Bush or Kerry
- Thread starter jakb
- Start date
Bush. Kerry is a joke.
9
9cyclops9
Guest
Hmm...I said Bush. Kerry is a joke. But I don't exactly like Bush all that much either. Although he did wave at me as he drove by on Tuesday after his rally in Pensacola. That was exciting. The President.
Still, I wish there was another candidate. Someone that's a good compromise between the two.
Still, I wish there was another candidate. Someone that's a good compromise between the two.
Pensacola is beautiful. One of my favorite beach lines. I voted Bush the 1st time around but "fool me once shame on you" wont make that mistake again.
I live in his state, so my vote really wont make a huge diff.
I actually have talked to Bush Sr several times, he works out in the gym I work at.
I live in his state, so my vote really wont make a huge diff.
I actually have talked to Bush Sr several times, he works out in the gym I work at.
Kerry, Bush isn't worth sitting on the trone. He belongs on cattlefarms! ;P
Kerry will make a fairly decent president, not as good as Clinton was, but at least he wont be a fuckin retard who talks to Jesus in the white house.
Bush is a total joke and wasnt even elected in the first place.
Bush is a total joke and wasnt even elected in the first place.
kausion_420
Active member
Aren't they both masons and were part of the skulls or sumthing anyway?
So in the end it wouldn't matter which one was elected because they would still have the same people telling em what to do.
So in the end it wouldn't matter which one was elected because they would still have the same people telling em what to do.
Clinton was biggest joke of all time and will always be remembered in the history books as one. He is one of like 2 presidents to be impeached.
Also...
Quite pathetic last attempt. Democrats are just liars and weak people in general.
BTW, I admire that Bush is open about his religion positive or negative, he doesn't play and get cameras to watch him coming out of churches like some... especially some who vote in complete contradiction to what the Bible teaches... democrats.
Anyways.. *rant off*
Also...
It is a common fact he won. It was democrats trying to recount and change the vote.
Quite pathetic last attempt. Democrats are just liars and weak people in general.
BTW, I admire that Bush is open about his religion positive or negative, he doesn't play and get cameras to watch him coming out of churches like some... especially some who vote in complete contradiction to what the Bible teaches... democrats.
Anyways.. *rant off*
Yeah.9cyclops9 said:
I am a big fan of the Libertarian party. Their nominee for president is a man named Michael Badnarik, who is a constitutional scholar. There is something very inspiring about him, if you get a chance to hear him speak.
Realistically he won't win, unless he can get into the debates, but at the same time by supporting him and the Libertarian party on the ballot you can make them more credible for the future. The party's vision is to return the federal government to the limitations set out for it in the constitution.
The Libertarians are by far the largest third party having more people in office then all other third parties combined. What they stand for is personal freedom and property rights, as the constitution spells out.
The same very wealthy people, and corporations fund both the Democrats and Republicans. And in exchange for those donations and bribes the duopoly passes laws which benefit them. I am not a believer in the lesser of two evil argument, I see both Kerry and Bush as establisHydromaxent players.
Check out www.badnarik.org/Issues/ and see if you agree with some of what he is saying.
Realistically he won't win, unless he can get into the debates, but at the same time by supporting him and the Libertarian party on the ballot you can make them more credible for the future. The party's vision is to return the federal government to the limitations set out for it in the constitution.
The Libertarians are by far the largest third party having more people in office then all other third parties combined. What they stand for is personal freedom and property rights, as the constitution spells out.
The same very wealthy people, and corporations fund both the Democrats and Republicans. And in exchange for those donations and bribes the duopoly passes laws which benefit them. I am not a believer in the lesser of two evil argument, I see both Kerry and Bush as establisHydromaxent players.
Check out www.badnarik.org/Issues/ and see if you agree with some of what he is saying.
Last edited:
Some Stuff about George W. Bush I don't like . . .
1. He brags about not reading or keeping himself up to date with world events.
2. He also brags about "shooting from the gut" when making decisions, rather than really thoroughly evaluating all angles and being cautious. (he's the leader of the free world for god's sake!)
3. He's not a good speaker of intelligent debater. This represents our country poorly. The president ought to be an articulate and smart person, not a talking head that people vote for because they think they can relate to him. Bush is blue-blooded son of privelage from one of the most wealthy and powerful dynasties in our nation's history. Trust me, very few of you can relate to him, I don't care how many pictures you've seen of him in front of his truck out in Crawford.
4. He likely would have achieved nothing in his life without his family name and wealth. (this is speculation, but think about it for a moment. Yale, Harvard, oil companies and and investments, most of which he bankrupted by the way, just handed to him? He may be afable to a a degree, but he would be a mediocre man without his familial advantage).
5. Bush's economics have failed. He took a record surplus and blew into an enormous defecit, and this was not the the result of 9/11, Afghanistan, or Iraq. He spends recklessly, at the expense of future generations (and those of you that might have been looking forward to colelcting any social security). Those of you that identify as conservative and republican ought to investigate the fact that most fiscally conservative economists and theorists are aghast at Bush's wildy irresponsible spending and budgeting.
6. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" who would change the tone in Washington and try to work across party lines to achieve better government. He has not done this. If anything his term has fueled antagonism between the parties and he has not made a single overture to stop it.
7. Bush talked up his no child left behind plan extensively. Then he blocked measures to fully fund it, which in fact left several million children, ahem, behind. If you have children I encourage you to do some independent research into Bush's record so far as education goes, I promise you will not like what you find.
8. When a senior member of Bush's administration leaked the fact that former ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative (Wilson had written an article for the NY times a week before that was critical of the president in regard to the Iraq war) to journalist Robert Novak, Bush did not take immediate action or particularly make a big deal out of it. This is technically an act of treason against our government by a member of his staff, but he opposed an investigation into the matter. The leak has still not been identified. Isn't it our presidents responsibilty to find out which member of his staff is responsible for this act, committed during a time of war? Those of you Clinton bashers, just imagine if old Bill had been in office for this. I do believe you would have been howling that he be executed, at long last exposed as the sleazy, anti-US communist monster that he is. Just imagine it, be honest. The GOP would have called for imprisonment, maybe execution.
9. Bush has undone years of progressive and hard won environmental legislation. I don't care if you're not an environmentalist, I'm certainly not, if you investigate the consequences of his policy you will see that he has severely damaged our natural resources, water supply, and endangered or degraded the lives of many Americans in his race to prostrate himself before big industry and their support. Once again, he has placed the GOP and his own personal gain as a priority above the longevity of the health of our vital resources and environment. Future generations pay the price for his short gains.
10. He mixes religion into the presidency to an uncomfortable degree. The architect of our constiution and bill of rights, James Madison, was extremely clear in stating that church and state must be seperate entities. Nearly our entire perception of American Freedom and Liberty is drawn from this man's work, as well as Jefferson, who agreed whole heartedly. Bush invokes the name of God in regard to his own policy at every opportunity. He proposes to use federal money to fund religious organizations. He let's religious views inform his policy on funding for scientific research programs and education. He is the acknowledged de facto leader of the American religious right. It also a credible and publicly available fact that he has consulted with representatives from a far right wing Christian group at the white house on numerous occasions. These fundamentalists believe in a forthcoming end of days, and hence are very supportive of Israel, as they believe all Jews must be gathered in the holy land so that they can stand before the fiery judgment of god.
This doesn't even get into foreign policy, his record as governor, the Florida election, ect., but cripes! I don't understand why conservatives support Bush, the only things he's really conservative on are societal and moral issues like abortion and stem cell research, and that once more is directly placating the religious crowd. Here's a fact - the CIA released a report that estimated there had been an increase in the number of operating anti-US terrorists during Bush's term in office. The Bush administration, the day before, had declared otherwise. They had to sheepishly retract this, although they did fight hard to try and get the CIA to squash their report, but it was too late. He's not getting the job done. And unless you're a wealthy corporate donor or you can deliver a significant number of swing voters for him in a battleground state in November, he abosultely positively does not give two shits about you. He is not a compassionate man, a smart man, or a talented man. He's a talking head that spouts opinions that please a certain percentage of the voting block that consider themselves "conservatives." Don't be fooled, a true conservative wouldn't have anything to do Bush.
1. He brags about not reading or keeping himself up to date with world events.
2. He also brags about "shooting from the gut" when making decisions, rather than really thoroughly evaluating all angles and being cautious. (he's the leader of the free world for god's sake!)
3. He's not a good speaker of intelligent debater. This represents our country poorly. The president ought to be an articulate and smart person, not a talking head that people vote for because they think they can relate to him. Bush is blue-blooded son of privelage from one of the most wealthy and powerful dynasties in our nation's history. Trust me, very few of you can relate to him, I don't care how many pictures you've seen of him in front of his truck out in Crawford.
4. He likely would have achieved nothing in his life without his family name and wealth. (this is speculation, but think about it for a moment. Yale, Harvard, oil companies and and investments, most of which he bankrupted by the way, just handed to him? He may be afable to a a degree, but he would be a mediocre man without his familial advantage).
5. Bush's economics have failed. He took a record surplus and blew into an enormous defecit, and this was not the the result of 9/11, Afghanistan, or Iraq. He spends recklessly, at the expense of future generations (and those of you that might have been looking forward to colelcting any social security). Those of you that identify as conservative and republican ought to investigate the fact that most fiscally conservative economists and theorists are aghast at Bush's wildy irresponsible spending and budgeting.
6. Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" who would change the tone in Washington and try to work across party lines to achieve better government. He has not done this. If anything his term has fueled antagonism between the parties and he has not made a single overture to stop it.
7. Bush talked up his no child left behind plan extensively. Then he blocked measures to fully fund it, which in fact left several million children, ahem, behind. If you have children I encourage you to do some independent research into Bush's record so far as education goes, I promise you will not like what you find.
8. When a senior member of Bush's administration leaked the fact that former ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative (Wilson had written an article for the NY times a week before that was critical of the president in regard to the Iraq war) to journalist Robert Novak, Bush did not take immediate action or particularly make a big deal out of it. This is technically an act of treason against our government by a member of his staff, but he opposed an investigation into the matter. The leak has still not been identified. Isn't it our presidents responsibilty to find out which member of his staff is responsible for this act, committed during a time of war? Those of you Clinton bashers, just imagine if old Bill had been in office for this. I do believe you would have been howling that he be executed, at long last exposed as the sleazy, anti-US communist monster that he is. Just imagine it, be honest. The GOP would have called for imprisonment, maybe execution.
9. Bush has undone years of progressive and hard won environmental legislation. I don't care if you're not an environmentalist, I'm certainly not, if you investigate the consequences of his policy you will see that he has severely damaged our natural resources, water supply, and endangered or degraded the lives of many Americans in his race to prostrate himself before big industry and their support. Once again, he has placed the GOP and his own personal gain as a priority above the longevity of the health of our vital resources and environment. Future generations pay the price for his short gains.
10. He mixes religion into the presidency to an uncomfortable degree. The architect of our constiution and bill of rights, James Madison, was extremely clear in stating that church and state must be seperate entities. Nearly our entire perception of American Freedom and Liberty is drawn from this man's work, as well as Jefferson, who agreed whole heartedly. Bush invokes the name of God in regard to his own policy at every opportunity. He proposes to use federal money to fund religious organizations. He let's religious views inform his policy on funding for scientific research programs and education. He is the acknowledged de facto leader of the American religious right. It also a credible and publicly available fact that he has consulted with representatives from a far right wing Christian group at the white house on numerous occasions. These fundamentalists believe in a forthcoming end of days, and hence are very supportive of Israel, as they believe all Jews must be gathered in the holy land so that they can stand before the fiery judgment of god.
This doesn't even get into foreign policy, his record as governor, the Florida election, ect., but cripes! I don't understand why conservatives support Bush, the only things he's really conservative on are societal and moral issues like abortion and stem cell research, and that once more is directly placating the religious crowd. Here's a fact - the CIA released a report that estimated there had been an increase in the number of operating anti-US terrorists during Bush's term in office. The Bush administration, the day before, had declared otherwise. They had to sheepishly retract this, although they did fight hard to try and get the CIA to squash their report, but it was too late. He's not getting the job done. And unless you're a wealthy corporate donor or you can deliver a significant number of swing voters for him in a battleground state in November, he abosultely positively does not give two shits about you. He is not a compassionate man, a smart man, or a talented man. He's a talking head that spouts opinions that please a certain percentage of the voting block that consider themselves "conservatives." Don't be fooled, a true conservative wouldn't have anything to do Bush.
A Few Things About Kerry . . .
1. He's a decorated war hero, and he volunteered to go. Any white, affluent, college student that volunteered to go to Vietnam is, as I heard described on television the other night, a bad motherfucker. Bush had his dad get him into the Air National Guard in Texas, then went AWOL. Who's better on defense?
2. Kerry can speak english, and I'm pretty sure he has some idea about what is going on in teh world, having been head of the senate foreign relations committee and all.
3. Kerry worked across party lines with John McCain to investigate POW's still missing in Vietnam and normalize our relations with the country, helping gain closure for the war on both sides. He also spearheaded the investigation into the sandanista revolution and the corrupt dealings with Noriega. Most of this was going on while Bush was charging his baseball team's new stadium (built conditionally to attract investors and enriching Bush's holdings) at the expense of texas taxpayers.
4. Kerry has held down and succeeded at a job that was neither arranged by his father or given to him because his father was famous and powerful.
5. Kerry is a fiscal conservative, his senate voting record reflects this. He watches the books like a hawk. He also opposes overly large government and is a proponent of tax relief for the middle class. This means he would raise taxes for extremely wealthy people, whom Bush has awarded enormous tax breaks at the expense of everybody else. (The tax breaks enjoyed by the top 1% of incomes under Bush would have nearly been enough to fund our operations in Iraq to date).
6. Kerry understands how complicated things like foreign policy, economics, and even the government itself actually work, because he didn't almost fail out of school at every turn like Bush. He's also been a senator for many years, a state prosecutor, ect. In otherwards he's actually succeeded at a few things. These are good qualities for a president to have. Bush by all accounts, does not have them.
It's one or the other. I hate that "two sides of the same coin argument." That's political apathy and naivety. There's a world of difference between the candidates, and it can very much affect your life. Think Supreme Court appointments. Think foreign policy. Think energy policy. I don't think Kerry is half bad, but I'd vote for a taxidermied marmot over Bush. That at least, couldn't do any more harm. By the way Bush advocates executing severely retarded people guilty of murder, including one man fried under his watch that had an IQ proportional to a small child. What a super guy.
1. He's a decorated war hero, and he volunteered to go. Any white, affluent, college student that volunteered to go to Vietnam is, as I heard described on television the other night, a bad motherfucker. Bush had his dad get him into the Air National Guard in Texas, then went AWOL. Who's better on defense?
2. Kerry can speak english, and I'm pretty sure he has some idea about what is going on in teh world, having been head of the senate foreign relations committee and all.
3. Kerry worked across party lines with John McCain to investigate POW's still missing in Vietnam and normalize our relations with the country, helping gain closure for the war on both sides. He also spearheaded the investigation into the sandanista revolution and the corrupt dealings with Noriega. Most of this was going on while Bush was charging his baseball team's new stadium (built conditionally to attract investors and enriching Bush's holdings) at the expense of texas taxpayers.
4. Kerry has held down and succeeded at a job that was neither arranged by his father or given to him because his father was famous and powerful.
5. Kerry is a fiscal conservative, his senate voting record reflects this. He watches the books like a hawk. He also opposes overly large government and is a proponent of tax relief for the middle class. This means he would raise taxes for extremely wealthy people, whom Bush has awarded enormous tax breaks at the expense of everybody else. (The tax breaks enjoyed by the top 1% of incomes under Bush would have nearly been enough to fund our operations in Iraq to date).
6. Kerry understands how complicated things like foreign policy, economics, and even the government itself actually work, because he didn't almost fail out of school at every turn like Bush. He's also been a senator for many years, a state prosecutor, ect. In otherwards he's actually succeeded at a few things. These are good qualities for a president to have. Bush by all accounts, does not have them.
It's one or the other. I hate that "two sides of the same coin argument." That's political apathy and naivety. There's a world of difference between the candidates, and it can very much affect your life. Think Supreme Court appointments. Think foreign policy. Think energy policy. I don't think Kerry is half bad, but I'd vote for a taxidermied marmot over Bush. That at least, couldn't do any more harm. By the way Bush advocates executing severely retarded people guilty of murder, including one man fried under his watch that had an IQ proportional to a small child. What a super guy.
Last edited:
Swank said:
For me the big issues are the economy, the fiat currency, the war mongering and the violation of the constitution in the war on drugs and the patriot act.
I am a third year economics student and throughout history nations with small and efficient governments propser and advance. Nations with gigantic governments advance in technology slower, and the standard of living increases at a slower rate. Bush has raised non defense spending 3 times faster then Clinton, despite promising to reduce it. Kerry says outright he will increase spending. So right away my biggest issue I have no choice between the two.
History also shows a currency backed up by gold, a country prospers like Argentina during the 1800's which became the 8th largest economy in the world by 1900. Both candidates want to continue the unconstitutional and failed idea of a fiat currency. Which is waht ultimatley sunk the Roman Empire when they started reducing the amount of gold in their coins, yet keeping the value the same.
On the war in Iraq, Kerry just this week says he still would have voted for the war. He promises to send more troops into Iraq. Which I believe is not winnable, and will only get worse the longer we are there.
Both candidates want to continue the war on drugs, which has been an unmitigated disaster. In 1900 a 12 year old could buy opium at the local pharmacy, there was hashish bars, marijuana was legal, yet where was the mass criminal drug gangs, the junkies everywhere, a million prisoners, 2 million parolees, and a murder rate that increased by 2.5 times after the drugs laws were enacted?
Both candidates want to continue the patriot act which is ripping the constitution which I love apart...
Every major issue for me the two parties are identical and on suicide paths. Voting for either would be throwing my vote away. I believe Kerry is going to take this election in a landslide, and I am hoping that after 4 years of the identical policies and direction many on the left can start waking up and realizing what many on the right realized when the Republicans finally got all levers of power. Both parties are controlled by the big money and will gladly take away your rights and your money without a second thought.
Last edited:
C
Casey
Guest
randolf said:
Neither Kerry or any other senator voted "to go to war". They voted on a bill that gave the constitutional powers to the president to go to war pending Bush had exhausted every other possibility. Since we now know Saddam was no immediate threat, and Bush pulled out weapons inspectors outta Iraq to prepare for bombing.
What Kerry says is knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted for the powers of war to be given to one man, the President. To me that is crazy. If he would have known what Bush was going to do, and there was no threat or WMD's or connection to 9/11, he still would have given the authority to Bush.
Kerry is playin right into Bush's hands. Kerry has let Bush marketing machine define Kerry in almost every aspect. Now the Republicans biggest single contributor is part of a organization that is smearing Kerry's war record. The same people who took a shit on John McCain in the 2000 Pres. Race, and to Max Cleland in Georgia's senate race.
Randolf, I understand your points, but often I feel that economic history is a clear indicator of current or future events. An economics student knows that aside from a few baseline matters, economies, and the study of them, are mutable to a maddening degree.
suggesting we switch back to a gold standard is a fairly radical viewpoint; as is comparing the economics of the US to that of the Roman Empire. There's never really been an economic entity like the modern US before, so historical examples hold limited wisdom. Your ideas on the matter are interesting but very much carry the tone of a student being exposed to all kinds of new ideas and insights, but remember that functionality and practicality are the core components of economic reality.
That being said, not all increases in spending are necessarily counter productive for the functionality and viability of our government. Simply slashing spenind won't necessarily enrich or stimulate the economy, as you probably know. The question is what level of spending is most constructive - I believe Kerry's greater focus on enricing health services, education, and public programs. I believe that increasing the training level, education, and eventual spending power of the public is a better economic stimulus than Bush's "trickle down" model, which seeks to bolster growth and job creation by spending at the corporate level. I do not believe that has ever been effective since it was really was developed under Reagan.
A presidential candidate can't head up either party without taking a standard position on the drug war; Kerry is intelligent, he understands it's not working. Most of the voting block, however, doesn't really understand the issue, and just coming out against it would allow Bush to destroy him politcally (add would read "John Kerry: He Supports Drugs!"). It's not a campaign issue this year, or regrettably just about any other year. You had better believe Kerry will support the appoinment of more sensible and reasonable federal judges and an attorney general, drug czar, ect.
So far as the patriot act, I Kerry has no intention of leaving it as it is, and has said as much. Even Bush would have to rework it when the bill stands up for revue; it's just too unpopular and publicized. The patriot act has many functional and non-invasive portions that do expediate our ability to identify and prosecute terrorists. You can also count on the fact that a person like Kerry won't fill his Justice Department with right wing radicals eager to use it for anything other than what it was intended for, which is a far more questionable thing under Bush.
It is wise for Kerry to not yank us out of Iraq, as well as the responsible thing to do. We created the situation there; it is our duty to secure the region and and restore order. If we were to pull out and Iraq's government were to fall to radicals or suffer any setbacks really, our already thin international credibilty would be shot and anti-American sentiment would skyrocket further. The fact is, we're already there. We might as well stick it out and try to see that things go our way. Bush took us in with no clear exit strategy, and now we are suffering the consequences Just retracting our presence from teh region, however, would be a diplomatic disaster.
I do not agree with your statement that they agree on every major issue, this statement is grounded in what your opinions about what these major issues are and what the proper way to deal with them is. As a voter though, you have every right to prioritize what you feel is important and to use this as your decisive factor. I urge you to consider the issues beyond the limited perspective of a few econ history courses. An interesting professor or book can sell you on teh total validity of a few ideas, but don't let that limit your contemplation of politics, history, and society.
suggesting we switch back to a gold standard is a fairly radical viewpoint; as is comparing the economics of the US to that of the Roman Empire. There's never really been an economic entity like the modern US before, so historical examples hold limited wisdom. Your ideas on the matter are interesting but very much carry the tone of a student being exposed to all kinds of new ideas and insights, but remember that functionality and practicality are the core components of economic reality.
That being said, not all increases in spending are necessarily counter productive for the functionality and viability of our government. Simply slashing spenind won't necessarily enrich or stimulate the economy, as you probably know. The question is what level of spending is most constructive - I believe Kerry's greater focus on enricing health services, education, and public programs. I believe that increasing the training level, education, and eventual spending power of the public is a better economic stimulus than Bush's "trickle down" model, which seeks to bolster growth and job creation by spending at the corporate level. I do not believe that has ever been effective since it was really was developed under Reagan.
A presidential candidate can't head up either party without taking a standard position on the drug war; Kerry is intelligent, he understands it's not working. Most of the voting block, however, doesn't really understand the issue, and just coming out against it would allow Bush to destroy him politcally (add would read "John Kerry: He Supports Drugs!"). It's not a campaign issue this year, or regrettably just about any other year. You had better believe Kerry will support the appoinment of more sensible and reasonable federal judges and an attorney general, drug czar, ect.
So far as the patriot act, I Kerry has no intention of leaving it as it is, and has said as much. Even Bush would have to rework it when the bill stands up for revue; it's just too unpopular and publicized. The patriot act has many functional and non-invasive portions that do expediate our ability to identify and prosecute terrorists. You can also count on the fact that a person like Kerry won't fill his Justice Department with right wing radicals eager to use it for anything other than what it was intended for, which is a far more questionable thing under Bush.
It is wise for Kerry to not yank us out of Iraq, as well as the responsible thing to do. We created the situation there; it is our duty to secure the region and and restore order. If we were to pull out and Iraq's government were to fall to radicals or suffer any setbacks really, our already thin international credibilty would be shot and anti-American sentiment would skyrocket further. The fact is, we're already there. We might as well stick it out and try to see that things go our way. Bush took us in with no clear exit strategy, and now we are suffering the consequences Just retracting our presence from teh region, however, would be a diplomatic disaster.
I do not agree with your statement that they agree on every major issue, this statement is grounded in what your opinions about what these major issues are and what the proper way to deal with them is. As a voter though, you have every right to prioritize what you feel is important and to use this as your decisive factor. I urge you to consider the issues beyond the limited perspective of a few econ history courses. An interesting professor or book can sell you on teh total validity of a few ideas, but don't let that limit your contemplation of politics, history, and society.
Thanks for your detailed and rational response Swank. I believe I should not have said I was an econ student... I agree most of what they teach there is pretty much bs. Like we will spend two weeks graphing and 'proving' a point that to me is just a statement of the blatantly obvious. And there are different schools of economics that contradict each other on thing slike monetary policy. Infact most of my professor's I just blatantly disagree with on the monetary policy.
I realize it sounded like I was saying I have taken a few courses therefore I know best... which is why I should have left it to the facts, instead of argument from authority fallacy..
I have been on message boards for about 7 years debating and being a political junkie, which luckily also let me find this site
. In that time I have had to look up hundreds of graphs and statistics, and read thousands of other people's statistics they have added. Without fail nations with a limited government prosper more so then ones with a large government. In the last 50 years the nations to advance from third world to first all had limited government or massive amounts of oil. And I have read history of many many nations over the last 2000 years, and a fiat currency spelled the economic disaster for every single one. We fully detatched from precious metals in 1974.
Its all a matter of perspective as well if you generally speaking agree with the areas the government is in now, you aren't looking for major change more a change of leadership. Which would definately help at least for making alliances. You couldn't support major tax cuts because that would require getting rid of large chunks of education, social security and the military, well even after you cut down the bureaucracy
.
For the war on drugs I know a major party candidate can't come out against it, but that is the exact problem. If we never choose alternatives the status quo will stay forever, and actually imo get worse as both main parties seem to have a lust for power. For example it was the Democrats who were in power when the war on drugs came into being. At the fundamental level both parties believe they know better how you should live your life, then you do. Which of course gives them huge power which imo is what they both are after.
I don't believe Iraq is solveable, unless we are willing to commit 500,000+ troops, maybe even as many as a million and leave them there for 5 years. In post war Germany in our area we had 1 soldiers for every 17 German citizens. In Iraq we have one soldier for every 200 citizens. I think it is arrogance that we believe only we can solve their problems, yet Iraqis can't figure out what to do on their own.
For the patriot act how could I trust the people who voted for it in the first place, to be the ones to remove it. They might, they might not I personally would bet that they won't. As there will be some new disaster that comes along and they will justify why it needs to stay.
I realize it sounded like I was saying I have taken a few courses therefore I know best... which is why I should have left it to the facts, instead of argument from authority fallacy..
I have been on message boards for about 7 years debating and being a political junkie, which luckily also let me find this site
. In that time I have had to look up hundreds of graphs and statistics, and read thousands of other people's statistics they have added. Without fail nations with a limited government prosper more so then ones with a large government. In the last 50 years the nations to advance from third world to first all had limited government or massive amounts of oil. And I have read history of many many nations over the last 2000 years, and a fiat currency spelled the economic disaster for every single one. We fully detatched from precious metals in 1974. Its all a matter of perspective as well if you generally speaking agree with the areas the government is in now, you aren't looking for major change more a change of leadership. Which would definately help at least for making alliances. You couldn't support major tax cuts because that would require getting rid of large chunks of education, social security and the military, well even after you cut down the bureaucracy
. For the war on drugs I know a major party candidate can't come out against it, but that is the exact problem. If we never choose alternatives the status quo will stay forever, and actually imo get worse as both main parties seem to have a lust for power. For example it was the Democrats who were in power when the war on drugs came into being. At the fundamental level both parties believe they know better how you should live your life, then you do. Which of course gives them huge power which imo is what they both are after.
I don't believe Iraq is solveable, unless we are willing to commit 500,000+ troops, maybe even as many as a million and leave them there for 5 years. In post war Germany in our area we had 1 soldiers for every 17 German citizens. In Iraq we have one soldier for every 200 citizens. I think it is arrogance that we believe only we can solve their problems, yet Iraqis can't figure out what to do on their own.
For the patriot act how could I trust the people who voted for it in the first place, to be the ones to remove it. They might, they might not I personally would bet that they won't. As there will be some new disaster that comes along and they will justify why it needs to stay.
Casey said:
Well it was blatantly obvious that Bush was going to go into Iraq. I knew the decision had been made in December 2001, at the highest levels. The other thing is under the constitution congress doesn't have the power to allow the President to declare war. Only congress has the power to declare war. By 'giving' the power to the president to decide when, they violated the constitution and were dodging responsibility.
And exactly what you are saying.. knowing what Bush was going to do he still would have supported it, is crazy. Basically I believe the DNC knows it has won the anti-war voters and the leftists. Therefore it is going as far right on issues as it possibly can, and as pro-war as it can possibly get away with.
Nader's campaign is finished he is not even going to be on the ballot except in possibly only 3 states. The greens decided to only run in 14 non-swing states so as to not cost Kerry the election. The Dems are taking the anti-war votes for granted and reaching out to hell even pro-war people.
As soon as you stand up to the powers that be you get smear jobbed. Howard Dean had raised 50 million dollars of which over 90% was donations of 100 dollars or less. Kerry had raised about the same, all from super rich people and mega corporations. Dean looked certain to win. And had a much stronger anti-war stance hence an actual choice at the ballot.
Then two weeks before the primary Dean groaned once. The attack dogs distorted the sound, and played it on the media for two straight weeks to discredit him. Then the establisHydromaxent in the DNC finished him in the primaries. Yet whne polled something like 80% of dems agreed with Dean the most and only 20% with Kerry. The argument for working from the inside is gone now imo.
I used to support the Republicans and thought Bush actually was for a limited government. I couldnt' have been more wrong, he was actually way way worse. (from my liberty minded perspective)
Last edited:
Randolf - I didn't mean to imply any negativity over your studies, economics is a fine a field, though I never had much talent for it. When I said a few courses or books can be overly influential in one's perspective that was more of a general critique of younger people and students. I'm sure, being at university, you loathe meeting the folks who have just read something enlightening in their psych 101 class and believe that they now understand all the intricacies of the human mind. I'm not at all suggesting you occupy this level of naivety, just illustrating.
You seem to have a very good handle on your politics, and you are of course quite correct about currency backing and the porjected longevity of governments. It is an interesting question.
I also agree with your estimates in regard to actually being able to control Iraq. John McCain has lead a vocal minority demanding "more boots on teh ground" for many months. Bush's administration I believe, has waffled for fear of public outcry. As soon as the tide turned and the war became unpopular his strategy has been to try and keep things as swept under the rug as possible, including funding and troop commitments, but obviously mobalizing a force that size would be hard to hide. I believe it to be the proper course of action though. In this case, the Powell doctrine, using an overwhelming force to achieve victory with a clear exit strategy, would have been ideal. A far larger US presence would likely overwhelm the insurgent elements and expediate the foundation of an independent state. Bush is treading water at the moment.
Your estimation that I'm looking for a change in leadership rather than fundamentals is correct. There is a joke . . . How many political radicals does it take to change a light bulb? None, they can't change shit. I'm pragmatic on the issue, I simply pick what I view to be the better option. So far as more political selection, it's a frequent complaint in this country, but I honestly don't believe our government is intended to function out of the two party system. Remember Madison and his solution to the dangers of factions. I'd like to see radical change in many areas as well, and radical political thought certainly has it's place and usefullness within the spectrum, but when it comes to presidential politics there isn't much room. Our system is slow, intentionally. There will be more Howard Dean's to come though, you can be sure of that. The democratic party is due for some major idealogical cobweb clearing, just as the right reinvented itself in teh early 90s.
You seem to have a very good handle on your politics, and you are of course quite correct about currency backing and the porjected longevity of governments. It is an interesting question.
I also agree with your estimates in regard to actually being able to control Iraq. John McCain has lead a vocal minority demanding "more boots on teh ground" for many months. Bush's administration I believe, has waffled for fear of public outcry. As soon as the tide turned and the war became unpopular his strategy has been to try and keep things as swept under the rug as possible, including funding and troop commitments, but obviously mobalizing a force that size would be hard to hide. I believe it to be the proper course of action though. In this case, the Powell doctrine, using an overwhelming force to achieve victory with a clear exit strategy, would have been ideal. A far larger US presence would likely overwhelm the insurgent elements and expediate the foundation of an independent state. Bush is treading water at the moment.
Your estimation that I'm looking for a change in leadership rather than fundamentals is correct. There is a joke . . . How many political radicals does it take to change a light bulb? None, they can't change shit. I'm pragmatic on the issue, I simply pick what I view to be the better option. So far as more political selection, it's a frequent complaint in this country, but I honestly don't believe our government is intended to function out of the two party system. Remember Madison and his solution to the dangers of factions. I'd like to see radical change in many areas as well, and radical political thought certainly has it's place and usefullness within the spectrum, but when it comes to presidential politics there isn't much room. Our system is slow, intentionally. There will be more Howard Dean's to come though, you can be sure of that. The democratic party is due for some major idealogical cobweb clearing, just as the right reinvented itself in teh early 90s.
Last edited:
let's see what we are dealing with here...
Bill Clinton didn't represent our country very well, he had an affair with Monica. Bush is priveldged? So is every other politician. He is worth 10 million, while John Edwards is worth 50 million, and Kerry is worth over 1 billion, you can't call one privledged and forget the others. A Massachusetts liberal would represent our country well? How can the most liberal senator in the nation represent America. His own state has legalized gay marriage, what's going on there? Then John Edwards the trial lawyer represents america well? And as for being articulate? I, and many others obviously don't care. If he spoke flawlessly it would have no affect on me. The way a person talks seems so trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The doctor who treated Kerry numerous times dismissed him repeatedly because his "injuries" were not worth his time. His wounds were described as self-inflicted including an inch long scratch he recieved on his arm. He was never admitted into a hospital, everything treated was same-day in and out. He simply used fake injuries to gain his medals. Almost all the men who served with Kerry say that he was crook. Everyone in his chain of command thought Kerry was an absolute charlatan. The mandatory service in Vietnam was 1 year, Kerry was only there for 4 months before he quit out and joined Jane Fonda. He shot a Vietcong teenager in the back as he was running away.
Comparing Kerry's war service to President Bush's has no relevance. Bush hasn't based his entire campaign on his war record and military service. Kerry HAS centered his entire campaign around the subject of him being a war hero. The guy admits to performing war crimes in Vietnam! Kerry and Jane Fonda's protest caused the death of more American lives than "Bush's war".
Then you ask who is better on defense? Perhaps you haven't heard Kerry's idea of fighting a "sensitive" war on terror? What is that? How can you fight a war with sensitivity? Why should we be sensitive when they haven't done the same to us? War and sensitivity don't mix for me. I think we need to kill them before they kill us. Notice how we haven't been attacked since 9/11? That seems like pretty good defense to me.
Bill Clinton didn't represent our country very well, he had an affair with Monica. Bush is priveldged? So is every other politician. He is worth 10 million, while John Edwards is worth 50 million, and Kerry is worth over 1 billion, you can't call one privledged and forget the others. A Massachusetts liberal would represent our country well? How can the most liberal senator in the nation represent America. His own state has legalized gay marriage, what's going on there? Then John Edwards the trial lawyer represents america well? And as for being articulate? I, and many others obviously don't care. If he spoke flawlessly it would have no affect on me. The way a person talks seems so trivial in the grand scheme of things.
The doctor who treated Kerry numerous times dismissed him repeatedly because his "injuries" were not worth his time. His wounds were described as self-inflicted including an inch long scratch he recieved on his arm. He was never admitted into a hospital, everything treated was same-day in and out. He simply used fake injuries to gain his medals. Almost all the men who served with Kerry say that he was crook. Everyone in his chain of command thought Kerry was an absolute charlatan. The mandatory service in Vietnam was 1 year, Kerry was only there for 4 months before he quit out and joined Jane Fonda. He shot a Vietcong teenager in the back as he was running away.
Comparing Kerry's war service to President Bush's has no relevance. Bush hasn't based his entire campaign on his war record and military service. Kerry HAS centered his entire campaign around the subject of him being a war hero. The guy admits to performing war crimes in Vietnam! Kerry and Jane Fonda's protest caused the death of more American lives than "Bush's war".
Then you ask who is better on defense? Perhaps you haven't heard Kerry's idea of fighting a "sensitive" war on terror? What is that? How can you fight a war with sensitivity? Why should we be sensitive when they haven't done the same to us? War and sensitivity don't mix for me. I think we need to kill them before they kill us. Notice how we haven't been attacked since 9/11? That seems like pretty good defense to me.
Rick Santoro - Wow friend, all I can say is straight from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly's mouths to your keyboard. Let's see, where to start.
Bill Clinton had an affair, so did JFK, LBJ, Eisenhower, likely Wilson, probably many more we don't knwo about. Many men have affairs, especially politicians it seems. It's considered no big deal, tabloid scandal in other countries. Here in the US, bloodhtirsty conservatives forced it into the media and scandal for over a year, creating a circus and making our country most notable for an extra-marital blowjob. That was the only embarassment. Clinton's old arch nemesis, Newt Ginrich, has been divorced something like three times, infidelity involved each time, and usually marrying a woman, I believe last time she was his secretary, many years his junior. Old Jesse Helms had an illligetimate black daughter that he never recognized or supported. But those guys are alright I bet, right?
Kerry is the son of a foreign service officer, he comes from an affluent background indeed. But his family background is trailer trash compared to the Bush's. Kerry didn't get anywhere in life because of his name, Bush has gone everywhere because of it. He's wealthy now because his wife is the Heinz fortune heiress. John Edwards is the son of dirt poor textile workers and worked his ass off his entire life to become one of the most successful and feared trial lawyers in the country. You don't like lawyers friend? So who represents you in court? Who props up the legal backbone of the country? Who prosecutes criminals, corrupt corporations, and in turn defends those accused of crimes, one of the fundamental liberties and cornerstones of our national character? Yep, damn lawyers. All they do is steal money and fuck with people right?
The "Kerry is the MOST liberal senator" tagline is a a blatant lie spread about during the campaign season. The group that creates that ranking (and have also repeatedly protested Bush's use of the statistic as it is a falsehood) awarded him the number one slot last year, but only based on one category, because Kerry missed so many senate votes while campaigning. Ordinarily senators are ranked according to fiscal policy, foreign policy, and social policy. Every other year throughout the 90s Kerry wasn't even in the top ten. Do the research yourself if you doubt me.
Bush has far worse problems than not speaking well, though that is rather embarassing. He doesn't understand issues that should be basic knowledge for a president and retired top level people on both sides of the fence have said as much. As I said, the man has boasted about not reading the news. The ability to speak without a teleprompter and have a full command over the english language ought to be a requirement for the position, as it is for damn near any other executive job. An essential role of the president is to be the representative of our nation to the world, and to ourselves. Also, Kerry doesn't support gay marriage. Nor was it fully legalized in his state, not that Kerry would have any control over that anyways. That's all the judges friend, senators don't enforce the law, they legislate it. Judges overturned existing laws.
Show me these commanders that condemnded John Kerry as a coward and weakling, funny that they would award him several other medals besides his three purple hearts then. Odd that all the men who served under him loathed him, when nearly all of them have appeared with him on the campaign trail, recounting his heroism and leadership. Those adds denouncing Kerry's war service on TV? None of those people served under or above Kerry, not a one. The add is so low and false the Bush team denounced as bunk and disassociated themselves with it. I was not aware that he was mentally unstable and routinely wounded himself so badly he would have to go to the hospital to collect a medal. Stop and think how crazy this propaganda is . . . did you look into this yourself or here it on talk radio? Be honest.
Kerry did say he committed atrocities, during his anti-Vietnam crusade after he returned home. I might add once more, Kerry wanted to go, he was not drafted. No well off, white college students ahd to go to Vietnam, and both Bush and Cheney did everything possible to stay the hell away. I don't know that they're cowards, I don't know them personally, but their actions were hardly patriotic, and certainly of less service to our nation thant Kerry's. He wanted to serve his country.
He did feel most of our actions over there were atrocities and protested our presence when he returned. He didn't like seeing the soldiers he had known and fought with dying in a pointless war with no end where many innocents were being slaughtered as well. He had no association with Jane Fonda that I know of, besides the doctored photo of them together that was widely circulated from a right wing website, then exposed and mocked on the tonight show by Jay Leno himself. The young Vietnamese that Kerry supposedly shot in the back had been aiming a rocket launcher at the swift boat, by the recounting of the other soldiers. You seem like the type to be quite pro-Vietnam and war in general, right? Well if somebody looks like they're going to fire a rocket at your boat, what do you do friend?
The "sensitive war on terror" remark has been highly publicized by Dick Cheney this last week, and consequently a huge tagline in talk radio. It was part of a speech in which Kerry outlined battling terror in a more effective, more internationally cooperative way. He meant senstive to the effect that we would closely tailor our actions to situations and handle information carefully and with tact, rather than try to bulldoze a largely invisable enemy. Bush is a success? The CIA has confirmed that there are now larger numbers of trained terrorist operatives than ever before and the Al Queda network has expanded in size and cell number. Afghanistan is once again primarily lawless, controlled by warlords. Senate investigations have found unanimously that since 9/11 the changes to the intelligence structure have been sub standard and that we are still woefully unprepared should another attack be planned against us.
I made quite a few other disparaging remarks about Bush, perhaps you'd like to address some of those? I know educating the nation's poorer children and making sure the country's economy isn't permanently lamed by poor economic policy isn't as exciting as imagining John Kerry mutilating himself and smoking joints with Jane Fonda, but surely you must have some opinions that aren't from the infotainment talking points I hear on Rush's show all the time. I often tune in for a laugh.
Bill Clinton had an affair, so did JFK, LBJ, Eisenhower, likely Wilson, probably many more we don't knwo about. Many men have affairs, especially politicians it seems. It's considered no big deal, tabloid scandal in other countries. Here in the US, bloodhtirsty conservatives forced it into the media and scandal for over a year, creating a circus and making our country most notable for an extra-marital blowjob. That was the only embarassment. Clinton's old arch nemesis, Newt Ginrich, has been divorced something like three times, infidelity involved each time, and usually marrying a woman, I believe last time she was his secretary, many years his junior. Old Jesse Helms had an illligetimate black daughter that he never recognized or supported. But those guys are alright I bet, right?
Kerry is the son of a foreign service officer, he comes from an affluent background indeed. But his family background is trailer trash compared to the Bush's. Kerry didn't get anywhere in life because of his name, Bush has gone everywhere because of it. He's wealthy now because his wife is the Heinz fortune heiress. John Edwards is the son of dirt poor textile workers and worked his ass off his entire life to become one of the most successful and feared trial lawyers in the country. You don't like lawyers friend? So who represents you in court? Who props up the legal backbone of the country? Who prosecutes criminals, corrupt corporations, and in turn defends those accused of crimes, one of the fundamental liberties and cornerstones of our national character? Yep, damn lawyers. All they do is steal money and fuck with people right?
The "Kerry is the MOST liberal senator" tagline is a a blatant lie spread about during the campaign season. The group that creates that ranking (and have also repeatedly protested Bush's use of the statistic as it is a falsehood) awarded him the number one slot last year, but only based on one category, because Kerry missed so many senate votes while campaigning. Ordinarily senators are ranked according to fiscal policy, foreign policy, and social policy. Every other year throughout the 90s Kerry wasn't even in the top ten. Do the research yourself if you doubt me.
Bush has far worse problems than not speaking well, though that is rather embarassing. He doesn't understand issues that should be basic knowledge for a president and retired top level people on both sides of the fence have said as much. As I said, the man has boasted about not reading the news. The ability to speak without a teleprompter and have a full command over the english language ought to be a requirement for the position, as it is for damn near any other executive job. An essential role of the president is to be the representative of our nation to the world, and to ourselves. Also, Kerry doesn't support gay marriage. Nor was it fully legalized in his state, not that Kerry would have any control over that anyways. That's all the judges friend, senators don't enforce the law, they legislate it. Judges overturned existing laws.
Show me these commanders that condemnded John Kerry as a coward and weakling, funny that they would award him several other medals besides his three purple hearts then. Odd that all the men who served under him loathed him, when nearly all of them have appeared with him on the campaign trail, recounting his heroism and leadership. Those adds denouncing Kerry's war service on TV? None of those people served under or above Kerry, not a one. The add is so low and false the Bush team denounced as bunk and disassociated themselves with it. I was not aware that he was mentally unstable and routinely wounded himself so badly he would have to go to the hospital to collect a medal. Stop and think how crazy this propaganda is . . . did you look into this yourself or here it on talk radio? Be honest.
Kerry did say he committed atrocities, during his anti-Vietnam crusade after he returned home. I might add once more, Kerry wanted to go, he was not drafted. No well off, white college students ahd to go to Vietnam, and both Bush and Cheney did everything possible to stay the hell away. I don't know that they're cowards, I don't know them personally, but their actions were hardly patriotic, and certainly of less service to our nation thant Kerry's. He wanted to serve his country.
He did feel most of our actions over there were atrocities and protested our presence when he returned. He didn't like seeing the soldiers he had known and fought with dying in a pointless war with no end where many innocents were being slaughtered as well. He had no association with Jane Fonda that I know of, besides the doctored photo of them together that was widely circulated from a right wing website, then exposed and mocked on the tonight show by Jay Leno himself. The young Vietnamese that Kerry supposedly shot in the back had been aiming a rocket launcher at the swift boat, by the recounting of the other soldiers. You seem like the type to be quite pro-Vietnam and war in general, right? Well if somebody looks like they're going to fire a rocket at your boat, what do you do friend?
The "sensitive war on terror" remark has been highly publicized by Dick Cheney this last week, and consequently a huge tagline in talk radio. It was part of a speech in which Kerry outlined battling terror in a more effective, more internationally cooperative way. He meant senstive to the effect that we would closely tailor our actions to situations and handle information carefully and with tact, rather than try to bulldoze a largely invisable enemy. Bush is a success? The CIA has confirmed that there are now larger numbers of trained terrorist operatives than ever before and the Al Queda network has expanded in size and cell number. Afghanistan is once again primarily lawless, controlled by warlords. Senate investigations have found unanimously that since 9/11 the changes to the intelligence structure have been sub standard and that we are still woefully unprepared should another attack be planned against us.
I made quite a few other disparaging remarks about Bush, perhaps you'd like to address some of those? I know educating the nation's poorer children and making sure the country's economy isn't permanently lamed by poor economic policy isn't as exciting as imagining John Kerry mutilating himself and smoking joints with Jane Fonda, but surely you must have some opinions that aren't from the infotainment talking points I hear on Rush's show all the time. I often tune in for a laugh.
I aggree with you here, bush is anything but a conservative when it comes to spending. I don't know whether he protrays himself to be fiscally conservative or if the media has, but he certianly is not. When you say 9/11 had no affect, I don't know about that...
Now is this the whole "he said he was going to be a uniter, but he is a divider" theme? The only dividing I see is on the part of opposing democracts playing partisan politics. It's tough to bring a nation together when Ted Kennedy and Al Gore, and Howard Dean are making accusations that Bush new about a 9/11 before it happened. How does that help the uniting process? Unfounded, and very dangerous and seditious statments spat out left and right by democratic political leaders seems more like dividing to me. Al Gore's five minutes at the democratic national convention where he brought up the the stolen election are anything but uniting. What good does any of that do?
Some democracts just have a deep hatred for Bush since he "stole the election" back in 2000. Don't believe me? What is that underground comedy club in New York City about? I think it was called, "I want to kill the president" or something. And as for the term, "compassionate conservative", how can a logo or phrase like that fuel such anger and hatred?
As for the CIA leak, could that not be compared to Sandy Burger stuffing highly classified documents in his underwear and socks? Hasn't that case been swept under the carpet? A man who steals pages of documents and when officials go to his house to collect them, he says they have been mistakingly destroyed? Sure Bush is responsible for his cabinent members and action should be taken. But there also shouldn't be a double standard in Sandy Burgers case. I'd like to hear you denounce mr Burgerlers actions.
So the guy is religious, so what? Go on with what you were saying about funding religious organizations. Name a few and give some links and stuff, I'd like to check it out. It's separation of church and state not separation of church from state. Where have his policy's been overwhelmingly tainted with christianity? Jews, fiery judgement...
Your last paragraph there, just starts to go into cliche Bush hating. It seems that finally we came to the root of the problem, bush "stealing the election". Why even reference to Florida, it was 4 years ago, get over it. I'd call myself a conservative but would disagree with having nothing to do with Bush. It isn't always who you match up with line for line, but sometimes who is closer to your own ideology. After watching the democratic convention my decision became clear. I don't identify with anything that was said. Whatever label Bush or Kerry puts on themself, it doesn't matter. I look towards the policies and I don't like Kerry's.
How do you know he doesn't give "two shits" about me? How do you know he is uncompassionate, unsmart, or untalented? It must take some level of those characteristics to "steal" the election and become president.
I got my tax rebate in the mail, it's a good thing he stole the election
The pragmatism is why I supported Bush in 2000. He promised school vouchers with the federal money, to privatize social security or sections of it, for those coming in, tort reform which I strongly believe in, and finally to not spread the military out like Clinton had.
Here is his 'fiscal conservatism', like the above poster said Bush is not someone who is trying to limit federal spending, even non-defense.
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/press_rel/press_040624.html
Here is his 'fiscal conservatism', like the above poster said Bush is not someone who is trying to limit federal spending, even non-defense.
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/press_rel/press_040624.html
Swank said:
I can see how you thought that from the way I worded the first post. Unfortunately it is often effective to back up an opinion with something like that lol, like people do listen if a doctor says pe is real or not, even though some Sudanese arab who has been doing it for years and has a bigger cock is going to know more imo.
Swank said:
I would like these issues to be raised if nothing else. It is an example why I see the parties as so similiar. The Republicans will occasionaly give lip service to things like fixing the IRS but now we have seen when they hold all the power they do absolutely nothing about it, and actually spend faster then the democrats. And take away freedoms way faster then the Democrats.
You may be right that the system tends towards two parties. If that is the case what I would like to see is either the Democratic party or the Republican party to fall apart. I thought 3 months ago it might be the Democratic party over the anti-war and green movements and it still could happen. But it looks increasingly likely to me that it will be the Republicans instead who blow apart.
I would like to have the Democratic party on one side. And the Libertarians on the other. Having real political discourse about issues like the amount spent on government, foreign intervention, the war on drugs, fiat currency, the level of debt etc...
A real choice. You know in some state and local elections over 80% of the eligible voters just stay home. A lot of that is it has become increasingly obvious that it is pretty much irrelevant who is in power among Democrat or Republican. Sometimes we get a bad Democrat leader, sometimes a bad Republican.. like Bush. But the general thinking and direction of the country is extremely similiar.
That is why when you watch the news it is all about a gaffe Bush made, or credibility issues between the two, like does Kerry flip-flop. Or we see polls on who is winning. But what is missing is an actual debate on the issues facing this nation.
For me to vote for the lesser of two evils which I believe would be Kerry, would be to vote to continue the status quo. It is only when you vote for someone else that the political parties start paying attention. And let me tell you when they lose power they pay attention real fast.
I believe a possibilty other then one of the two parties falling is for one to change its policies to be a real alternative. Let me give you an example the Libertarian message can be very popular. Arnold Swarzenegger ran on this platform: fiscal conservative, social liberal. That is a libertarian! Obviously he moderated the positions very much, but the direction he is talking about and enacting some laws towards is the direction I want to go.
If I was in California I would vote for Arnold. But if my choice is two politicians who want to increase the size and power of the government I will vote for a third party knowing they won't win. But to send a message. And maybe like I said implode one of the parties and take over with the Libertarians.
Swank said:
First let me say I was and am against any military action against Iraq. If they actually had WMD the worst idea would be to attack them.. as that is when a nation uses WMD.
But if you are going to go in, you have to use overwhelming force and occupy with a very large force for a sustained period. The Rumsfeld strategy has been a miserable failure. The generals asked for 250,000+ troops, and honestly I believe that would even be too few. But lets say they had sent in my estimate of 400,000. They had got stability, crushed resistance.
Then you could start rebuilding. That is how you get popularity. The problem is they have lost so much control in Iraq rebuilding is impossible. So you can't win hearts and minds.
The successful way for war is always defeat the government. Completely pacify resistance. Put massive money into rebuilding. Transition to them getting more and more soveirgnty. Rumsfeld and co. failed miserably at step 2, so it has made all future steps impossible. And for that imo they will lose this election.
I have done a study of what the real polling numbers are when you factor who is on the ballot, and also factor in the Libertarians who are not on the polls. For example Zogby's poll for new mexico has Nader but no Badnarik. But Nader is not going to be on the nm ballot?? When you take those numbers into account, from the polls that have added libertarians, Kerry is up by 9-10% already. And the gap is increasing. And will increase dramatically as there is no opposition on the left but serious opposition on the right. And challengers always rise as it gets closer to an election.
In short this election is over imo.
swank said:
I did that last time, and got screwed over really hard lol... I certainly am willing to pick someone like Arnold who isn't neccessarily EVERYthing I want, but who is movign towards what I believe in. But when there is two moving away from what I want, voting for the lesser isn't really an option for me.
And you are right about the radicals. I think Dean probably would have lost the election to Bush, which is why they went with Kerry. Just like Gore was way to left wing for many many people. His plan had over 200 new government programs. There was a lot of people including me who were a little scared of that.
There is a big debate raging in the Libertarian party to start moderating. Instead of going for the whole enchillada at once, seduce people with things people can agree on. Like medical marijuana, and ending corporate subsidies. And leave the other liberty issues we believe in for a time when the public supports those too... and heck if you get some power which they already have 600 at the local level and people are doing better with more liberty they will be more open to supporting even more limiting of the government.
I am hoping in the next decade libertarians can expand into the state legislatures and maybe even get a few members in the congress and maybe one or two in the senate. And further expand at the local level.
I would love to see a real debate between someone like Howard Dean and Michael Badnarik. I think that would re-invigorate democracy in this nation as well, and get people involved.
OK, now...................Klingons or the BORG!!!
lol
lol
Bush administration windfall...
1.)Rich are getting richer.
2.)Middle class is getting annihilated(off shoring,job losses).
3.)Stopping Stem Cell Research(Stem Cell Research).
4.)deficit.
5.)Financial Ineptitude & mis-management.
6.)Pro Corporation legislation putting even more clamps on the middle class. Trying to formulate energy policy behind closed doors with enron and other companies(Cheney(Evil).
7.)Attempting to trick newly immigrated U.S citizens into registering for the republican party by suBathmateitting the forms for them.
8.)Attempting to convince Americans that drilling in Alaska would have solved the oil problems we are currently facing. Its a lie, even the administrations own energy department laughs at the though saying..."drilling in Alaska would make a 2-4 cent difference in prices at most!". Who's to profit, oil companies and that goes back to -> Cheney!
9.)Bush & Cheney have shown they don't have the balls to have impartial audiences when speaking on live national TV (every person in the audience had to sign a wavier that they pledge allegiance to George Bush and the republican party before they were allowed in).
10.)Pouring billions into an untested Missile defense system. Ok it was tested but do you count homing beacons in incoming missiles a fair test. And they were only 50% effective anyways.
11.)Saying they had No warning about immediate terrorist threats when the Clinton administration passed on a document with the title "Al Qaeda - attacks inside the US",this CIA report refers specifically to planes being hijacked and used as weapons.
12.)oh yeah and he brought War (with the wrong country(Iraq), NKorea is the biggest threat!, but i forgot about the need for a steady supply of oil).
I am neither on the Republican or Democrat side. I'm neutral when it comes to that. But I believe actions speak louder than words and the bush administration has puffed so much hot air, and done little or nothing for the majority of American citizens. Its just silly to want to reward bush(Cheney(Evil)) by voting him to another term.
1.)Rich are getting richer.
2.)Middle class is getting annihilated(off shoring,job losses).
3.)Stopping Stem Cell Research(Stem Cell Research).
4.)deficit.
5.)Financial Ineptitude & mis-management.
6.)Pro Corporation legislation putting even more clamps on the middle class. Trying to formulate energy policy behind closed doors with enron and other companies(Cheney(Evil).
7.)Attempting to trick newly immigrated U.S citizens into registering for the republican party by suBathmateitting the forms for them.
8.)Attempting to convince Americans that drilling in Alaska would have solved the oil problems we are currently facing. Its a lie, even the administrations own energy department laughs at the though saying..."drilling in Alaska would make a 2-4 cent difference in prices at most!". Who's to profit, oil companies and that goes back to -> Cheney!
9.)Bush & Cheney have shown they don't have the balls to have impartial audiences when speaking on live national TV (every person in the audience had to sign a wavier that they pledge allegiance to George Bush and the republican party before they were allowed in).
10.)Pouring billions into an untested Missile defense system. Ok it was tested but do you count homing beacons in incoming missiles a fair test. And they were only 50% effective anyways.
11.)Saying they had No warning about immediate terrorist threats when the Clinton administration passed on a document with the title "Al Qaeda - attacks inside the US",this CIA report refers specifically to planes being hijacked and used as weapons.
12.)oh yeah and he brought War (with the wrong country(Iraq), NKorea is the biggest threat!, but i forgot about the need for a steady supply of oil).
I am neither on the Republican or Democrat side. I'm neutral when it comes to that. But I believe actions speak louder than words and the bush administration has puffed so much hot air, and done little or nothing for the majority of American citizens. Its just silly to want to reward bush(Cheney(Evil)) by voting him to another term.
Last edited:
C
Casey
Guest
If you were President of the USA, the Leader of the Free World, and a secret service member came up to you and said "Sir, the Nation is Under Attack", would you sit there like a deer in headlights for 7 minutes until your escorted out?
Or Would you Stand the F- Up!
This is the best guy the Repubs got?? If only McCain or Gore had one. Oh and Bush should be ashamed for the smear job they did to John McCain in 2000 and now against Kerry. The Bush family fights dirty and does and says anything to get elected.
Or Would you Stand the F- Up!
This is the best guy the Repubs got?? If only McCain or Gore had one. Oh and Bush should be ashamed for the smear job they did to John McCain in 2000 and now against Kerry. The Bush family fights dirty and does and says anything to get elected.
The infamous "7 minutes"!!! What did you expect him to do? Jump up and begin damage assesment immediatly? What could one man do at a time like that in 7 seconds? The school where he was talking or reading something probably waited years for an opportunity to have such a distinguished guest as the president come. What difference does 7 minutes make? That point has no bearing on anything, it doesn't even make sense to criticize that.
The guy was at a school with little children, how would that impact them? Maybe this was the greatest thing that has ever happened to them or their school in its entire history. This is a nil point, it's a crude attempt at attacking the president.
Like what? Lets hear it. And what if I'm to ask, is Kerry the best the dems have? Smear campaigns? Talk about moveon.org which compares Bush to hitler, which Kerry hasn't denounced. Talk about Howard Dean, Gore, Kennedy, and all the other democratic presidential candidates screaming that bush is a liar and he new about 9/11 before it happened. Talk about smear campaigns?
And as for badbal, It seems you just plain hate bush and cheney overall, saying they are evil? Neither republican or democract? I find that highly unlikely.
Last edited:
C
Casey
Guest
Rick Santoro said:
oh pleeze, your hiliarious. "What about the children?" " We cant scare the precious children?" The fact is the President aka. The Commander in Chief aka. Head of the Military, froze during a time when he should have immediatley focused on an attack on the United States. This is an issue about the ultimate presidential duty, acting in an emergency. And "the nation is under attack" certainly qualifies.
You and Cheney both say "He didn't want to scare the children", but at a moment of national crisis, Bush's judgment was: Better not to scare 20 children momentarily than to react immediately to an attack on the country!
Im not saying 9/11 could have been stopped if Bush stood up, but its the fundamental character flaw that haunts Bush. When Bush hears "country under attack" he sits there dumbfounded. If Kerry had stood there while his boat was under attack in Vietnam, he and his troops would be dead.
Serious people do NOT say Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand, but people do say he ignored an obvious threat b/c he was concerned w/ Iraq and missile defense. Much of that is documented in the 9/11 report.
I cannot see how someone who considers himself a conservative can defend George Bush's inaction. Conservatives pride themselves on being clear-eyed and decisive. They don't do nuance, and they respect toughness.
Bush dosnt have the intellectual drive or commonsense policies to be President. He dosnt understand foreigners, he thinks he's sent by God, he dosnt believe in evolution, and he sat there with the phrase brewing in his mind "the nation is under attack" for 7 minutes, until he had to be told to get up.
well, Clinton was a democrat and he did damn well in his 8 yrs of office. Here comes a republican and he shits on the US. I may have more conservative views, but I think electing another democrat will help our country.
What did you want him to do? Answer that. Did you want him to turn into a 150 ft tall giant and go and stop the towers from falling? You say it's a character flaw, where do you get that? You call the president indecisive? There was really nothing he could do in 7 minutes. You've watched Michael Moores film too many times. Don't get your information from a biased, dishonest propaganda film that was created by a man who simply hates Bush personally.
You keep saying, react immediatly, but what could he do? You're setting standards that no president can meet. You can't just act when you're attacked, you have to know who did it. Seven minutes isn't enough to know all the information.
You don't know if he was dumbfounded. At this point of time, we both agree that nothing could have been done, or 9/11 couldn't have been stopped. You can't say that it is a character flaw when there really was nothing anyone could do at that moment in time. If a police cheif was killed by a white man, you wouldn't immediatly run out and kill every white man.
You're right, Kerry didn't sit there, he fled when another boat blew up. His sift boat was the only one that sped away, but later returned when their was no fire. That is the tesitmony of all the ranking officals and men who served with him except those on his boat. The others all agree that there was no firing. No bullet holes or damage was found on any of the boats.
C
Casey
Guest
Okay, you really show your true colors when you cite that Swift Boat Bullshit. Dont you remember how McCain's service was shitted on by the Bush campaign? He also calls these [words=http://www.phallosan.com/shop/catalog/default.php?z=eNortjIxtVKyL0pNszWxMFcrSSxKTy2JL0hMT7U1UisoykyxtbBQSy4tLsnPjS8uKcrMS7dVsgZcMMpbEbo%2C]ads[/words] "dishonest and dishonorable". Many of these Swift Vets are on the record praising Kerry's service back in 1996, on camera. I saw the footage on CNN yesterday. Even military records released about one of the vets bronze medal, cites the fact that they were under intense enemy fire during the time Kerry pulled Rassman out of the water.
I dont believe Bush is linked or conspires with terrorists, like Moore implies in his movie, but I also dont believe the disgusting smearing of Kerry's service, 35 years ago. People are getting blown up every day in Baghdad and Najaf. He served, but the Repubs try to marginalize it b/c they're threatened by it. Kerry and Powell know war in a way that Bush, Cheney and Clinton never will. Why do you think Bush Sr. never invaded? Why do you think that Powell was the most cautious and told them how difficult it would be?
Bush has never had to work for anything, he's been privileged all his life. Granted Kerry is very privileged also, but Bush has this stigma of being a man of the people because he dont use them fancy scHydromaxancy big time reporter words. He wasnt even born in Texas, his family is from the "liberal Northeast". Bush was an alcoholic frat-boy at Yale, and got OUT of going to Vietnam. For Bush, its all about image.
But about 9/11 and Bush's response, (or lack thereof), my answer is YES! In fact, I would have praised Bush or any President for IMMEDIATLEY reacting to "sir the nation is under attack". Im actually laughing that you think that a reaction, ANY REACTION AT ALL, is too high of a standard for a President. He's the highest head in the military for Christ's sake! This isnt about Bush turning into a hero and saving people, its about the fact that he dosnt have the intellectual curiosity to know that "nation under attack" is something of epic proportions that should trigger a button in your head that causes you to immediatly focus your attention on that.
Its hiliarious how people try to spin it around and say he was just being calm and cool. They dont want their followers to think that the man that God choose president was a deer in headlights during a national tragedy.
I dont believe Bush is linked or conspires with terrorists, like Moore implies in his movie, but I also dont believe the disgusting smearing of Kerry's service, 35 years ago. People are getting blown up every day in Baghdad and Najaf. He served, but the Repubs try to marginalize it b/c they're threatened by it. Kerry and Powell know war in a way that Bush, Cheney and Clinton never will. Why do you think Bush Sr. never invaded? Why do you think that Powell was the most cautious and told them how difficult it would be?
Bush has never had to work for anything, he's been privileged all his life. Granted Kerry is very privileged also, but Bush has this stigma of being a man of the people because he dont use them fancy scHydromaxancy big time reporter words. He wasnt even born in Texas, his family is from the "liberal Northeast". Bush was an alcoholic frat-boy at Yale, and got OUT of going to Vietnam. For Bush, its all about image.
But about 9/11 and Bush's response, (or lack thereof), my answer is YES! In fact, I would have praised Bush or any President for IMMEDIATLEY reacting to "sir the nation is under attack". Im actually laughing that you think that a reaction, ANY REACTION AT ALL, is too high of a standard for a President. He's the highest head in the military for Christ's sake! This isnt about Bush turning into a hero and saving people, its about the fact that he dosnt have the intellectual curiosity to know that "nation under attack" is something of epic proportions that should trigger a button in your head that causes you to immediatly focus your attention on that.
Its hiliarious how people try to spin it around and say he was just being calm and cool. They dont want their followers to think that the man that God choose president was a deer in headlights during a national tragedy.
That isn't the truth. Almost all of the men who served with him do not think he was honest about his military record, including all of his chain of command. The report that said they were under heavy fire was written and suBathmateitted by Kerry himself when physical evidence on the boats, and the tesitimony of all his fellow swift boat vets denied his claims. Rassman has no bearing in saying if he was under attack or not. The guy was in the water and his opinion on what happened out of the water and on the shore can be convoluted. The men who had better views of the situation weren't in the water, they were on swift boats and they said there was no enemy fire.
Kerry has centered his entire campaign around his military service and record. You can't center your campaign around once specific event and not expect it to be checked up on. Kerry can easily stop all these accusations if he simply releases his war records, which he and his people still refuse to do. He brought his military record to the table, not the republicans.
You want to talk about people dieing? Kerry and Jane Fonda, by protesting the war, caused the deaths of thousands of American lives. They have killed more americans then "Bush's War for oil".
You don't address the fact that nothing could be done. Moore makes it seem like he could have done something. You gotta refrain from making blanket statements about someone you don't even know. Intellectual curiosity?? What are you talking about? Face the facts, nothing could have been done in your seven minutes. You are just willing to sink to a level where anything that can be critisized will be.
I never said he was calm and cool. He might have been, he might not have been. WHat difference does it make? I sure hope he wasn't calm and cool. But again, this is just a shallow attempt to attack the president at any chance.
C
Casey
Guest
Rick Santoro said:
That first part isnt at all true, and your assessments are completely contradictory to official military record and the accounts of people who actually were ON Kerry's boat at the time of incident.
There is NO proof, that the boat was not under fire, Rassman himself said he had to come up for air, and when he did bullets were hitting the water and he had to go back under. Here's an excerpt from www.factcheck.org
"And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident." Again NO proof that Kerry wrote the after action report.
Another excerpt concerning the funding of this smear campaign.
"Internal Revenue Services now shows its initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party and Republican candidates, mostly in Texas, including President Bush and Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose district is near Houston"
I also gotta post this update b/c its completely non-partisan and factual.
Update: Two New Witnesses Contradict Kerry's Swift Boat Critics
08.22.2004
We have updated our Aug. 6 article on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad to include two new accounts that surfaced Aug. 22. One supported Kerry's account of the actions for which he was awarded the Silver Star, and the other supported Kerry's account of receiving enemy fire during the rescue for which Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star.
The Silver Star section has been updated to include the following:
On Aug. 22 an officer who was present supported Kerry's version, breaking a 35-year silence. William B. Rood commanded another Swift Boat during the same operation and was awarded the Bronze Star himself for his role in attacking the Viet Cong ambushers. He said Kerry and he went ashore at the same time after being attacked by several Viet Cong onshore.
Rood said he was the only other officer present. Rood is now an editor on the metropolitan desk of the Chicago Tribune, which published his first-person account of the incident in its Sunday edition. Rood said he had refused all interviews about Kerry's war record, even from reporters for his own paper, until motivated to speak up because Kerry's critics are telling "stories I know to be untrue" and "their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us."
Rood described two Viet Cong ambushes, both of them routed using a tactic devised by Kerry who was in tactical command of a three-boat operation. At the second ambush only the Rood and Kerry boats were attacked.
Rood: Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch--a thatched hut--maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ.
With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.
Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.
Rood disputed an account of the incident given by John O'Neill in his book "Unfit for Command," which describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." Rood said, "I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."
Also, the Bronze Star section has been updated to include the following:
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.
Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river."
Kerry has had to make spilt-second decisions, Bush never has. He has always had an aid or advisor to help him. Thats why on 9/11 he didnt get up, b/c no one told him to. Also the Bush Admin has direct ties to the Swift Boat group, but they have now resigned in order to protect Bush. One of them even appeared in the ad.
In your last remark, you are saying that Kerry is directly responsible for deaths in Vietnam, which is irresponsible. How are they responsible? I have gone to protests against the Iraq War. Are you saying I am also responsible for deaths in Iraq? I think thats way over the line.
This poll is skewed. Too many young people on these forums. Young people = liberals. Don't think kerry really has any shot at winning.
In regard to the questions about Bush not responding for 7 minutes after being alerted to the attacks - This is something to take into account. There could have been more attacks coming, terrorists could have been aware of the presidents location, all kinds of horrible things could have ben unspooling for all they knew. Bush should have immediately excused himself from the situation without alerting the children; even a semi-compitent adult could at least make up some kind of excuse ("excuse me kids, I have a very important presidental matter I have to take care of, I promise I'll try to come back and finish the fucking story book.") and leave without alarming the children.
The fact is, by not reacting to the news that there were major attacks occurring on American soil in a swift and decisive manner as soon as he learned about it, Bush, as the commander in chief and leader of our goverment, was compromising the security and safety of our nation and its citizens. A lot could have happened in those 7 minutes, nobody knew what was coming, but it's certain that absolutely no porgress towards defending ourselves would have been made as Bush sat there paralyzed. C'mon republicans, if that had been Al Gore sitting in that chair you all would have been screaming at the top of your lungs from the highest mountain tops in complaint. It was a screw-up, but indicative of Bush's poor capabilities as a leader in general. Face reality - the man didn't know what to do when he learned that our country was in serious danger.
The fact is, by not reacting to the news that there were major attacks occurring on American soil in a swift and decisive manner as soon as he learned about it, Bush, as the commander in chief and leader of our goverment, was compromising the security and safety of our nation and its citizens. A lot could have happened in those 7 minutes, nobody knew what was coming, but it's certain that absolutely no porgress towards defending ourselves would have been made as Bush sat there paralyzed. C'mon republicans, if that had been Al Gore sitting in that chair you all would have been screaming at the top of your lungs from the highest mountain tops in complaint. It was a screw-up, but indicative of Bush's poor capabilities as a leader in general. Face reality - the man didn't know what to do when he learned that our country was in serious danger.
Smallguy44 said:
Kerry does have a real shot at winning the election. What do you consider young???
Bush has screwd are reprutation up in the world. bush ani't noting but a good ol boy running shit. Kerry will do a better job for the homeland, which is not somewhere else in the world but it is here in your freaking backyard! We need to focus on America. cause we are now a divided country. and we will fall being that!
C
Casey
Guest
No chance of winning? Kerry was actually ahead in the polls, especially in battleground states like WI, [words=http://fleshlight.sjv.io/c/348327/302851/4702]FL[/words], and [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]PA[/words]. Even Arkansas had Kerry ahead. I saw it on Countdown on MSNBC, and they showed an electoral college landslide towards Kerry. But now b/c of this shit on Kerry's military service, he's down.
Republicans got their convention this week, and something has been bothering me. Why are they tauting the moderates on stage and pretending that they represent the majority of Repubs? B/c they dont. What % of Repubs are pro-choice moderates, like Guiliani and Schwarzeneggar? 20%? Less? Bush represents the Falwell/Robertson/Nascar dad/oil companies, wing of the Republicans. At least the Demmy's show who they are. The Clinton's, Teddy Kennedy, hell, even Michael Moore got a seat next to Jimmy Carter.
I hate the "good ol' boy system". I kinda agree with the "young people liberals" comment. I'd say like 3 out of 4 younguns dont like Bush. Like in my US Relations class in school, just about everybody thinks the Bush Admins needs to go. Young people are more open minded about race, social class, gays in general. But like I said, some kids are Bush supporters, but they tend not to be involved w/ politics as much. I think the more ignorant you are to various issues, the less likely you are to be liberal, progressive, or civil libertarian.
Republicans got their convention this week, and something has been bothering me. Why are they tauting the moderates on stage and pretending that they represent the majority of Repubs? B/c they dont. What % of Repubs are pro-choice moderates, like Guiliani and Schwarzeneggar? 20%? Less? Bush represents the Falwell/Robertson/Nascar dad/oil companies, wing of the Republicans. At least the Demmy's show who they are. The Clinton's, Teddy Kennedy, hell, even Michael Moore got a seat next to Jimmy Carter.
I hate the "good ol' boy system". I kinda agree with the "young people liberals" comment. I'd say like 3 out of 4 younguns dont like Bush. Like in my US Relations class in school, just about everybody thinks the Bush Admins needs to go. Young people are more open minded about race, social class, gays in general. But like I said, some kids are Bush supporters, but they tend not to be involved w/ politics as much. I think the more ignorant you are to various issues, the less likely you are to be liberal, progressive, or civil libertarian.
I think Kerry is in bad shape. The DNC was a total dud. He actually lost points after it when traditionaly, every party gains points. For the past months, all the polls have shown that the race is pretty even with Kerry ahead. The weekly or monthly polls show differences in maybe 1 or 2 points at the most. But lately this trend has changed. Now most polls are showing that Kerrry is down around 5 points and Bush is up. Now 5 points may not sound like much, but when the entire race has been +/- 1 or 2 points, this is huge!
And yes, this swift boat business, whether you believe it to be true or not has hurt Kerry. This won't be solved anytime soon, which is great for republicans and terrible for Kerry.
With the RNC coming up, I wanted to know what you liberals thought about the protesting issues. I'm not very current on it, all I know is that they are becoming a huge problem for the police. Hundreds of extra police are having to be moved in order to accomdate all the protesters. Of course, with more police watching the protest there will be fewer to watch the rest of the city, and do their normal jobs, which is protect all the citizens, instead of babysit. I was watching on the news, that there are people actually giving seminars about how to protest and fight the police and riot control. There are also reports saying that these protesters have obtained and are realeasing the locations of where the republican delegates are staying.
Now can the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] liberals concede that these protesting liberals are completely out of line? Are you anti-bush people ashamed of the actions of these people? This is an outrage! At the DNC, I never saw this type of issue. These people are actually threating the lives of the delegates by releasing their locations. How low have anti-Bush people sunk? You tell me.
What are you thoughts on protesting at all? Would you ever protest? WHy do you think only liberals protest on such a grand scale compared to conservatvies?
And yes, this swift boat business, whether you believe it to be true or not has hurt Kerry. This won't be solved anytime soon, which is great for republicans and terrible for Kerry.
With the RNC coming up, I wanted to know what you liberals thought about the protesting issues. I'm not very current on it, all I know is that they are becoming a huge problem for the police. Hundreds of extra police are having to be moved in order to accomdate all the protesters. Of course, with more police watching the protest there will be fewer to watch the rest of the city, and do their normal jobs, which is protect all the citizens, instead of babysit. I was watching on the news, that there are people actually giving seminars about how to protest and fight the police and riot control. There are also reports saying that these protesters have obtained and are realeasing the locations of where the republican delegates are staying.
Now can the [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words] liberals concede that these protesting liberals are completely out of line? Are you anti-bush people ashamed of the actions of these people? This is an outrage! At the DNC, I never saw this type of issue. These people are actually threating the lives of the delegates by releasing their locations. How low have anti-Bush people sunk? You tell me.
What are you thoughts on protesting at all? Would you ever protest? WHy do you think only liberals protest on such a grand scale compared to conservatvies?
C
Casey
Guest
How did things get so f--ed up in 2000? John McCain was the best man to be President who ran. But Bush slimed him, just how Kerry is being slimed. The sad shit is that it works. Even Gore would be better. People give Kerry to much shit b/c he straddles both sides of issues. But isnt that GOOD? Dont you want an actual moderate, instead of someone who claims to be a "compassionate conservative", then uses religion to create and influence policy?
Actually there was protesting at the DNC, I even saw someone w/ a sign that said "Kerry betrayed his 'Nam brothers" which is bullshit. The 1971 speech was harsh, and Kerry said he regrets some words, but that speech is always taken outta context by his opponents. I've been to protests before, and I love em. Its great to see a bunch of people who agree with many issues as you do. Some go to far, I concede, but the majority are peaceful voters. For instance many parents will bring their small children to protest.
I've seen the O'Reilly Factor, and he's been harping about protesting, which is probably where Rick got his talking points. And like O'Reilly I say "shut up". If you wanna blame somebody, blame the RNC! They picked New York!?!? Of course their gonna get massive protest! NYC hates Bush!! It will go to Kerry in a landslide. Bush is trying to recreate the moments of 9/11 and the political boost he got from that tragedy. I blindly followed Bush after 9/11, and thats what he's trying to recreate.
But quoting Bush, I say "fool me once, shame on....shame on you,.....but fool me, cant get fooled again"
Actually there was protesting at the DNC, I even saw someone w/ a sign that said "Kerry betrayed his 'Nam brothers" which is bullshit. The 1971 speech was harsh, and Kerry said he regrets some words, but that speech is always taken outta context by his opponents. I've been to protests before, and I love em. Its great to see a bunch of people who agree with many issues as you do. Some go to far, I concede, but the majority are peaceful voters. For instance many parents will bring their small children to protest.
I've seen the O'Reilly Factor, and he's been harping about protesting, which is probably where Rick got his talking points. And like O'Reilly I say "shut up". If you wanna blame somebody, blame the RNC! They picked New York!?!? Of course their gonna get massive protest! NYC hates Bush!! It will go to Kerry in a landslide. Bush is trying to recreate the moments of 9/11 and the political boost he got from that tragedy. I blindly followed Bush after 9/11, and thats what he's trying to recreate.
But quoting Bush, I say "fool me once, shame on....shame on you,.....but fool me, cant get fooled again"
Ok, this is in need of a response:
It's funny how no one knows who John Kerry is, they only know him by his confusing Vietnam Record. They don't know what he has done in the senate, which is next to nothing, and they don't know what kind of person he is. Another reason John Kerry is going to lose is because his support is just bush haters. He can't win if no one knows who he is, even if he gets votes from bush-haters.
I never said there wasn't any protesting at the DNC, but I'm comparing it to that which will happen at the RNC. And when you say he didn't betray his fellow veterans, why do thousands think he did? You said his confessions are taken out of context, how can the words, "I commited atrocities" be taken out of context? The betrayal occured when he came back from Vietnam and accused all the veterans of doing the same atrocities, when many had not. Veterans felt he painted a brush over the entire military.
Kerry isn't a moderate by any standards. Survey's have shown that his stance on a variety of issues are more liberal than any other senator. Don't try to justify is lack of stance, or flip-floping as being a good trait.
It's funny how no one knows who John Kerry is, they only know him by his confusing Vietnam Record. They don't know what he has done in the senate, which is next to nothing, and they don't know what kind of person he is. Another reason John Kerry is going to lose is because his support is just bush haters. He can't win if no one knows who he is, even if he gets votes from bush-haters.
I never said there wasn't any protesting at the DNC, but I'm comparing it to that which will happen at the RNC. And when you say he didn't betray his fellow veterans, why do thousands think he did? You said his confessions are taken out of context, how can the words, "I commited atrocities" be taken out of context? The betrayal occured when he came back from Vietnam and accused all the veterans of doing the same atrocities, when many had not. Veterans felt he painted a brush over the entire military.
Kerry isn't a moderate by any standards. Survey's have shown that his stance on a variety of issues are more liberal than any other senator. Don't try to justify is lack of stance, or flip-floping as being a good trait.
Now that is just silly. It shouldn't be an issue of safety when you pick a place to have your convention. How can you even say that? The issue isn't whether there will be massive protest, like you said, but if they will be peaceful, like the ones you go too. These are obviously not going to be peaceful. Like I said before, many of these protestors have taken rioting classes where they learn how to fight the police. They have publisized the locations of where the delegates are staying.
Of course he got a boost, america had to rally around him at a time like 9/11. But it seems as though 9/11 annoys you more because it created a stronger base for Bush. What would you have done instead of follow the president during 9/11? What else was there to do? And by having his convention in NY doesn't qualify as "recreating" 9/11. We can all agree that 9/11 defined this president.
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
MoS Notifier:
POGLOL is our newest member. Welcome! -
MoS Notifier:
HungryWetThroat is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
bobardon974 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Longrunner is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Jaime_ma_bite is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Alex7x6 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
2345899024 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
weird_al_yankadick is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
puporis is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
hungSoIo is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
dixiecup is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Freddyjack is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Yerba is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
asianj is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
MrJerkOff is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Lapadjhapad is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
SELSFY is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
dsfbasyudgfa54 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Moha_91 is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
ordnell is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
digital_banana is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Slimbo Jimbo is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
SirPipe is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
notapagan is our newest member. Welcome!
-
MoS Notifier:
Juiceman79 is our newest member. Welcome!
MoS Notifier:
Juiceman79 is our newest member. Welcome!