Bush or Kerry
- Thread starter jakb
- Start date
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.