Your site was down.
anyway, I wonder if I might be happier in Europe.
My site was down? When?
Your Frank Paul link is to kisrael.com
Cheap hosting - ask your neighborhood FoSO! ;)
It was indeed down, but I can't recall the hour. Also, I tend to comment on your more personal ramblings.
The American dream was to escape the oppressive European culture and be able to do your own thing.
Europe is still oppressive and it's getting that way here too
I lived in Europe for a few years. The long vacations and old buildings are nice, but I wouldn't want their unemployment problems or general sense of malaise.
Whoops, I had left the Frank Paul link blank.
Well, gotta say I don't necessarily agree with your ramble comparing America and Europe. I would rather say it compares America to Western Europe, if comparing anything. Nonetheless, at least with the Nordic countries, from what I've heard, they really value work a lot and see it as just about the most human thing to do and so forth, so if you don't work, you're not entirely human. Nonetheless, it's dark and depressing up there. They take long vacations, too, though, and I think that's mainly because they realize that even though work is great and all, they still need a break every once in awhile and some non-tedium. I've heard they've got great social programs, though. So I would say that I kinda found your comparison a bit too simplified to really say anything about. . .sorry.
And something about trying not to be biased while watching a debate because you're biased gets kinda hard because sometimes I think by trying to be unbiased, you can be more critical of the nominee you want to win. At least I was during the Presidential debate (have seen the VP one yet. Have it tape, though). I thought Bush had won, but then there's all this media coverage and pundits saying that Kerry won. That's just my experience.
But anyway. . .I should work then get off to LA.
In re: the debates, I think most people agree that nobody's wiping the floor with their opponents in either debate, but it's hard to nail down how people are saying that one person or another wins. My suspicion is that most people have a sort of lynchpin argument or issue that makes or breaks a candidate, for example, flipflopping Kerry, lying Bush, scary Cheney, absentee Edwards, and if they fail to defend themselves against the charge in the beholder's mind, then they lose.
I mean, Bush may or may not have won the first debate, but I think nobody or few people were expecting him to appear so cranky in the first debate, and for his composed public image to break down a bit (I listened to the debate, but I still haven't seen what people are talking about, so I just don't know) is what seems to be the losing-point for Bush. OTOH, Cheney kept it together so well, perhaps against expectations, that it benefited him.
As far as the media is concerned, I haven't seen anyone cross the lines of where I'd figure their bias to be, especially pundits, most of whom have an overt bias one way or the other, it being the nature of the job, at least in the case of the first Bush vs. Kerry. The second debate seems to be more decidely Cheney, since I see more Kerry supporters picking Cheney than I see Bush supporters picking Edwards as the victor. *shrug*
LAN3, did you hear Bush's Poland obsession? He REALLY sounded like he was reaching. And in general he seemed poorly composed.
But it's funny, radio listeners thought Nixon had out debated JFK...we're visual people, it's really about how these guys look.
Frankly I haven't heard any partisan admit that the other guy probably won.
I think Kerry was reaching, as ever, by demeaning our current coalition and calling them bribed, then saying, in the debate, that Bush didn't try hard enough to bribe them: "If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, 'What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?' we'd be in a stronger place today."
As for visual people, well, who's we, kemosabe?
As for the Poland, it's a suitable representative of the 27 countries that Kerry can't be bothered to acknowledge.
Odd little statement by Kerry: " The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, 'Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.'"
It's worth noting that FDR responded to Pearl Harbor by invading Morocco, because FDR could see the connections between the Axis powers. More than likely if there had not been a European war going on, Europe would be condemning us for our imperialist aggression in the Pacific, in response to Pearl Harbor. Either way, maybe we need a new terrorism czar.
Visual people: the same populous that has, almost without fail, elected the more handsome candidate ever since the debates were televised.
27 countries. 16,000 troops, not including Britain. Or 1/5 of what the USA has sent. Compared to what happened in 1991, pathetic.
If FDR had had a blatant hardon for invading Morocco, or if the relationship between secular Saddam and the Jihadists was as strong as the Axis alliance, I might concede more of your points. I mean, hell, there had been that pesky Zimmerman Telegram...maybe we should've moved into Mexico just to be safe.
Well, would you like copies of the checks that Saddam was sending to the families of suicide bombers in the West Bank territory? Or do those people not count as Islamic Terrorists in your book?
Saddam's connection to Palestinian terrorists is pretty rock-solid, but his connection to al Qaeda is not. Israel may be safer now that Saddam is gone, but I can't say as categorically that the United States is safer.
I haven't seen this administration pushing Saddam's ties to Palestinian terrorists. That would be harder to argue against from a standpoint of truthfulness, though American voters, especially Bible-Belters, might wonder why Israel's safety is so important.
"Or do those people not count as Islamic Terrorists in your book?"
They do, but I don't think it's actionable in the sense of invading a whole damn country.