that it has somehow been deleted. Interesting since it was a conspiracy nameing the FBI as one of the gov’t agencies to blame. Go to http://www.freedomunderground.org/newsite/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=8823
    to see the explanation- I swear that the video had a lot of reasonable truths.

  37. Ghandi from the "D" says:

    Hey you guys check out this email that I am ogin to send you. It shows indepth pictures of the Pentagon and you will see that there is no residue of any wreckage. It was blown up from the inside out.

  38. Cosmic Siren says:

    John,

    No, I wasn’t using Cosmic Siren back then.

  39. Phelps says:

    Rae, Dave, I am a conspiracy theory afficianado, and I can tell you, this one is weak weak weak. There was wreckage all in that building. There were -intact- black boxes from Flight 77 recovered. There were remains from the passengers and the highjackers recovered. There was a major genetic testing project started TO INSURE THAT THE PASSENGERS AND CREW AND PENTAGON WORKERS WEREN’T ACCIDENTALLY BURIED ALONG WITH HIGHJACKER REMAINS, because it was all mixed together.

    The guys putting this one together are the same type of crackpots who claim we never landed on the moon. I don’t see any indications of scale on the pictures, and it ignores the geometry of the angled plane hitting and what those massive speeds do to the wings when it hits. The wings of a plane are going to snap at impact, and they will be folded back before the outside edge meets the building. If the building was blown up from the inside, where is the debris all over the Pentagon lawn?

    Occams Razor rules on this one. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

  40. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Iraq did heve some US Equipment during the first gulf war. I remember our medics canabilizing a disabled Iraqi m113 for a spare road wheel. I doubt the iraqis could get an sa-6 missle onto cape cod and kep it under wraps I mean that thing is on a tracked chasies. I think, that flight 800 was blown up by an internal bomb….boom!!!!

  41. Alex D. says:

    I wouldn’t say Bush is “stupid,” per se. More like “underachieving” —

    (1) Stupid people don’t graduate from college, and (2) Bush has shown flashes of intelligence, and may perhaps have a higher IQ than Kerry.

    Now “seriously uninformed on major political issues” would be more on-target or at least closer to civil debate than name-calling. Bush seems to rely very heavily on his advisors.

  42. Phelps says:

    The main thing against TWA 800 being a bomb is that one of the witnesses was a military pilot who said that he witnessed two missile tracks after the plane and the impact of the missle. I would say a military pilot is a credible witness on missile tracks.

    The missile tracks came from the bay, so it would have been ship mounted. I was envisioning something like a big fishing trawler or yacht with the SA-6 missile system (radar under a commerical marine radardome and missiles under a big tarp) mounted on it instead of the tracked chassis. The chassis is just a BMP with the missile system attached.

    Wow. Thank God for google. I was looking for a good picture of an SA-6 when I hit this (search was “soviet SA-6” without the quotes):

    http://www.angelfire.com/hi/TWA800/exhibit33.html

  43. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Acutally the sa6 is on a btr-50 chassis

  44. Aidan says:

    My point was not so much that your President is stoopid (we already knew that) but that over half of the American population is also really, really dumb. 🙂

    You have the government you ‘deserve’. 🙂

  45. Cosmic Siren says:

    And you got the one you deserve too.

  46. Aidan says:

    You mean the “small c” conservative government who has delivered a massive budget surplus three years running? 🙂 You mean the government that introduced legislation allowing same-sex couples to nominate their partner as the beneficiary of superannuation payouts? You mean the government that no Australians love, but most Australians will put up with–because of the low unemployment, low interest rates, and generally excellent economic conditions? 🙂

    And then, of course, there is the free medical care, free education, and heavily subsidized university courses… those things tend to keep the electorate contented.

    BTW no Australian soldier has died in Iraq, so we’re not too worried about that yet, either. 🙂

  47. Cosmic Siren says:

    Strange.

    The other Aussies I know paint a different picture and they are all from different political leanings.

    I think I’ll run your words by them and see if they agree with you.

  48. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Adian,
    Unless the medical staff works for free, the drug companies donate the medicines and the hospitals donate the space then your health care is not free. It is just paid for buy the Aussie gumment. Also if an individual wants to visit a general practitioner or have an elective surgery that is going to cost out of pocket money. Let’s see you are wrong on that point my little kangaroo. I looked up your unemployment stats and as of September 2004 Australian unemployment stood at 5.6%. In the United States it was 5.4%**. Well your beloved gumment is a litte behind there. Looks like the Aussies are a little divided on their politics too your beloved liberal party only got 40% of the vote. Our stupid president and his evil Republicans got 51% of our vote sounds like dubbya is a little more popular over here than Mr. Howard and his liberals are over there. It doesn’t look like same sex marriage isn’t going to fly in Australia either. In August your Senate voted 39-7 in favor of banning it.***. Even your opposition Labor party supported the ban…
    Looks like you need to get your facts together before you run around debating politics and quoting others……

    *http://www.ausmad.com/abouthealth.htm
    **http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/9ff2997ae0f762d2ca2568a90013934c!OpenDocument
    **http://stats.bls.gov/
    ***http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/aug/04081303.html

  49. Cosmic Siren says:

    Thanks, UNLV. Your information matches what my Aussie friends have been posting in their blogs. Still haven’t back from them, but that’s probably because they’re still sleeping.

    I think Aidan was hoping to snowball us with a bluff. It never occurs to some of these people that an American might actually check into their claims. It’s part of the reason I check out foreign newsites on a semi-regular basis, because I have had a lot of non-Americans claim falsehoods about their countries to make the US look bad, when their own country isn’t any better.

    Kind of reminds me of the neighborhood gossip. Always sticking her nose in every one’s business and hiding her own.

  50. Mexigogue says:

    I think Aidan was hoping to snowball us

    I don’t know if you’re down with the most current sexual slang Cosmic but that comments brings the nasssssties visual. Really.

  51. Cosmic Siren says:

    Okay, how about “trying to pull the woll over our eyes”?

  52. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    btw interest rates, inflation, corporate and individual taxes are also lower in the USA than Australia.

  53. Mexigogue says:

    Not to mention we have few kangaroo-by shootings I might add.

  54. Cosmic Siren says:

    Yeah, there’s only so much heat an armadillo can pack.

  55. Cosmic Siren says:

    Just correcting something.

    BTW, I’ve been collecting some links for us more moderate folks at http://cosmicsiren.blogspot.com

    Also includes a link to a summarization of the CNN exit polls, which even you not so moderate folks might enjoy.

  56. Aidan says:

    >Unless the medical staff works for free, the drug
    >companies donate the medicines and the hospitals
    >donate the space then your health care is not
    >free. It is just paid for buy the Aussie gumment.

    actually, it’s paid for by the citizens via taxes. we have a “Medicare levy” taken from people’s income (i.e., a tax) which is used to fund the healthcare system. when i use the word free i am speaking from the perspective of a comsumer — who pays no cash up front. of course we all pay taxes.

    >Also if an individual wants to visit a general
    >practitioner

    No, around 70% of GP visits are “bulk billed” — i.e., the consumer pays no money up-front, and the GP sends the bill to the government. So you can walk in off the street, see a doctor, and it doesn’t cost you anything up-front. If you are homeless, or out of work, or have gone bankrupt, or whatever, you can still obtain top-notch healthcare for yourself & your family. You can also use the service if you are a millionaire, i.e., it isn’t means tested. Medicare is very popular with Australians — I would guess it is the single most popular government program.

    I have never paid money — up-front — for a visit to a general practitioner.

    Some GPs do charge an up-front fee (i.e., they do not bulk-bill). Patients/ clients take the receit from these doctors to a Medicare office, and get an 85% (approx.) cash rebate from the doctor. So if the GP charges $30 for the visit, the government pays you back $25.50 (in cash, or a cheque if you desire 🙂

    The other thing we have here is a pharaceutical benefits scheme (PBS). The most commonly used drugs are subsidized by the government. So say you are taking a antidepressant medication (for example) that costs $100 per month. The goverment will guarantee the most you pay at the pharmacy is $24. The government pays the other $75. If you have a “low income” the most you pay per month is around $3. So the poor, the unemployed, etc. can use a $100/ month drug for a cost of $3 per month. The same is true for expensive cancer medications, HIV/ AIDS medications, heart disease treatments, etc. The beauty of this system is that even the disadvantaged/ poor have access to the best treatments available. However even the middle class and upper middle class benefit from this sceme (never paying more than around $24 for the most commonly used drugs).

    >or have an elective surgery that is
    >going to cost out of pocket money.

    If you want a nose job, or a surgery that is not medically necessary, then you will most likely need to pay for it up front.

    > Let’s see you are wrong on that point my little > kangaroo.

    Actually, the broad details of my comments were correct. I’ve tried to give you a little more detail here.

    > I looked up your unemployment stats and as of
    > September 2004 Australian unemployment stood at > 5.6%. In the United States it was 5.4%**. Well
    > your beloved gumment is a litte behind there.

    Unemployment here is supposedly lower than it’s been in 20 years.

    The situation might be somewhat different here in terms of what we consider to be “low” unemployment rates. We are more or less a democratic socialist country, similar to European nations. There is a consensus here that people pay higher taxes, and the government uses that money to provide services for the population. I understand that in the US, taxes are low, and if you are poor or disadvantaged, then you are screwed. Perhaps the different approach to “lifestyle” and “government” in the different countries produces different patterns of unemployment.

    The other factor to consider here is that it is not difficult to obtain unemployment benefits here. Is that the case in the US?

    > Looks like the Aussies are a little divided on
    > their politics too your beloved liberal party
    > only got 40% of the vote. Our stupid president
    > and his evil Republicans got 51% of our vote
    > sounds like dubbya is a little more popular over
    > here than Mr. Howard and his liberals are over
    > there.

    yes, we have a very different voting system here. we have a preference voting system, whereby you indicate your preferred choice, and then provide preferences. so it is possible to vote for a “third party candidate” (or 4th or 5th party candidate) — if your candidate doesn’t win enough votes outright, preferences are re-distributed to your next choice. I would say it is rather silly to compare our system with the US (in terms of percentage of vote received). Howard’s result was pretty astonishing; he increased his majority and now controls the house of representatives and the senate. a government hasn’t hah that level of dominance in parliament in this country for many years. it was a fairly unambiguous endorsement of the current government by the people of this country, I would think.

    ***I made some other points, which you ignored. Specifically:
    –the economy here is in excellent shape.
    –interest rates (for mortgages, business loans)here are low right now. So people are buying houses, starting businesses, and so on. These economic factors are probably the main reason people re-elected Howard; why rock the boat, when you’ve just bought a new house, or started a new business? The government here has also been very successful at managed it’s budget; and has repeatedly delivered budget surpluses. (Compare with the US — how big is that deifict again? And is it “stimulating growth” yet, lol? Or just bankrupting your social security?)

    > It doesn’t look like same sex marriage isn’t
    > going to fly in Australia either. In August your
    > Senate voted 39-7 in favor of banning it.***.
    > Even your opposition Labor party supported the
    > ban…

    Lol, that is a rather superficial analysis of the situation here. I’ll pop back in when I have time, and fill you in on the details, and address the other points you raised.

  57. Aidan says:

    > I don’t know if you’re down with the most
    > current sexual slang Cosmic but that comments
    > brings the nasssssties visual. Really.

    So who is this guy in the “UNLV” jacket, Mexi? Is he cute? Do I want to snowball him?

  58. Phelps says:

    We got an Australian cameraman, though. Boo-yah! You guys need to get stuck in like the Brits and take your lumps. I bet there are a lot of our guys on the ground who figure it is just as well, since an Ausie pilot can apparently decide that he doesn’t like his mission and decide to not follow through on the CAS the guys on the ground need to survive.

  59. Phelps says:

    ***I made some other points, which you ignored. Specifically:
    –the economy here is in excellent shape.
    –interest rates (for mortgages, business loans)here are low right now. So people are buying houses, starting businesses, and so on. These economic factors are probably the main reason people re-elected Howard; why rock the boat, when you’ve just bought a new house, or started a new business? The government here has also been very successful at managed it’s budget; and has repeatedly delivered budget surpluses. (Compare with the US — how big is that deifict again? And is it “stimulating growth” yet, lol? Or just bankrupting your social security?)

    The economy here is in excellent shape (unemployment under Clinton levels, which the media decided then were low, Dow well over 10K)

    Interest rates are low, so low that we have a housing glut as people are upgrading homes so quickly and leaving lots of empty property behind

    Everytime we lower taxes, more businesses start up. Frankly, had 9/11 not happened (combined with the inherited recession), we would be doing gangbusters on the Bush tax breaks, and still will be in a couple of years.

  60. Aidan says:

    >It doesn’t look like same sex marriage isn’t
    >going to fly in Australia either. In August your
    >Senate voted 39-7 in favor of banning it.***.
    >Even your opposition Labor party supported the
    >ban…

    Actually, marriage has never been a goal of the gay rights movement in Australia.

    Here, the government has recognised “de facto” relationships since the 1970s. De facto couples — where the couple lives together “as if” married” — are treated the same as married couples under law. So all the laws that appy to marriage, also apply to de facto relationships. Over the past decade or so, those laws have been adjusted to take inrto account same-sex relationships. So gay couples here are able to access a fair amount of the most essential protections associated with marriage. There is a general consensus in this country, I think, that it is not acceptable to discriminate against gay people by denying them fundamental civil rights (visiting partners in hospital, etc.) Frankly, I am shocked at the way voters in your country are treating gay people. The “myth” about America is that you stand for justic, liberty, equality, and freedom — but that view of America is being held I think by fewer and fewer people outside of the USA. (Although you people apparently seem to still believe your own propaganda, despite your love of writing discrimination into your constitutions). At any rate, yes, Howard DID “ban” gay marriage, but in fact gay marriage was already illegal anyway (modifications would have to be made to wording in certain parts of our constitution before marriage between same-sex couples could be legalised.) Interestingly, the Howard government provided a genuine benefit to gay couples even as it “banned” gay marriage, which was the ability for gay people to bequeathe their superannuation policies to their partner. The Labour party had a policy of full equality for gay couples under law–they were planning to re-write 1000s of federal laws to ensure that gay couples were treated the same as de facto hetero couples under law. I am somewhat disappointed that Labour didn’t get in; but I think progress in this area (of gay rights) will be made regardless of the government in power in this country. We are not so bigoted and hateful in this country (as your country), thank fuck.

    So anyway, queers have never sought actual “marriage” in this country, just access to the same rights via “de facto” partnership status. I think we will have complete equality in this country b/w gays and straights within 5-10 years.

    >Looks like you need to get your facts together
    >before you run around debating politics and
    >quoting others……

    No, my facts were OK.

    >btw interest rates, inflation, corporate and
    >individual taxes are also lower in the USA than
    >Australia.

    personal and corporate tax rates are higher here than the US. we pay higher taxes — and get better services from the government. kind of like European countries. the other thing is that difference between the wealth of the wealthiest and poorest individuals in the country is much less extreme than you find in the USA. So we don’t get those horrendous ghettoes of extreme poverty, etc. (Except of course for the poor old Aboriginies, living in the heart of the country, who die on average 20 years younger than everyone else. that is kind of disgusting; the conservative government likes to ignore that issue).

    At any rate, Melbourne (where I live) was recently voted as the world’s most liveable city. That was based on things like cheap food prices, low air pollution, cheap living expenses + property, etc.

    So my main points are:

    1. you people have been had. You’re voting for a government that has an agenda of increasing the wealth of the wealthiest few; and screwing YOU — the average worker — to the wall. I am amazed that mugs like you would support the Republicans. You would be better of under a Democratic government, there’s no doubt of that. 🙂

    2. Americans tend to believe their own propaganda. But actually, the world doesn’t hate you for your “freedoms” — the world is laughing at you, because you have a a shit quality of life, you are willing to write discrimination into your constitution while praising your own nation’s committment to “freedom, equality, blah blah” (i.e., you are hypocrites), and your government is — financially – up shit creek without a paddle. And of course there is also the “quagmire” of Iraq. You had a chance to improve things with Kerry, but for some reason you had to cling to what you alrteady know. So very sad. 🙂

    Cheers.

  61. Aidan says:

    >Frankly, had 9/11 not happened (combined with
    >the inherited recession), we would be doing

    and what “inherited recession” would that be?

    >gangbusters on the Bush tax breaks,

    lol. are you referring to the 1 trillion dollars to the wealthiest 1% of your populations. Can you provide me with some empirical data proving that allowing the wealthiest 1% to become even WEALTHIER somehow “kick starts the economy” and “creates jobs”…?

    > and still will be in a couple of years.

    lol, yes, I HOPE that will be the case too, for your sake. 🙂

  62. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Adian,
    Our quality of life if fine here. I see no problem with the wealthy getting wealthier. I try not to be a hater if they got it good for them. The wealthy peoply that I know tend to be serious type A personalities and bust their asses to get where they are. Good for them. As for me the average worker getting screwed. That’s not happening and it won’t happen. My wealth is increasing my savings accounts, 401k, mutual funds, stock options and IRAs are all getting bigger. A Democratic gumment would tax my returns higher and malke me less wealthy all under the guise of better government services for some loser who dropped out of school and got pregnant by 7 different men, fuck that. I think you maybe need to visit the United States to see how we live before you go off and start making assumptions like the country has huge sprawling Ghettos. The Ghettos we do have are a hell of alot better than how 90% of the rest of the world lives. I just looked up some more stats and the Poverty rate in Australia is higher than it is here. hummmm..

  63. Phelps says:

    and what “inherited recession” would that be?

    The Clinton recession. Pretty much all the economists agree that the recession started a few months after Bush gained office, long before any of his policies would have any effect on the economy.

    lol. are you referring to the 1 trillion dollars to the wealthiest 1% of your populations. Can you provide me with some empirical data proving that allowing the wealthiest 1% to become even WEALTHIER somehow “kick starts the economy” and “creates jobs”…?

    Sure. It is called “the United States of America”. A rising tide lifts all boats.

  64. Aidan says:

    >Our quality of life if fine here. I see no problem
    >with the wealthy getting wealthier. I try not to
    >be a hater if they got it good for them. The
    >wealthy peoply that I know tend to be serious type
    >A personalities and bust their asses to get where
    >they are. Good for them.

    There is wealthy & WEALTHY. There is small business multimillionaire wealthy, and there is Richard Scaife, Bill Gates, wealthy.

    >As for me the average worker getting screwed.
    >That’s not happening and
    >it won’t happen.

    yeah, it is happening. Median income in your country has dropped many thousands of dollars under Bush Jr. (as it did with his father). It rose many thousands of dollars under Clinton.

    >My wealth is increasing my
    >savings accounts, 401k, mutual funds, stock
    >options and IRAs are all getting bigger.

    Good for you.

    >A Democratic gumment would tax my returns higher and

    No, a Democratic government would tax you at a LOWER, not higher, rate.

    >malke me less wealthy all under the guise of
    >better government services for some loser who
    >dropped out of school and got pregnant by 7
    >different men, fuck that.

    I guess it depends on what kind of society you as a nation want to create. It seems that a majority of people in your country are satisfied with the existence of enormous disparities between the wealthiest and poorest citizens. You do have a progressive tax system — by which I mean a tax system where the wealthiest citizens pay a greater portion of their income as taxes, right? That is being eroded, dismantled, by Bush. The average mug — like you — is not going to benefit from that. Richard Scaife will benefit from that.

    >I think you maybe need
    >to visit the United States to see how we live
    >before you go off and start making assumptions
    >like the country has huge sprawling Ghettos. The
    >Ghettos we do have are a hell of alot better than
    >how 90% of the rest of the world lives.

    Are you denying that terrible poverty exists in your country? Areas of drug wars, violence, etc.

    >I just looked up some more stats and the Poverty rate in
    >Australia is higher than it is here. hummmm..

    For that kind of comparison to be meaningful, you would need to provide information on each country’s definition of poverty. Also, in Australia health care, education, university degrees would be available at no up-front cost to those living in so-called poverty; so you would need to factor that kind of thing in when trying to make a comparison between the two countries. Frankly, I would be surprised if poverty was a bigger problem here than in the US. Very surprised. I read a while back that your country has at least 20 million kids living in poverty… that’s kind of sad, right?

    How would you classify your political outlook, by the way?

  65. Aidan says:

    >Our quality of life if fine here. I see no problem
    >with the wealthy getting wealthier. I try not to
    >be a hater if they got it good for them.

    So you oppose government discrimination when it comes to taxation (the rich should pay the same tax rate as the poor) but you are OK with government discrimination against lesbian and gay citizens?