P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-11-06, 10:49 PM   #1
Drakonix
Just Draggin' Along
 
Drakonix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,210
Default Harold Ford, A fine Democrat for the Senate

Congressman Harold Ford (D - Tennessee) is running for the Senate and....

Says Australia (a U.S. ally) is a "nuclear threat to the U.S."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20656046-2,00.html

He also apparently stated "that only Democrats love the Lord, not Republicans".

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_95657.asp

What ever he has been smoking, it must be hella good stuff.
__________________
Copyright means the copy of the CD/DVD burned with no errors.

I will never spend a another dime on content that I can’t use the way I please. If I can’t copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won’t be buying it. Period. They can all take their DRM, broadcast flags, rootkits, and Compact Discs that aren’t really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines.
Drakonix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 11:40 PM   #2
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

FFS! We only have one small reactor over here
Howards answer to global warming is to build nuclear power stations
maybe thats what he was getting confused with
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-06, 11:41 PM   #3
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

well gee, that's a bit thin. he's worried about nuclear proliferation, and the more countries that have the bomb the more worried he gets and that's bad somehow? btw, he never said "australia is a nuclear threat," he said "today nine countries have it - more than ever before - and 40 are seeking it, including Argentina, Australia and South Africa." the point's valid, so good for him for reminding us. the clock is ticking on proliferation and wasting our army invading countries that don't have the bomb isn't getting us closer to solving this REAL problem.

the god accusation is even thiner, and stranger. the quote is attributed by his enemies so it's accuracy should remain suspect until it's confirmed by a disinterested third party (perhaps it already has been but the article doesn't say so). but that's not the strange part. what's bizarre is that his enemies admit he didn't say anything at all! he just quotes a friend. kind of like what he pope recently did that got the muslims so riled up. so he quotes a guy he knows who allegedly says the following: "Republicans fear the Lord." ok. i hear christians say it often so my guess is it's probably accurate. he didn't say they only fear the lord, but since the friend continues, "Democrats fear AND love the Lord," i can see how somebody might make that mistake even if it's not factually correct, so seriously, this is as thin as it gets. it's similar to bush's insult of the troops (by proxy) and i guess it's a new trend the republicans are working on: assuming americans are so stupid they really buy this crap.

which reminds me...

Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Every time you hear Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney lash out against Mr. Kerry, I hope you will say to yourself, “They must think I’m stupid.” Because they surely do.

They think that they can get you to overlook all of the Bush team’s real and deadly insults to the U.S. military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry’s mangled gibe at the president.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the U.S. military than to send it into combat in Iraq without enough men — to launch an invasion of a foreign country not by the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force, but by the Rumsfeld Doctrine of just enough troops to lose? What could be a bigger insult than that?

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld’s response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you’ve got — get over it.

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than to send them off to war in Iraq without any coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction there, so that the U.S. military has had to assume not only security responsibilities for all of Iraq but the political rebuilding as well? The Bush team has created a veritable library of military histories — from “Cobra II” to “Fiasco” to “State of Denial” — all of which contain the same damning conclusion offered by the very soldiers and officers who fought this war: This administration never had a plan for the morning after, and we’ve been making it up — and paying the price — ever since.

And what could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in Iraq than to send them off to war and then go out and finance the very people they’re fighting against with our gluttonous consumption of oil? Sure, George Bush told us we’re addicted to oil, but he has not done one single significant thing — demanded higher mileage standards from Detroit, imposed a gasoline tax or even used the bully pulpit of the White House to drive conservation — to end that addiction. So we continue to finance the U.S. military with our tax dollars, while we finance Iran, Syria, Wahhabi mosques and Al Qaeda madrassas with our energy purchases.

Everyone says that Karl Rove is a genius. Yeah, right. So are cigarette companies. They get you to buy cigarettes even though we know they cause cancer. That is the kind of genius Karl Rove is. He is not a man who has designed a strategy to reunite our country around an agenda of renewal for the 21st century — to bring out the best in us. His “genius” is taking some irrelevant aside by John Kerry and twisting it to bring out the worst in us, so you will ignore the mess that the Bush team has visited on this country.

And Karl Rove has succeeded at that in the past because he was sure that he could sell just enough Bush cigarettes, even though people knew they caused cancer. Please, please, for our country’s health, prove him wrong this time.

Let Karl know that you’re not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has — through sheer incompetence — brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable.

Let Karl know that you think this is a critical election, because you know as a citizen that if the Bush team can behave with the level of deadly incompetence it has exhibited in Iraq — and then get away with it by holding on to the House and the Senate — it means our country has become a banana republic. It means our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account.

It means we’re as stupid as Karl thinks we are.

I, for one, don’t think we’re that stupid. Next Tuesday we’ll see.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/03...20L%20Friedman



following in the same vien, i found this interesting too today...


"According to the Federal Election Commission, in 2000, Al Gore got 543,895 more votes than George Bush, out of a total of more than 105 million. He deserved to be president. But the size of the injustice is minuscule (even if the practical difference in recent history is enormous). The great flaw in American democracy is not electoral irregularities, purposeful or accidental. It’s not money (which, even under current law, cannot in the end actually buy votes). It’s not even the inexplicable failure of all other Americans to vote my way or of politicians to enact my own agenda. It’s not the broken promises and the outright lying, although we’re getting close. The biggest flaw in our democracy is, as I say, the enormous tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. Politicians are held to account for outright lies, but there seems to be no sanction against saying things you obviously don’t believe. There is no reward for logical consistency, and no punishment for changing your story depending on the circumstances. Yet one minor exercise in disingenuousness can easily have a greater impact on an election than any number of crooked voting machines. And it seems to me, though I can’t prove it, that this problem is getting worse and worse.

A few days before the 2000 election, the Bush team started assembling people to deal with a possible problem: what if Bush won the popular vote but Gore carried the Electoral College. They decided on, and were prepared to begin, a big campaign to convince the citizenry that it would be wrong for Gore to take office under those circumstances. And they intended to create a tidal wave of pressure on Gore’s electors to vote for Bush, which arguably the electors as free agents have the authority to do. In the event, of course, the result was precisely the opposite, and immediately the Bushies launched into precisely the opposite argument: the Electoral College is a vital part of our Constitution, electors are not free agents, threatening the Electoral College result would be thumbing your nose at the founding fathers, and so on. Gore, by the way, never did challenge the Electoral College, although some advisers urged him to do so.

Of all the things Bush did and said during the 2000 election crisis, this having-it-both-ways is the most corrupt. It was reported before the election and is uncontested, but no one seems to care, because so much of our politics is like that. And no electoral reform can fix this problem. Intellectual dishonesty can’t be banned or regulated or “capped” like money. The only way it can be brought under control is if people start voting against it. If they did, the problem would go away. That’s democracy."

Michael Kinsley
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-06, 05:48 AM   #4
malvachat
My eyes are now open.
 
malvachat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oxford uk
Posts: 1,409
Default

God bless America.
__________________
Beer is for life not just Christmas
malvachat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-06, 06:44 AM   #5
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

I knew I had seen something on Australia's Nuclear Weapon ambitions once apon a time..seems that was back in 2002, but it was on again the other night. (after I posted in this thread) They wanted just slightly a bit more than just one reactor for medical and scientific uses at one stage so this bloke isn't all that incorrect to say that we were among countries with nuclear ambitions

Broadcast: 22/8/2002
Fortress Australia

Fortress Australia uncovers one of the most extraordinary chapters in Australia’s history - the brazen attempt by successive Australian governments to fortress their nation with atomic weapons. Recently released top secret documents finally allow this astonishing story to be told. They reveal a web of intrigue, in which Australia’s nuclear industry became inextricably linked to a quest for atomic weapons technology.

Set against a backdrop of cold war paranoia and fear of Asian aggression, Fortress Australia explores the motives of the politicians, defence chiefs and scientists who set out to buy, then ultimately build, a nuclear arsenal.

From uranium exploration and guided weapons research to A-bomb tests on Australian soil, the film shows how Canberra aided both Britain and the United States in the hope of sharing their nuclear secrets. But it proved to be an extraordinary double-game in which both allies and enemies treated Australia with mistrust.

This groundbreaking film penetrates the murky world of atomic espionage and counter-espionage. It exposes KGB infiltration of crucial political offices, which almost thwarted Australia’s nuclear ambitions. It also brings to light the secret role of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in the quest for nuclear weapons — in particular, the ill-fated Jervis Bay Nuclear Reactor Project, which could have enabled Australia to build as many as 30 nuclear weapons a year.

more here:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/documentari...es/s650355.htm

its an 1 hour program
and a fairly interesting insight into Aussie politics
I made a small (125Mb) .flv movie of it that I was going to upload somewhere
from 2.5Gb capture (mpg) but I think I might wait and stay open to suggestions if anyone wants to see it. I would rather make a better copy to upload somewhere I think.
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)