A view from afar, so to speak. We see the US Electioneering on every newscast here, and whilst I am not the least interested even in our UK or world politics, its is fascinating to see the posturing by two people who, in my opinion, should never be anywhere near holding even personal responsibility, let alone that of a nation, or even the free world. We have seen Bush struggle for 4 years, we do not know much about Kerry, but what is clear that both these people have a total lack of charisma to hold the attention and the faith of a nation. I watched last night as Clinton came onto the stand to a rapterous reception, and for whatever he was, he do's seem to hold an excitement to which people respond, as did JFK. I remember a film called "DAVE", where the clone replacement for a indisposed president could and did speak for himself and the nation, and refused to be led by the nose by the background manipulators. It was a feelgood film, just exactly what America wants right now. It is and has been totally clear that Bush cannot speak without a written text on an autocue, he is a mumbling prat without it, seemingly too inept to put commanding and persuasive words together, and he has little character to carry any discussion not prempted by his background staff. America needs someone better than whats on offer,
Something has me worried
- Thread starter llarsen
- Start date
Wow Frank...Charisma etc.
I just thought they were a pair of Wankers !
BD
I just thought they were a pair of Wankers !
BD
Barry, you are right, but they had just a bit more than these two !
Lynn Larsen
Lynn Larsen
Well to throw an automotive twist on this:
I will venture that Bush and the local Republicans may very well carry North Carolina on the weight of what just happened. I got a recorded call just now from Dale Earnhart Jr. touting the Republicans as the true team against evil and encouraging everyone to vote for them!
Lynn
Edited ~10PM - I also got a call from Jeff Bodine pitching a Lady Judge
I will venture that Bush and the local Republicans may very well carry North Carolina on the weight of what just happened. I got a recorded call just now from Dale Earnhart Jr. touting the Republicans as the true team against evil and encouraging everyone to vote for them!
Lynn
Edited ~10PM - I also got a call from Jeff Bodine pitching a Lady Judge
Lynn,
The scary part to me is that people would take polictical advice from Jr. (or Bruce Springstein for that matter) not that they are not entitled to their opinions or should should not support the person of their choice, but that we look to celebrities for advice rather than think it out ourselves.
Welcome to the age of the ten second sound bite and spin. "You didn't hear me say that, you only thought you heard that..."
MY thoughts? Cheney scares the begeebers outta me...as does Edwards. But Dick would eat John alive and crap him out whole before he knew what happened! Bush is a good man who is controlled by others and doesn't even know it, Kerry is a PC, wannabee poll reader.
Honestly, is this the best we have to offer?
Remember.... "Not insane!!!!" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
"Shoes for industry!!!"
Rick...the liberal conservitive! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
The scary part to me is that people would take polictical advice from Jr. (or Bruce Springstein for that matter) not that they are not entitled to their opinions or should should not support the person of their choice, but that we look to celebrities for advice rather than think it out ourselves.
Welcome to the age of the ten second sound bite and spin. "You didn't hear me say that, you only thought you heard that..."
MY thoughts? Cheney scares the begeebers outta me...as does Edwards. But Dick would eat John alive and crap him out whole before he knew what happened! Bush is a good man who is controlled by others and doesn't even know it, Kerry is a PC, wannabee poll reader.
Honestly, is this the best we have to offer?
Remember.... "Not insane!!!!" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
"Shoes for industry!!!"
Rick...the liberal conservitive! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Ron Earp
Admin
I find it interesting that people care what Hollywood icons have to say. How can living a very priviledged life have anything to do with forming realistic opinions of what happens in the real world? Are there those amoung us that feel they closely relate to these people? I seriously doubt Britney Spears, or Clint Eastwood, and I have very much in common although I suppose both Clint and I do pee standing up (at least I hope he hasn't quit that yet). Not having much in common I seriously doubt our priorities are very similar and thus I won't be taking advice from them (Dale Jr included), or any other Hollywood types.
Ron
Ron
I'm personally very happy to see that this post has gone as it has... there are many other forums I've frequented on which things like this always turn personal somehow. One of the reasons I enjoy this forum so much is the level of maturity.
I wonder if maturity has some form of correlation with GT40 ownership? Obviously these kits are expensive, and it seems that the consumers of these kits who frequent this site tend to be a little older than one some other car forums. Also, the large membership from outside of the US may have something to do with it... perhaps egos are more easily threatened here in the US and therefore people feel the need to defend... thus leading to pissing contests.
Anyway, that was just some stream-of-consciousness on the post...
As for the political situation, I agree that neither candidate is really optimal.
As far as charisma, Kerry always reminds me of Frankenstein... his forehead never moves and he can display almost no emotion (botox?). I believe Bush is a little better in that respect... but not by much. Actually, I was just watching Terese Heinz Kerry giving a speech last night on the TV... she is pretty uninspiring herself. Certainly Edwards has that charming smile and Cheney does not... but I don't particularly like Edwards either (perhaps because my fiancee is in medical school...).
As for scariness and ability to do the job... Bush and Edwards seem to fall in the same category to me. I can't particularly see either being able to pull off any big scheme without the guidance of their advisors. Kerry and Cheney seem to be somewhat analogous as well... both are shrewd politicians who have the intelligence and know-how
to really cause trouble.
Well, I'm just rambling now...
I guess I'll just have to flip a coin come election day eh? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I'm interested in getting more responses from any board members from other countries and how they feel about the situation. Our media has inundated us with reports of pro-Kerry initiatives in Europe, but I don't personally trust the media very much...
John
I wonder if maturity has some form of correlation with GT40 ownership? Obviously these kits are expensive, and it seems that the consumers of these kits who frequent this site tend to be a little older than one some other car forums. Also, the large membership from outside of the US may have something to do with it... perhaps egos are more easily threatened here in the US and therefore people feel the need to defend... thus leading to pissing contests.
Anyway, that was just some stream-of-consciousness on the post...
As for the political situation, I agree that neither candidate is really optimal.
As far as charisma, Kerry always reminds me of Frankenstein... his forehead never moves and he can display almost no emotion (botox?). I believe Bush is a little better in that respect... but not by much. Actually, I was just watching Terese Heinz Kerry giving a speech last night on the TV... she is pretty uninspiring herself. Certainly Edwards has that charming smile and Cheney does not... but I don't particularly like Edwards either (perhaps because my fiancee is in medical school...).
As for scariness and ability to do the job... Bush and Edwards seem to fall in the same category to me. I can't particularly see either being able to pull off any big scheme without the guidance of their advisors. Kerry and Cheney seem to be somewhat analogous as well... both are shrewd politicians who have the intelligence and know-how
to really cause trouble.
Well, I'm just rambling now...
I guess I'll just have to flip a coin come election day eh? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
I'm interested in getting more responses from any board members from other countries and how they feel about the situation. Our media has inundated us with reports of pro-Kerry initiatives in Europe, but I don't personally trust the media very much...
John
Lynn Larsen
Lynn Larsen
John,
In terms of the media, I took a vow the other day that I will never again watch CBS News. They are so blatantly biased that it makes me sick. I'm not sure that the others are any better, but I have watched CBS since I was knee high and I always allowed for their bias. But Dan and the boys have just pushed me too far this year and my stubborn Norwegian button has been pushed. One of my bad traits is that I'll take crap for quite a while without a lot of complaint, but once you push me too far, that's it, you're written off and declared persona non grata in my mind.
Chris, you sound like me. Kids: 30,27,26 & 12.
Lynn
In terms of the media, I took a vow the other day that I will never again watch CBS News. They are so blatantly biased that it makes me sick. I'm not sure that the others are any better, but I have watched CBS since I was knee high and I always allowed for their bias. But Dan and the boys have just pushed me too far this year and my stubborn Norwegian button has been pushed. One of my bad traits is that I'll take crap for quite a while without a lot of complaint, but once you push me too far, that's it, you're written off and declared persona non grata in my mind.
Chris, you sound like me. Kids: 30,27,26 & 12.
Lynn
Well, to make a more neutral posting:
I would advise everyone to look at
http://www.factcheck.org
if you haven't already. (The site Cheney misnamed factcheck.com
in the Veep Debate when trying to diffuse the Halliburton claims).
They cull the speeches/debates/spins, and check for accuracy.
The front page updates constantly, but you can look at all of their
past articles.
No holds barred - they take both sides to task.
Ian
I would advise everyone to look at
http://www.factcheck.org
if you haven't already. (The site Cheney misnamed factcheck.com
in the Veep Debate when trying to diffuse the Halliburton claims).
They cull the speeches/debates/spins, and check for accuracy.
The front page updates constantly, but you can look at all of their
past articles.
No holds barred - they take both sides to task.
Ian
[ QUOTE ]
John,
In terms of the media, I took a vow the other day that I will never again watch CBS News. They are so blatantly biased that it makes me sick. I'm not sure that the others are any better, but I have watched CBS since I was knee high and I always allowed for their bias. But Dan and the boys have just pushed me too far this year and my stubborn Norwegian button has been pushed. One of my bad traits is that I'll take crap for quite a while without a lot of complaint, but once you push me too far, that's it, you're written off and declared persona non grata in my mind.
Chris, you sound like me. Kids: 30,27,26 & 12.
Lynn
[/ QUOTE ]
Lynn - IMHO, US media these days is slanted in one way
or the other too much. There's a lot of hanky panky going on
between some powerful people and news agencies. I'm going to
stick with European news (I'd watch Univision, but my Spanish
is abysmal /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif )
Ian
John,
In terms of the media, I took a vow the other day that I will never again watch CBS News. They are so blatantly biased that it makes me sick. I'm not sure that the others are any better, but I have watched CBS since I was knee high and I always allowed for their bias. But Dan and the boys have just pushed me too far this year and my stubborn Norwegian button has been pushed. One of my bad traits is that I'll take crap for quite a while without a lot of complaint, but once you push me too far, that's it, you're written off and declared persona non grata in my mind.
Chris, you sound like me. Kids: 30,27,26 & 12.
Lynn
[/ QUOTE ]
Lynn - IMHO, US media these days is slanted in one way
or the other too much. There's a lot of hanky panky going on
between some powerful people and news agencies. I'm going to
stick with European news (I'd watch Univision, but my Spanish
is abysmal /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif )
Ian
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, US media these days is slanted in one way
or the other too much. There's a lot of hanky panky going on
between some powerful people and news agencies. I'm going to stick with European news
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah...the BBC and the Guardian are as even-handed in their reporting as any US media outlets. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
IMHO, US media these days is slanted in one way
or the other too much. There's a lot of hanky panky going on
between some powerful people and news agencies. I'm going to stick with European news
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah...the BBC and the Guardian are as even-handed in their reporting as any US media outlets. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
On the one side you have Kerry…
At worst he is being politically expedient by searching out the will of the people for personal political gain. This is not an admirable trait, but it does reflect a functioning democracy.
At best he has seen the errors of his ways and has chosen to change his mind. This may be a sign that he may actually have a conscience.
On the other side you have G W Bush…
At best he is well meaning, but has shown himself to be completely incompetent by unwittingly creating a global catastrophe in Iraq that will continue to cost many thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.
At worst he is a deceitful egoistical fanatic who thinks nothing of sacrificing the lives of civilians and soldiers to achieve his personal political goals.
Is there even the slightest doubt in anyone’s mind as to which is the lesser of the two evils?
I hope my words have not been too strong.
At worst he is being politically expedient by searching out the will of the people for personal political gain. This is not an admirable trait, but it does reflect a functioning democracy.
At best he has seen the errors of his ways and has chosen to change his mind. This may be a sign that he may actually have a conscience.
On the other side you have G W Bush…
At best he is well meaning, but has shown himself to be completely incompetent by unwittingly creating a global catastrophe in Iraq that will continue to cost many thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.
At worst he is a deceitful egoistical fanatic who thinks nothing of sacrificing the lives of civilians and soldiers to achieve his personal political goals.
Is there even the slightest doubt in anyone’s mind as to which is the lesser of the two evils?
I hope my words have not been too strong.
Ron Earp
Admin
It doesn't matter at this point which of those two jokers ends up in office. The very sad thing to me is that the US will not leave Iraq for a very, very, very long time. I seriously doubt that I will live to see the US stop being involved in middle eastern politics and I'm only 36. I wish it were different.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
John D et all,
I feel rather sick at the prospect of the options you face in these elections. There does not seem to be any exit policy or strategy in any of the current 'world'problems WE all face together. Like Ron Earp, I wish it were different but it's deteriorating by the day. Most rational people here in England feel the pain every day whether it is 8 troops lost forever today or one lost yesterday. One is far too many in such a total shit hole as Iraq has now become.
It's almost time to forget it completely but it/they will revisit us again and again in future years with more and more of their totally insane machinations. Why have each of our countries become so soft and politically correct and we cannot say 'boo to a goose' any more.
We rejoice in the free speech that we have (certainly here anyway) but where has that got us. For the last 3 years we've had a rebel cleric inciting terrorism right in the middle of London.
By not voting in these elections, what would you achieve ?
Who ever wins the oval office this time has the best and worst job ever AND THE BIGGEST mountain to climb ever.
Both candidates are totally without merit and may God help you because I don't think anybody else can.
I feel rather sick at the prospect of the options you face in these elections. There does not seem to be any exit policy or strategy in any of the current 'world'problems WE all face together. Like Ron Earp, I wish it were different but it's deteriorating by the day. Most rational people here in England feel the pain every day whether it is 8 troops lost forever today or one lost yesterday. One is far too many in such a total shit hole as Iraq has now become.
It's almost time to forget it completely but it/they will revisit us again and again in future years with more and more of their totally insane machinations. Why have each of our countries become so soft and politically correct and we cannot say 'boo to a goose' any more.
We rejoice in the free speech that we have (certainly here anyway) but where has that got us. For the last 3 years we've had a rebel cleric inciting terrorism right in the middle of London.
By not voting in these elections, what would you achieve ?
Who ever wins the oval office this time has the best and worst job ever AND THE BIGGEST mountain to climb ever.
Both candidates are totally without merit and may God help you because I don't think anybody else can.
I have been watching and reading since the beginning of this thread. I thingk that each person(if voting) has a responsibility to find oout about whom is running. You can say all you want about each candidate, but I will tell you this. If you are a republican, you need to read the editorials in your local paper to get a view of the other camp and see what pisses them off about W or about his gafs or omissions. For those in the democrat camp, you need to listen to one day of Shawn Hanity, Niel Boortz(a libertarian) or one of "their" camp. Then you will see what the devisiveness is all about. I think the foreign press is not much better, as they have their biases and agendas as well. The decisions to be made this time around are larger than most may think. I believe in my own way, that this election will shape the direction of most of the "free" world and how terrorism will be delt with. My rational is based on the drastic view of how each canidate will go about solving the problems that face them. You can say what you want about what is going on in the world, but several things are undeniable. W has made some gafs along the way, he has even screwed up(who wouldn't have),,,but he has stayed the course like it or not. He saw a course and he went after it, knowing that it may have lead to a one term president. I also belive that Afganistan and Iraq are tied together, not seperate entities. He is a moral person(I think), and has used his faith as a guide. He doesn't inject his religion, but relies on it. I don't think he has used trickery to get where he is. He had bad intelligence, but if you look at the congresional record, you will see that every front democrat said we should have gone into Iraq.
Kerry has in the past done nothing for this country(my opinion). He has only one legislative initiative of importance that I know about, and that couldn't even get the support of his fellow state senator(Kennedy). He still refuses to release his service record. Has voted against every defense bill presented in the last 20 years, and has not taken a stand on one side of an issue since I don't know when. He won't allow an American defense of the country unless it has UN aproval. And I know for a fact, that he is lying to the American people about his actions.(Met with the UN security council before voting FOR the US to go into Iraq. He never met with the security coucil, and then said if we had waited the council would have voted for us to go in. I guess he forgot that France and Russia said they would never vote for it)
I guess by now every one of you thinks I am a republican, but your are wrong. I have been a Libertarian for many years. the Libertarian party is a good one, if you understand what is going on on the local level. You will lose more freedoms on the local level than you ever will on the national level. The local level affects your life far and away more than the national level. the leaders of the Libertarian party just don't have a clue about terrorism or international issues, at least this time around. They want to cut and run(pull allltroups out imediately). Boy, that should send a good message to the world comunity.
Anyway, I think that if you plan to vote, you should get out there and find out about the candidates. All of them. Then decide what you think is important and vote for that guy. Its almost as important to vote as it is for whom you vote. Just don't pick one out because the candidate sounds sincere. (This is what a good number of 18-24 yr olds are doing)
Just my .025 cents worth.
Bill
Kerry has in the past done nothing for this country(my opinion). He has only one legislative initiative of importance that I know about, and that couldn't even get the support of his fellow state senator(Kennedy). He still refuses to release his service record. Has voted against every defense bill presented in the last 20 years, and has not taken a stand on one side of an issue since I don't know when. He won't allow an American defense of the country unless it has UN aproval. And I know for a fact, that he is lying to the American people about his actions.(Met with the UN security council before voting FOR the US to go into Iraq. He never met with the security coucil, and then said if we had waited the council would have voted for us to go in. I guess he forgot that France and Russia said they would never vote for it)
I guess by now every one of you thinks I am a republican, but your are wrong. I have been a Libertarian for many years. the Libertarian party is a good one, if you understand what is going on on the local level. You will lose more freedoms on the local level than you ever will on the national level. The local level affects your life far and away more than the national level. the leaders of the Libertarian party just don't have a clue about terrorism or international issues, at least this time around. They want to cut and run(pull allltroups out imediately). Boy, that should send a good message to the world comunity.
Anyway, I think that if you plan to vote, you should get out there and find out about the candidates. All of them. Then decide what you think is important and vote for that guy. Its almost as important to vote as it is for whom you vote. Just don't pick one out because the candidate sounds sincere. (This is what a good number of 18-24 yr olds are doing)
Just my .025 cents worth.
Bill
By the time most of us get a chance to read this post, the Presidential election will probably have been said and done, but I think that this subject may still be worth pursuing so I hope that you don’t all mind.
There was a point made that the Iraqi and Afghanistan issues cannot be separated. This is absolutely true, but it goes further than that too. The Palestinian/Israeli issue and countless other Middle Eastern issues are also entwined. Consequently, the problems of the entire complex region must be considered as one before a solution can even begin to be developed. This is where the “coalition of the willing” went so wrong. They were so totally fixated on the single goal of deposing Saddam that they had lost all concept of cause-and-effect. There were countless warnings, even from within the US’s own government agencies (CIA and FBI), that such an invasion would exacerbate the terrorist issue, yet there was no plan at all to handle the subsequent insurgency. None! Such total ignorance can not, and should not be tolerated in people who wield such power. It is hard to imagine a bigger error of judgment, and it is the responsibility of the democratic process to ensure that such inadequacies are not left unchecked. No fear of consequence means no strength in the people.
On a more positive note, there was a pessimistic viewpoint expressed that these problems will be with us for a veeeeery long time. I don’t necessarily agree. Unfortunately though, Iraq will be a thorn in the side of any solution, but that solution will need to be found despite these problems. Although this forum does not really provide an environment by which we can discuss the specifics, if you get the chance, please read Jimmy Carter’s biography. His actions in his early days as President and his days following are a shining beacon toward a way in which we might move forward. It also shows us how one error in judgment (ala the Iranian policy) can set the cause back many years.
PS. I find it hard to understand why it took a war of this magnitude to depose a single man (Saddam). Surely, a budget of $250Billion (and counting) combined with the best minds in the world could have found an alternate way. For that sort of money, all his henchmen and their dogs could have been whisked away or bought out, with about $200 Billion left to spend on good will toward the people. There is no good will at the moment.
I’ll stop now.
There was a point made that the Iraqi and Afghanistan issues cannot be separated. This is absolutely true, but it goes further than that too. The Palestinian/Israeli issue and countless other Middle Eastern issues are also entwined. Consequently, the problems of the entire complex region must be considered as one before a solution can even begin to be developed. This is where the “coalition of the willing” went so wrong. They were so totally fixated on the single goal of deposing Saddam that they had lost all concept of cause-and-effect. There were countless warnings, even from within the US’s own government agencies (CIA and FBI), that such an invasion would exacerbate the terrorist issue, yet there was no plan at all to handle the subsequent insurgency. None! Such total ignorance can not, and should not be tolerated in people who wield such power. It is hard to imagine a bigger error of judgment, and it is the responsibility of the democratic process to ensure that such inadequacies are not left unchecked. No fear of consequence means no strength in the people.
On a more positive note, there was a pessimistic viewpoint expressed that these problems will be with us for a veeeeery long time. I don’t necessarily agree. Unfortunately though, Iraq will be a thorn in the side of any solution, but that solution will need to be found despite these problems. Although this forum does not really provide an environment by which we can discuss the specifics, if you get the chance, please read Jimmy Carter’s biography. His actions in his early days as President and his days following are a shining beacon toward a way in which we might move forward. It also shows us how one error in judgment (ala the Iranian policy) can set the cause back many years.
PS. I find it hard to understand why it took a war of this magnitude to depose a single man (Saddam). Surely, a budget of $250Billion (and counting) combined with the best minds in the world could have found an alternate way. For that sort of money, all his henchmen and their dogs could have been whisked away or bought out, with about $200 Billion left to spend on good will toward the people. There is no good will at the moment.
I’ll stop now.
[ QUOTE ]
On the one side you have Kerry…
At worst he is being politically expedient by searching out the will of the people for personal political gain. This is not an admirable trait, but it does reflect a functioning democracy.
At best he has seen the errors of his ways and has chosen to change his mind. This may be a sign that he may actually have a conscience.
On the other side you have G W Bush…
At best he is well meaning, but has shown himself to be completely incompetent by unwittingly creating a global catastrophe in Iraq that will continue to cost many thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.
At worst he is a deceitful egoistical fanatic who thinks nothing of sacrificing the lives of civilians and soldiers to achieve his personal political goals.
Is there even the slightest doubt in anyone’s mind as to which is the lesser of the two evils?
I hope my words have not been too strong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Chris, your reasoning makes perfect sense and a vote for Kerry is clearly the right thing to do, if one takes your premises at face value. However, I think you're being generous when you state that John Kerry, at his worst, is politically expedient. On the other hand, you're being niggardly when you say that George Bush, at his best, is completely incompetent.
As for Jimmy Carter, while he was an honest, intelligent man, he was also a completely ineffectual president.
I have not read his autobiography, although perhaps I should. However, being an autobiography, I'm sure you'll agree he might tend to present himself in a more favorable light than more objective historians will. IMHO, notwithstanding his success with the Camp David accords, the USA is in big trouble if we start looking to Jimmy Carter for advice on foreign policy. His approach to the cold war? Let's start unilaterally disarming until the Soviets give up! The US military was in a shambles when Carter left office. Recently, on the lecture circuit, he's made some comments to the effect that the American Revolution was a mistake because there was a lot of unnecessary bloodshed and had we kept negotiating with the British we would've eventually won our freedom, like Canada, Australia and India did. Perhaps Mr. Carter did not consider that the violent revolution in the US paved the way for a peaceful transition of power in the other colonies. Jimmy Carter is a pacifist and pacifism will not win the war on terror.
Your words aren't too strong, Chris...we can intelligently debate the issues here and still share our passion for GT40s on the other parts of this site.
On the one side you have Kerry…
At worst he is being politically expedient by searching out the will of the people for personal political gain. This is not an admirable trait, but it does reflect a functioning democracy.
At best he has seen the errors of his ways and has chosen to change his mind. This may be a sign that he may actually have a conscience.
On the other side you have G W Bush…
At best he is well meaning, but has shown himself to be completely incompetent by unwittingly creating a global catastrophe in Iraq that will continue to cost many thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.
At worst he is a deceitful egoistical fanatic who thinks nothing of sacrificing the lives of civilians and soldiers to achieve his personal political goals.
Is there even the slightest doubt in anyone’s mind as to which is the lesser of the two evils?
I hope my words have not been too strong.
[/ QUOTE ]
Chris, your reasoning makes perfect sense and a vote for Kerry is clearly the right thing to do, if one takes your premises at face value. However, I think you're being generous when you state that John Kerry, at his worst, is politically expedient. On the other hand, you're being niggardly when you say that George Bush, at his best, is completely incompetent.
As for Jimmy Carter, while he was an honest, intelligent man, he was also a completely ineffectual president.
I have not read his autobiography, although perhaps I should. However, being an autobiography, I'm sure you'll agree he might tend to present himself in a more favorable light than more objective historians will. IMHO, notwithstanding his success with the Camp David accords, the USA is in big trouble if we start looking to Jimmy Carter for advice on foreign policy. His approach to the cold war? Let's start unilaterally disarming until the Soviets give up! The US military was in a shambles when Carter left office. Recently, on the lecture circuit, he's made some comments to the effect that the American Revolution was a mistake because there was a lot of unnecessary bloodshed and had we kept negotiating with the British we would've eventually won our freedom, like Canada, Australia and India did. Perhaps Mr. Carter did not consider that the violent revolution in the US paved the way for a peaceful transition of power in the other colonies. Jimmy Carter is a pacifist and pacifism will not win the war on terror.
Your words aren't too strong, Chris...we can intelligently debate the issues here and still share our passion for GT40s on the other parts of this site.
[ QUOTE ]
PS. I find it hard to understand why it took a war of this magnitude to depose a single man (Saddam). Surely, a budget of $250Billion (and counting) combined with the best minds in the world could have found an alternate way. For that sort of money, all his henchmen and their dogs could have been whisked away or bought out, with about $200 Billion left to spend on good will toward the people. There is no good will at the moment.
[/ QUOTE ]
The first person person I heard make that suggestion was from a comedienne. It was before the war, so at that point it was predicted that the war would cost around $90 billion. If done quietly, it might have worked.
PS. I find it hard to understand why it took a war of this magnitude to depose a single man (Saddam). Surely, a budget of $250Billion (and counting) combined with the best minds in the world could have found an alternate way. For that sort of money, all his henchmen and their dogs could have been whisked away or bought out, with about $200 Billion left to spend on good will toward the people. There is no good will at the moment.
[/ QUOTE ]
The first person person I heard make that suggestion was from a comedienne. It was before the war, so at that point it was predicted that the war would cost around $90 billion. If done quietly, it might have worked.
Lynn Larsen
Lynn Larsen
Subject: Flu Shot Info.
What does this have to do with this thread? Read on and you will see. For the British and Canadians, there is an aspect of this that you will find interesting as well.
How the vaccine works:
Influenza vaccine is produced by growing the virus in eggs. The virus is killed and processed to create the vaccine, which is given by injection under the skin. The body then produces antibodies to the virus over the next two to four weeks. If the immunized person then comes into contact with the influenza virus, the antibodies attack and kill the virus before it has a chance to cause infection. The vaccine contains the 3 most likely strains to be active during the "flu season"
Why the shortage:
Almost half of the nation's flu vaccine will not be delivered this year. Chiron, a major manufacturer of flu vaccine, will not be distributing any influenza vaccine this flu season. Chiron was to make 46-48 million doses vaccine for the United States. Chiron is a British company. Recently British health officials stopped Chiron from distributing and making the vaccine when inspectors found unsanitary conditions in the labs. Some lots of the vaccine were recalled and destroyed.
Why is our vaccine made in the UK and not the US?
The major pharmaceutical companies in the US provided almost 90% of the nations flu vaccine at one time. They did this despite a very low profit margin for the product. Basically, they were doing us a favor. In the late 80's a man from North Carolina who had received the vaccine got the flu. The strain he caught was one of the strains in that years vaccine made by a US company. What did he do? He sued and he won. He was awarded almost $5 million! After that case was appealed and lost, most US pharmaceutical companies stopped making the vaccine. The liability out weighed the profit margin. Since UK and Canadian laws prohibit such frivolous law suits UK and Canadian companies began selling the vaccine in the US.
By the way...the lawyer that represented the man in the flu shot lawsuit was a young ambulance chaser by the name of John Edwards.
Lynn
What does this have to do with this thread? Read on and you will see. For the British and Canadians, there is an aspect of this that you will find interesting as well.
How the vaccine works:
Influenza vaccine is produced by growing the virus in eggs. The virus is killed and processed to create the vaccine, which is given by injection under the skin. The body then produces antibodies to the virus over the next two to four weeks. If the immunized person then comes into contact with the influenza virus, the antibodies attack and kill the virus before it has a chance to cause infection. The vaccine contains the 3 most likely strains to be active during the "flu season"
Why the shortage:
Almost half of the nation's flu vaccine will not be delivered this year. Chiron, a major manufacturer of flu vaccine, will not be distributing any influenza vaccine this flu season. Chiron was to make 46-48 million doses vaccine for the United States. Chiron is a British company. Recently British health officials stopped Chiron from distributing and making the vaccine when inspectors found unsanitary conditions in the labs. Some lots of the vaccine were recalled and destroyed.
Why is our vaccine made in the UK and not the US?
The major pharmaceutical companies in the US provided almost 90% of the nations flu vaccine at one time. They did this despite a very low profit margin for the product. Basically, they were doing us a favor. In the late 80's a man from North Carolina who had received the vaccine got the flu. The strain he caught was one of the strains in that years vaccine made by a US company. What did he do? He sued and he won. He was awarded almost $5 million! After that case was appealed and lost, most US pharmaceutical companies stopped making the vaccine. The liability out weighed the profit margin. Since UK and Canadian laws prohibit such frivolous law suits UK and Canadian companies began selling the vaccine in the US.
By the way...the lawyer that represented the man in the flu shot lawsuit was a young ambulance chaser by the name of John Edwards.
Lynn
