Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

No, terror is whhat terrorists aim to cause, education can help reduce terror

Also it is the goverment job to fund education

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

No it isn't. The Constitution quite clearly does NOT allocate education to the federal government.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Who responsibility is it to fund education if not the goverment? Education is too expensive for a indivdual to pay for there own unless they are really rich.

If someone is poor what do they do? Everyone should have a right to an education

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Hmm. I could change the thread subject to something like "2004 Presidential Election", so it covered all of this, rather than just Kerry picking Edwards.

Here's another:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...270672,00.html

No mess in Iraq? :erm:

Yes, 2 days would be unrealistic, but it's now been over a year since "major combat operations" were over.

It's good that the Iraqi police etc are taking over in some areas.

But things like this, which seem to be happening on a regular basis, are not good.

I know where Bush stands. Which is why I would not vote for him if I were a US citizen.


Ah, the NY Post....Mr Murdoch's print equivalent of Fox News....

I found this quite funny regarding a recent NYP "exclusive".

As for Afghanistan....

The survey was of only 804 people.

It's good that the Taliban are not in power (I was going to say "...are gone", but they haven't gone really), & Karzai is apparently a good president. But the rest of the country outside Kabul is apparently still a nightmare, what with the warlords (no better than the Taliban), & the Taliban. And aid agencies such as MSF pulling out, due to the situation, doesn't help.



Apparently it wouldn't have looked good if she had stood for the 2004 nomination, as she is still only in her 1st 6 year term in the US Senate.

Although if she had run, she would have been very popular.

Interesting article on her (from last November) & whether she would or would not run: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...087351,00.html

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Poor woman, she may never get a chance to run unless kerry loses and she has the back kerry all the way (and has even gone beyond that :O) she is helping sink her own chances...

Back to Education, Jerrek :) Do you really think the goverment shouldnt pay for education using taxs? Doesnt that screw the poor hugely?

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Yeah, cool :D thanks

Something shorter though like "Whitehouse 2004" "Bush vs Kerry" or "USA 2004" "election 04"

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Perhaps, but the responsibility lies with the state governments, not the federal government. Thats why I don't care about federal education funding. It is NOT THEIR JURISDICTION. My state government should budget accordingly.

Mine is a prediction, not a statement of current polls.

Indeed. When we consider that World War I and World war II and the Vietnam War and the War for Independence and the War of 1812 all took longer than one year, I really don't see why people are crying over "not making enough progress."

I don't see how that is a "mess." And I certainly don't see how that relates to Bush. South Africa has a lot of crime too. It is a local problem.

Did you miss this part? The polling firm, Charney Research, is a partisan Democratic polling firm. And superstar Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, who's read the study †� and who has worked on similar polling in developing countries †� calls it "very reliable."

However, the majority of people are happy, and pleased that the Taliban is no longer in power. Are you not?

Popular, with who? Foreigners, Europeans, and liberals? Do you really think people will vote for the "bitch?"

We're discussing the federal election and how it relates to education. So, No. No, the federal government should NOT be spending money on education. It is not in Congress's job description in the Constitution, and all the powers NOT listed is reserved to the 50 Sovereign States.

I do not want the federal government ****ing in my state.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

That is fine with me. It might suit the new direction of the thread better.

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

Oops, true. My mistake. Interesting poll, still ;)

I do agree that these things take time.

However, the current security situation is hardly great, & I believe that if the "peace" (or aftermath?) had been planned as well as the actual war was, things could have been better than they are now.

It shows how there are still huge security problems in Iraq, with the insurgency/resistance/terrorists/name-of-choice etc. I've lost count of the number of times there has been news of yet another car bombing or other attack.

The current security situation in Iraq relates to the Bush administration because it was the Bush administration which planned & implemented the war in Iraq, & the Bush administration which was in control of Iraq, via the CPA, until the recent handover of sovereignty.

I know that South Africa has a lot of crime. But it is not a rogue state which recently underwent regime change at the hands of the US-led Coalition, & has not had the US in control of it while its crime problems got worse.

And repeated car bombings of troops, Iraqi police, civilians, & other terrorist attacks in Iraq, etc., are hardly similar to a "local crime problem"

Nope, I saw that.

My point re: Murdoch ownership & NYP bias was made because although the poll itself may have been conducted by a legitimate (& actually Democrat rather than Republican) polling firm, the actual article itself was a pro-Bush opinion piece.

Plus it gave me a chance to do a bit of RM bashing by giving a link to an - admittedly unrelated - article about a NYP story which turned out to be rubbish. [yes, I am biased against Murdoch media]

As I said in my previous post: "It's good that the Taliban are not in power"

I am glad that the Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan. And, despite being a Guardian-reading liberal do-gooder (for want of a better phrase ;) ), I did actually support the US led war in Afghanistan.

But, be that as it may, Afghanistan is still a mess. Security & quality of life outside of Kabul are not much better than they were before the Taliban were overthrown. The warlords are in many ways just as bad as the Mullahs they have replaced.

Sorry, should probably have said something more like "Extremely popular with Democrats, liberals etc., & utterly despised by Republicans & conservatives".

Re: Kerry picks Edwards as running mate
 

True :(


Running for principals or ego? Hmm.



Go Ralphy! Split the anti-Bush vote again! :erm: :( :mad:

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Hey, Perot did it in 1992, why can't Nader do it in 2004?

William Clinton, Albert Gore Jr. (Democratic) 44,909,806 [43.01%]

George Bush J., Danforth Quayle (Republican) 39,104,550 [37.45%]
H. Ross Perot, James Stockdale (Independent) 19,743,821 [18.91%]

Guess what? If even only 30% of Perot voters voted for Bush, Clinton wouldn't have made it.


PS I don't get your arguing over the Murdoch owned source of the article. Strip the opinion out of it and take the raw polling data.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

A little off topic... Here's is the history of the voting in the United States.

Blue = Republican
Red = Democrat


1976 - James Carter (D) vs Gerald Ford (R)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1976.gif


1980 - Ronald Reagan (R) vs James Carter (D)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1980.gif


1984 - Ronald Reagan (R) vs Walter Mondale (D)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1984.gif


1988 - George Bush (R) vs Michael Dukakis (D)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1988.gif


1992 - William Clinton (D) vs George Bush (R)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1992.gif


1996 - William Clinton (D) vs Robert Dole (R)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe1996.gif


2000 - George W. Bush (R) vs Albert Gore Jr. (D)
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/y4t/pe2000.gif

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Interesting. I didn't realise that the Perot vote was so decisive in '92.

Heh, I just like to moan about anything Murdoch owned :shrug: ;)

Very interesting.

I knew Mondale did badly - but not that badly!


Getting back to this election....

I found this interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...263301,00.html

(past the stuff about Hillary Clinton being invited to speak at the Democrat Convention)

Trying to increase their chances of swing-voters or more moderate voters choosing Bush, I assume. [no need to pander to the core supporters as much, as they'll obviously vote Bush anyway]

I guess the Democrats have done similar, though.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

They have, yes, but not in this election. It seems to be dominated by the extreme left, the likes of Noam Chomsky, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, Moore, and the other nasties.

When it comes down to voting, they will either have to cater to the extreme left by alienating the swing voters, or try to grab the swing voters thus alienating the far left who will vote for Nader.

Joy.

Re: 2004 US Presidential Election
 

Goes to show how far to the right the US has gone if it regards someone like Kerry Clinton or Edwards as being extreme left. Kinda makes me sick that it seems to be a crime to be 'liberal' now - suppose people should shut up about personal freedom, etc, take it in the ass from corporate America and enjoy it. If you're poor tough you can go and die quietly somewhere along with the various people getting the shaft from the US Govt in the name of big company interests (whoever can give the right people the right cash).

Here's a nice quote for you Jerrek: