"It's Cool to Hate Bush" UM Student Says

I found this pretty funny, but that doesn't say much for my sense of humor does it? Anyways, I will be watching the debate, it will be interesting to see the reaction of the audience and the reception that each candidate will get. Could this new trend be a forecast for the result of the elections?

'It's Cool To Hate Bush,' UM Student Says
On Thursday, the driving rainstorms seemed to push students closer to registration tables at the University of Miami. In the days before 2004's first presidential debate on the UM campus, 1700 students registered to vote in the upcoming election. Last year, no one seemed to care.

"I was a little discouraging because we put time and effort into it," said student registration drive coordinator, Pamela Schiess. "But this year we got on campus and we started with orientation and kids were bombarding us with questions about absentee ballots and how they can register."

"Definitely the anti-Bush sentiments on campus are becoming the in thing, the hip thing. It's cool to hate Bush," one student said.

The Bush-Cheney campaign table on campus is doing its share of business as well.

Back at the Coral Gables campus of the University of Miami, it was a case of dueling campaigns with the Kerry-Edwards student supporters were pushing for another one-term President Bush.

"We are getting a lot of the people that haven't been involved before," said Sarah Canale, a Republican student. "I think they're Republican and are coming out and voicing their opinions and trying to get involved."

But the one that remains is whether the political excitement on the UM campus will continue after the presidential debate and November election.

Debate Briefing Book
�for�
SENATOR KERRY
Debate 1: Foreign Policy
(As Prepared By Bush-Cheney �04)
not a vote about a message. It is
a vote about war.�
You are saying the removal of
Saddam Hussein has left America
�less secure.� Unfortunately, you
also told Howard Dean, �Those who
doubted whether Iraq or the world
would be better off without Saddam
Hussein, and those who believe we
are not safer with his capture,
don't have the judgment to be
president or the credibility to
be elected president.�
You are saying the U.S. is
spending too much money on Iraq,
but in August 2003, you said we
need to increase funding for Iraq
�by whatever number of billions of
dollars it takes to win.�
You refused to take a position on
whether or not the war you voted
for was �illegal.�
You have said knowing everything
you know now, you still would have
voted for the war but knowing
everything we know now the war was
a mistake.
Your Attacks
Pretend like no position you have
ever taken matters. Political
opportunity, pessimism and the
implication of inevitable defeat
is the key here. Nobody knows
what you really believe anyway.
2
Issue:Iraq
Your Current Position
� The removal of Saddam Hussein
has left America less secure.
You are currently against the
war and wouldn't have gone to
war, but you used to be for the
war before you were against the
war before you were for the war.
Your Record
You voted for �the wrong war, in
the wrong place, at the wrong
time.� Now you say the war you
voted for made us �less safe.�
You said voting against the
funding for the war would be
�irresponsible.� That was before
you voted against the funds.
You said �it would be na�ve to the
point of grave danger� not to
confront Saddam Hussein.
During the Democrat primaries,
you said, �I think it was the
right decision to disarm Saddam
Hussein, and when the President
made the decision, I supported
him, and I support the fact that
we did disarm him.� That was
before the surge of Howard Dean
led you to declare yourself an
�anti-war� candidate.
You are saying your vote for the
war was a vote to �authorize� war
so America could send a united
message to Saddam. But don't
forget in 1991 you said, �This is
1
longer than it took for the first
Gulf War that you now praise but
voted against. (It started two
days after the vote.)
You once asked, �Where�s the
backbone of Russia, where�s the
backbone of France� to confront
Iraq. Now you are claiming the
President just had to wait a
little longer, and they would
have helped.
You once claimed you �heard from�
foreign leaders who supported
your election, and said you can
meet foreign leaders in any New
York City restaurant.
During your convention you
implied that the use of force is
only required AFTER America is
attacked. So your current
position on preemption is
�against.�
Your Attack
Imply you can get nations like
France and Germany to help in
Iraq, even though France and
Germany have said they won't help.
Say you didn't mean to attack
Prime Minister Allawi, but
Carville and Begala have been
lecturing you about rapid
response.
4
Issue: Diplomacy
Your Current Position
� President Bush is a
unilateralist (don't count the
30 nations in Iraq), and you are
a multilateralist, except when
you insult our allies (then you
are an opportunist).
Your Record
You said Iraqi Prime Minister
Allawi doesn't know what's
happening in his own country, and
made a political attack on him
moments after he thanked the
American people for the
liberation of his country.
You said we need more allies, but
you have called our allies
�coerced,� �bribed,�
�fraudulent,� �window dressing�
and �barely willing to do anything
at all.� This probably won't help
you recruit more allies, but you
don't think that's going to
happen anyway.
You have characterized our troops
in Iraq as �occupiers.� Try not
to use that word. Your Democratic
colleague Senator Miller will
come down on you and so will most
Americans.
You said the President �rushed to
war,� and you cited the first Gulf
War as a model of diplomacy. Of
course, six months separated the
vote for the war and the beginning
of the war. That is six months
3
Issue: Troop Realignment
Your Current Position
� Troop realignment is bad - you
have said troop realignment
�does not strengthen our hand
in the war on terror.�
Your Record
Troop realignment is good -
specifically, you wanted to shift
troops �in the Korean peninsula
perhaps, in Europe perhaps.�
Your Attack
This didn't go so well last time,
so you might want to stay away
from it. But remember if they
ask, you said �perhaps� so it
doesn't count!
6
Issue: Intelligence
Your Current Position
� The Administration is moving
too slowly on intelligence
reform.
Your Record
In 1994, you proposed $6 billion
in across the board cuts to
intelligence after the first
World Trade Center bombing.
These cuts didn't receive much
support. You were actually the
only Senator from Massachusetts
to vote for them.
Sen. Inouye (D-HI) said your bill
�would severely hamper�
intelligence efforts.
You missed 76 percent of public
Senate Intelligence Committee
hearings and we are trying to keep
the private attendance record
under wraps.
Edwards also missed 69 percent of
his public Senate Intelligence
Committee hearings.
Unfortunately, that is his main
national security experience.
In 1995, you voted to cut $80
million in FBI funding for
counterterrorism.
Your Attack
Say the President is going too
slowly. (Except for the 36 of the
41 9/11 Commission proposals that
he is implementing.)
5
Issue: North Korea
Your Current Position
� We need to negotiate directly
with the North Koreans.
Your Record
You seek a return to the failed
Clinton era policies of signing
deals with the North Korean
government that they have no
intention to honor. You have
called the multilateral
negotiations �basically a cover,�
arguing that they aren't
legitimate.
The state-run media of North Korea
has reported: �Senator Kerry, who
is seeking the presidential
candidacy of the Democratic
Party, sharply criticised
President Bush, saying it was an
ill-considered act to deny direct
dialogue with North Korea.�
You have said the President
�talks the game but doesn't
deliver,� but it isn't clear your
concessions on the talks would
deliver anything to anyone but
the North Koreans.
Your Attack
The President should negotiate
directly with the North Koreans,
even though that strategy has
already failed.
8
Issue: Afghanistan
Your Current Position
� Afghanistan is where the War on
Terror really belongs.
Your Record
You previously said the War on
Terror �doesn�t end with
Afghanistan,� and we needed to
move on to address other threats
�for instance, Saddam Hussein.�
Now you believe Iraq is a
distraction from Afghanistan.
You voted against the $87 billion
that included funds for
ammunition and body armor for
troops in Afghanistan.
Your Attack
Afghanistan is being neglected,
even though you voted against
funds for our troops there.
7
Issue: Cuba
Your Current Position
� You said you voted for the
Helms-Burton Act, which cracked
down on companies dealing with
Cuba. (Peter Wallsten, �Kerry�s
Cuba Stances Open To Attack,�
The Miami Herald, 3/14/04)
Your Record
You voted against the Helms-
Burton Act, but now you say you
actually voted for it. Try not to
mess that up again.
Your latest position is that you
would not lift the embargo
against Cuba, but in 2000 you said
Florida politics were the only
reason the embargo was still in
place and that a reevaluation is
�way overdue.� Unfortunately,
last year you explained that
comment by saying you were �being
honest.� That does raise the
uncomfortable question of what
you are being now.
You voted to ease sanctions
against Cuba and said you were
�skeptical� of the embargo. That
was when you were �being honest.�
You supported a commission to
study if Cuba was still a threat.
Again: �being honest.�
Your Attack
Disregard your own record and
statements and attack.
10
Issue: Israel
Your Current Position
� You are foragainst the Israeli
security fence. It is both a
�barrier to peace� and a
�legitimate act of self
defense.�
Your Record
The Israeli security fence is a
�barrier to peace� when you are
talking to Arab audiences
(Remarks Before Arab American
Institute National Leadership
Conference, Dearborn, MI,
10/17/03) and a �legitimate act of
self defense� when you are talking
to Jewish audiences (Janine
Zacharia, �Kerry Defends Security
Fence,� The Jerusalem Post,
2/25/04).
You wrote in your book, The New
War, that Yasser Arafat is a
�statesman� and a �role model.�
This is the same book in which
you warned that the Japanese
Yakuza would be a major threat
to our future.
Your Attack
The President is not exhibiting
leadership on this issue. (Ignore
your own split positions, and
don't ever get your positions
mixed up with the wrong audience.
The consequences could be
disastrous.)
9
Homeland Security
Your Current Position
� You say the War on Terror is
�far more of a law enforcement
and intelligence operation than
it is a day-to-day huge
military operation.�
Your Record
You delayed the creation of the
Department of Homeland Security
by 112 days because you wanted
national security workers to be
unionized.
You skipped last year's vote for
the $29.3 billion Homeland
Security appropriation.
Your Attack
The President delayed and underfunded
the Homeland Security
Department.
(The truth is the President has
tripled funding for homeland
security since 2001, but a little
extra stretch of the truth won't
hurt your damaged credibility any
further.
12
Issue: The Patriot Act
Your Current Position
� The Patriot Act is bad and you
plan on �replacing the Patriot
Act with a new law.�
Your Record
You voted for the Patriot Act, and
said on the Senate floor that you
were �pleased� with the Patriot
Act.
You said the wiretap provision
�modernizes our ability to fight
crime.� (That was before you
wanted to weaken the wiretap
provisions.)
During the primaries, you
discovered Democrats didn't like
the Patriot Act. That's when you
changed your position to be for
�replacing� the Patriot Act.
After discovering other people
didn't like the Patriot Act, you
attacked it, calling it a �knock
in the night� and saying it didn't
protect �our liberties.�
Your Attack
Don't mention the Patriot Act
gives law enforcement the same
tools to use against terrorists
that they already use against
drug dealers.
11
Debate Briefing Book
�for�
SENATOR KERRY
Debate 1: Foreign Policy
(As Prepared By Bush-Cheney �04)
Paid for by Bush-Cheney �04, Inc.

bet555 next please post a link is to hard to read in poetry style.


worldwatcher

I have to that my daughter a student in her third year at UGA has told me the same thing she has notice that the sentiments against bush are very high at her university also.

She said that are lots of peaceful demonstrations, and I was able to see one in a visit to my daughter recently.

Compare to the kind of demonstrations back in the seventies when usually violence will dominate I have to say that the students behave better.

I had seen them gathering in the corners with poster boards and candles and that is they way they demonstrate.


I had to actually read the posters to figure out what was all about. My daughter said that is also rallies pro bush.

Now I advised her to stay away from all that but she said is not dangerous. I guess I still remember the radical times during my college years.

I've been saying this for a while...with all the hollywood/musician wanna-be politicians running their mouths against Bush, all the young, impresionable sheople are going to think that if they don't join in they'll never be as cool as Dave Mathews, or Bono, or Susan Surandon

They are too lazy to actually do a little research, so they'll just vote for whoever MTV seems to be pushing...And don't let the whole "Rock the Vote" BS that MTV pushes fool you into thinking they are just trying to get young America to vote...The whole network is completely biased towards Kerry. Don't get me wrong...I won't be voting for either Bush or Kerry, but I hate when people vote for a candidate because some hollywood moron wears a T-Shirt that says "Kerry Rocks" on it


[edit on 29-9-2004 by mpeake]

I can tell you from my own experience that the US college campuses are marxist hotbeds and the kids in college have this tripe barked at them in virtually every class. Literature has a leftist slant. Social Sciences have a leftist slant. Liberal Arts in general have a leftist slant and I don't have tell you about Women's Studies. What else are the majority of these kids going to think.

Leftism appeals illusions of youth and the leftist professors are plenty happy to dish it out.

When they grow up and get a job and start paying taxes, the smart ones will realize how bamboozled they have been.

[edit on 04/9/29 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I can tell you from my own experience that the US college campuses are marxist hotbeds and the kids in college have this tripe barked at them in virtually every class. Literature has a leftist slant. Social Sciences have a leftist slant. Liberal Arts in general have a leftist slant and I don't have tell you about Women's Studies. What else are the majority of these kids going to think.

You are so right, Grady.

I am currently in my last year at a mid-size university here in the South East. I have been slammed from day one with leftist slants, esp in the "core" classes such as literature, history, etc. Fortunately, my major allowed me to get away from all that nonsense. I am taking a Criminal Justice class right now as an elective, and its filled with liberal views. You reckon they would be upset if they found out none of it has worked on me?

Originally posted by Trojanex
You reckon they would be upset if they found out none of it has worked on me?

When I got my BA at UNO in the late eighties, the campus was pretty balanced with a lot of kids leaning right. Things got nasty in my last semester. Mind you, at the time I was forty and very liberal minded, but in that last semester, suddenly I was under attack for my gender, my age, you name it. I really enjoyed the pursuit of my degree, but I was glad to leave.

Within less than a year, I began to hear the term "politically correct" thrown around. I even called the UNO library to get someone to explain it to me. The guy who answered stated that "political correctness" was just one more way to obsfucate issues.

Within a short time, the UNO radio station, which had been a world class fine arts music station, began to change ever so slightly until instead of being a music station that supplied news via NPR, it became an NPR organ that supplied as little music as it could get away with.

By the time I matriculated at Tulane University in 1994, the campus was militantly left-wing, especially the School of Social Work. I was astonished that all those years, I actually thought I was a liberal. I had even voted for Clinton in 1992. I was immediately branded the enemy and ostracized and plotted against for the entire eighteen month program.

I could not have completed the program had it not been for a very liberal (even marxist) faculty realizing what was going on and judging me on my work and not by my popularity with students. Now, this may not seem very revolutionary until you realize that in the Social Work school, group work is essential as this is the how Social Workers must work in the real world.

I must have been the first student in the history of the program, one of the oldest in the country, to complete a research practicum alone. It was a major task, but I chose my subject and methods wisely and I didn't have to wrangle with the immature to get it done. I was also one of the very few to get an "A" on the project.

Those of you who love conspiracies, would love the details of this experience and it was one of the proudest moments of my life to walk across that stage at McAlister Auditorium and take that diploma from that dyke.

It was a great disappointment to me that what I had hoped would be a very stimulating experience turned out to be such a stifling one. Just keep your mouth shut and do your work. You'll be fine and a decade ahead of your classmates. It will take the smart ones at least that long to come around.

Yep, Bush hating is trendy. Most people have no idea about the issues either, they just know they don't like him because they heard they shouldn't. The fact is that most of them probably won't wind up voting any way.

I had a sociology professor that made a Republican friend of mine so mad he whipped his chair accross the room, called her a socialist b****, then walked out and dropped the class. It was an entertaining spectacle, and for once the lady didn't know what to say.

I've known people that didn't care a thing about politics come out of a four year school raging liberals. When professors are going on about their socialist ideals, you generally just have to nod and agree or expect to pay in the grade department (yes professors will give you a lower grade if they don't like you), unless you strike up some sort of a friendship with them. I've found that if you get along with a professor on a personal level, they enjoy debating you on an ideological level much more......and are subsequently less likely to give you a lousy grade.

Every voter should watch the debate. I mean come on people.

WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING

People are idiots.
Get informed you college morons.

In fact if you ask them who the secretary of defense is, they probably wouldn't know.

BTW-For you poor college fools

The secretary of Defense is Donald Rumsfield.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I can tell you from my own experience that the US college campuses are marxist hotbeds and the kids in college have this tripe barked at them in virtually every class.

Have you actually read Marx? His basic idea is to classify the conditions of society by people's wealth. After seeing the great upheavals in Europe during his time, Marx claims the majority will eventually change society to best serve in their economic interests. Is this what you are saying the universities are teaching?

Literature has a leftist slant. Social Sciences have a leftist slant. Liberal Arts in general have a leftist slant and I don't have tell you about Women's Studies.

What about the economics deparment, and business schools? They are full of conservative propoganda. They teach things like "greed is good", and then they show lots of meaningless charts, and powerpoint nonsense. I love those economic theories where they claim people would rather starve than work a little harder. They use all these complicated mathematical theories, but than they assume their audience won't notice they were all based on bunch of crazy axioms, they just made up. They think just because they can write equations and draw charts, they can fool you.

Oh... why did I get instant bile in my throat when I read that first post? FFS folks, that's propaganda at it most base level. I'm not even going to attempt to explain why. If it gives you some kind of satisfaction then run with it. I'll just continue sitting here praying to God that British election strategies will never sink so low, and that we'll never be so stupid as to fall for it.
Thank God for irony, seems it�ll always be our saviour.

Originally posted by PistolPete
I had a sociology professor that made a Republican friend of mine so mad he whipped his chair accross the room, called her a socialist b****, then walked out and dropped the class.

How mature of your friend.

Anyway....

GradyPhilpott:

I do have to say that the issue cuts both ways. I can remember when the shoe was on the other foot in the 80s.

BTW, your story sounds interesting....care to share anymore details?

EDIT: Double Post

[edit on 30-9-2004 by American Mad Man]

Originally posted by crontab
What about the economics deparment, and business schools? They are full of conservative propoganda. They teach things like "greed is good", and then they show lots of meaningless charts, and powerpoint nonsense. I love those economic theories where they claim people would rather starve than work a little harder. They use all these complicated mathematical theories, but than they assume their audience won't notice they were all based on bunch of crazy axioms, they just made up. They think just because they can write equations and draw charts, they can fool you.

And this is how pathetic the liberalism has become. Would you listen to yourself! You are saying that because BUISNESS school teaches you to be fiscally responsable you are then greedy! And then you say that this is conservative propaganda! Are you a comunist? You are acting like having monatary responsability with your buisness is a bad thing! God help who ever hires you (or your husband/wife for that matter).

LOL - what do you think they are going to teach you? How to waste money? And then you say that all of those charts and equations were just made up? Please, tell me which ones. If they were, you should probably have gone to a different school.

An interesting point was brought up which I am sure the poster didn't even realise

What about the economics deparment, and business schools?

I think we would all agree that in universties classes like literture, philosiphy, etc. usually tend to have liberal slant while classes like economics, accounting, business etc. have a very conservative slant.
Does anyone see the point I'm making?
Why is it that the classes whch have the least relevance in getting a job and preparing students for the real world (lets be honest here in terms of getting a job how much is a degree in literature or philosiphy really going to help?) traditionally have liberal slant and the classes which teach practical informtion which has direct relevance to the real world have a conservative slant?
Think about it.

good point mwm1331 - but I think it goes further then that.

Liberals would like to make people think that buisness classes have a conservative slant. In reality, there is hardly any. In general, it is almost always simply the FACTS - how to run an effective buisness which means paying less for more, buy low sell high ect. Liberals want to portray these as bad wicked vile traits of conservatives but it is simply the way buisness works.

As crontab said - "they teach greed is good" which makes economic savy sound bad! I mean come on - the whole point of buisness is TO MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU CAN WITHIN THE FRAME WORK OF THE LAW!

Does anyone see what I am saying? Or am I the only capitolist left?

Liberals would like to make people think that buisness classes have a conservative slant. In reality, there is hardly any. In general, it is almost always simply the FACTS - how to run an effective buisness which means paying less for more, buy low sell high ect. Liberals want to portray these as bad wicked vile traits of conservatives but it is simply the way buisness works.

Sociology and its related disciplines are supposed to teach underlying essence of how society works, and how it could work. Economics and its related disciplines are about teaching the dominant theology of secular society, and how it works.

So, in business understanding economics is a good idea. If you want to change how society works, sociology might be a better place to start. Now, they may teach the facts in those areas, but overly-specialized professors often extend their ideas beyond their actual applicability. The only real solution would be to look at things from a more general perspective, but academia doesn't seem to want to do that.

The problem I have with economics is they mistakenly generalize from knowledge of basic economic rules to saying they are the only way and the best way. "Free" markets are as much an artificial creation as Communism ever was. They are both just theologies. Our society just be arbitrarily run by a cult. Many businesses may technically within the law, but that doesn't mean they do any good.

For instance, I worked for a company which sent out lots of email messages to convince people to buy products they didn't really need. As a business we worked to maximize profits, which involved sending out as much email as possible, and working to convince more people to buy products. We had to certain things as a business, but they don't benefit society. We need to take a balanced look at these problems, and find workable solutions.

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by PistolPete
I had a sociology professor that made a Republican friend of mine so mad he whipped his chair accross the room, called her a socialist b****, then walked out and dropped the class.

How mature of your friend.

I didn't say it was. He didn't last in college long.

Possibly an isolated occurence, but any business teacher I've had was pretty obviously liberal. They also didn't teach "greed" they taught how to not fail a business.

Originally posted by crontab
For instance, I worked for a company which sent out lots of email messages to convince people to buy products they didn't really need. As a business we worked to maximize profits, which involved sending out as much email as possible, and working to convince more people to buy products. We had to certain things as a business, but they don't benefit society.

There are many products that people don't really need. Most items in a person's home are a want much more then a necessity. Was the product useless, did it not work? If yes is the answer to those two questions there's a problem with the business. Mass emailing doesn't benefit society, but the money made from it does. Also, the salaries collected by yourself and your co-workers are a benefit to society. You'll use your money at other businesses and other people will be able to buy the things that sustain life.