Who's going to get your vote in the Presidential election? Bush, Kerry, or Nader?
Who are you going to vote for?
- Thread starter oopapercutoo
- Start date
wow...that was perhaps the quickest responce in the history of [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/join-now.html]MOS[/words], captnhook.
Are we doomed to four more years of George W Bush? Egaddds! Why don't we all just save some time, go find the nearest rich person in our area and give our money to them? It would be far more efficient than the circular route it is taking now to pad their pockets, and will save alot of third world nations the whole hassle of being invaded, destroyed and then rebuilt.
Ahh, Captain! I have too much respect for your razor sharp tongue to argue with you. I am of a liberal bent, and I can see that you are conservative. Shall we agree to disagree?
I can only fall back on the lessons of history. See you on the unemployment line, my friend!
Or the front line!
I can only fall back on the lessons of history. See you on the unemployment line, my friend!
Or the front line!
Oh captain, my captain...I can see that you're in George's corner. Alas, we all have our flaws :s (j/k). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that's what makes this country great. Personally, my vote will either go to Kerry or Nader...preferably Nader, but I'll have to wait and see how he's looking in the polls closer to the election. Bush will most definately not be getting my vote, as I have a horrible feeling that if we alot him 4 more years in the white house he will undoubtedly find a way to initiate either WWIII, or the apocalypse itself.
K eep cool.
Please reconsider voting for Nader. I don't think we can afford any protest votes in this election, and ultimately that's all a Nader vote would be.
But hey, it's still a relatively free country.
By the way, I get far too emotionally intense for these discussions, so I'll bow out. Good luck and God bless America.
Please reconsider voting for Nader. I don't think we can afford any protest votes in this election, and ultimately that's all a Nader vote would be.
But hey, it's still a relatively free country.
By the way, I get far too emotionally intense for these discussions, so I'll bow out. Good luck and God bless America.
Guys-
The truth is Bush is a little too liberal for my taste. But given no other viable option I'll go with him.
What he does well is stick to his guns. He says he will cut taxes, he cuts taxes. He says he will happily fuck you up if you threaten the U.S., the boot comes down. He gave the finger to anti-American environmental silly-asses and smiled while doing it. Like Reagan, he does these things in the face of incredible opposition, both international and domestic, and prevails - the mark of a good leader. For these reasons and a few others I like him.
But he spends too much money on bullshit. He has not cut spending - increased it beyond what is necessary IMO. Some of his social policy - drug law, abortion, stem-cell research - are pretty outdated, but I'll worry over those issues when not facing annihilation from radical Islam.
PaperCut-
Unfortunately WWlll was declared long before W ever got near the White House. The closest I can come to pegging a start date was February 26, 1993 with the first attempt to topple the WTC. We saw how efficiently a Democrat administration responded to that unmistakable message.
Kong-
I respect you too. No intended hostility.
But I won't be seeing you on the unemployment line. I'm self employed and spend five months of every year working to pay my taxes - I can't afford not to work. If The $169 million Dollar Man John Kerry (inherited wealth) has his way I'll be working full time for him and his super rich hypocritical Democrat buddies.
David,
>But hey, it's still a relatively free country.<
Can't disagree there. The last time I tried to light a smoke - in a fucking bar, of all places - I was threatened with arrest and there was nothing relative about it: They meant it. I can't recall any conservative passing such idiotic anti-freedom legislation - in fact, I'm pretty sure this slow and certain erosion of my rights and freedoms are motivated by the blood-sucking lawyer lobbies intent on making a fortune through the redistribution of wealth.
Interesting too, is that these swine give the vast majority of their money to the Democratic Party - an organization of miscreants so full of shit they perceive no conflict in taxing me for buying those ciggs and then locking me up for using them.
--Cap
The truth is Bush is a little too liberal for my taste. But given no other viable option I'll go with him.
What he does well is stick to his guns. He says he will cut taxes, he cuts taxes. He says he will happily fuck you up if you threaten the U.S., the boot comes down. He gave the finger to anti-American environmental silly-asses and smiled while doing it. Like Reagan, he does these things in the face of incredible opposition, both international and domestic, and prevails - the mark of a good leader. For these reasons and a few others I like him.
But he spends too much money on bullshit. He has not cut spending - increased it beyond what is necessary IMO. Some of his social policy - drug law, abortion, stem-cell research - are pretty outdated, but I'll worry over those issues when not facing annihilation from radical Islam.
PaperCut-
Unfortunately WWlll was declared long before W ever got near the White House. The closest I can come to pegging a start date was February 26, 1993 with the first attempt to topple the WTC. We saw how efficiently a Democrat administration responded to that unmistakable message.
Kong-
I respect you too. No intended hostility.
But I won't be seeing you on the unemployment line. I'm self employed and spend five months of every year working to pay my taxes - I can't afford not to work. If The $169 million Dollar Man John Kerry (inherited wealth) has his way I'll be working full time for him and his super rich hypocritical Democrat buddies.
David,
>But hey, it's still a relatively free country.<
Can't disagree there. The last time I tried to light a smoke - in a fucking bar, of all places - I was threatened with arrest and there was nothing relative about it: They meant it. I can't recall any conservative passing such idiotic anti-freedom legislation - in fact, I'm pretty sure this slow and certain erosion of my rights and freedoms are motivated by the blood-sucking lawyer lobbies intent on making a fortune through the redistribution of wealth.
Interesting too, is that these swine give the vast majority of their money to the Democratic Party - an organization of miscreants so full of shit they perceive no conflict in taxing me for buying those ciggs and then locking me up for using them.
--Cap
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Ralph is a great man, and nobody can take away what he has accomplished during his career, but the variety of idealism and indulgence that seems to be fueling these presidential bids makes me suspect he's lost touch with political reality to a great extent.
Terrorism is up worldwide under Bush, and he brags about not reading very much. Of course, I wouldn't either if I suffered from dyslexia and ADHD. He's done a terrible job, and he's not qualified to be the leader of the free world. He doesn't care about you or any other common people. He's not a compassionate man, and he doesn't understand diplomacy and government. He's wrecked years of environmental legislation set up to protect our health and conserve our resources for future generations because he panders for corporate support. And when I speak of the environment, I'm not talking about mainly asthetic issues like smoking, I mean he has allowed corporations to mortally injure and abuse ecosystems and squander resources. More or less all of the credible scientific community cite Bush as the worst environmental president in history and are aghast at his adminstrations perpetual refusal of scientific fact when formulating policy. His adminstration is filled with political extremists and is the most secretive in history. His family originally profiteered from Nazi contracts and has been immersed in shady business dealings ever since, these days it's the Saudi royals. It can be argued he's never done a hard days work in his life. He also consults with religous extremists whose views come close what many of us would describe as science fiction. I think we all know what religious extremists are capable of . . .
Kerry is a fiscal hawk, a shrewd diplomat, and respected by world leaders. He's also a war hero (Bush dodged the war in the Guard and went AWOL for a year). He didn't inherit 169 million dollars that I know of, I actually believe his family's wealth was more or less depleted by the time he came of age. The joke has always been that he marries money for financial security. Kerry prides himself on personally managing a small bakery for several years that he started with a partner. It was his primary occupation at the time and he cites it as a formative experience. Bush on the other hand, was just given several oil companies by friends of his father, all of which he steered to bankruptcy, only to be bailed out at taxpayer and investor's expense. Who would you guess is going to be more sympathetic to small business owners and the middle class? Bush is a half-baked fool who reduces the complications of the world to black and white scenarios and shames our nation with his lack of respect for the principles of democracy and liberty. He serves himself and those that have a stake in keeping him in office. Kerry is a talented and intelligent man who has made his own way in the world and been successful in many different arenas. He's a true leader that doesn't trade on a family name and money to accomplish his goals.
Kerry in '04
Terrorism is up worldwide under Bush, and he brags about not reading very much. Of course, I wouldn't either if I suffered from dyslexia and ADHD. He's done a terrible job, and he's not qualified to be the leader of the free world. He doesn't care about you or any other common people. He's not a compassionate man, and he doesn't understand diplomacy and government. He's wrecked years of environmental legislation set up to protect our health and conserve our resources for future generations because he panders for corporate support. And when I speak of the environment, I'm not talking about mainly asthetic issues like smoking, I mean he has allowed corporations to mortally injure and abuse ecosystems and squander resources. More or less all of the credible scientific community cite Bush as the worst environmental president in history and are aghast at his adminstrations perpetual refusal of scientific fact when formulating policy. His adminstration is filled with political extremists and is the most secretive in history. His family originally profiteered from Nazi contracts and has been immersed in shady business dealings ever since, these days it's the Saudi royals. It can be argued he's never done a hard days work in his life. He also consults with religous extremists whose views come close what many of us would describe as science fiction. I think we all know what religious extremists are capable of . . .
Kerry is a fiscal hawk, a shrewd diplomat, and respected by world leaders. He's also a war hero (Bush dodged the war in the Guard and went AWOL for a year). He didn't inherit 169 million dollars that I know of, I actually believe his family's wealth was more or less depleted by the time he came of age. The joke has always been that he marries money for financial security. Kerry prides himself on personally managing a small bakery for several years that he started with a partner. It was his primary occupation at the time and he cites it as a formative experience. Bush on the other hand, was just given several oil companies by friends of his father, all of which he steered to bankruptcy, only to be bailed out at taxpayer and investor's expense. Who would you guess is going to be more sympathetic to small business owners and the middle class? Bush is a half-baked fool who reduces the complications of the world to black and white scenarios and shames our nation with his lack of respect for the principles of democracy and liberty. He serves himself and those that have a stake in keeping him in office. Kerry is a talented and intelligent man who has made his own way in the world and been successful in many different arenas. He's a true leader that doesn't trade on a family name and money to accomplish his goals.
Kerry in '04
Last edited:
Again, I will delay taking a side for now, but...
Swank, I really think you are peddling some BS if you think Kerry is any more in touch with the common folk than Bush. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I seriously doubt you or I could run a bakery for a couple of years and end up married to the heiress to a multi-million dollar family business. If you want to vote for somebody you feel you can relate to and vice-versa, vote in your local schoolboard elections, because that's about as far up the political ladder as you will get and still deal with people who have any sense of reality.
As for the presidential thing... you have to decide who's going to support policy that closely follows your own conscience. I don't like it when people, albeit well within their rights, vote straight ticket D or R. I have never voted party line, and I doubt I ever will.
Swank, I really think you are peddling some BS if you think Kerry is any more in touch with the common folk than Bush. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I seriously doubt you or I could run a bakery for a couple of years and end up married to the heiress to a multi-million dollar family business. If you want to vote for somebody you feel you can relate to and vice-versa, vote in your local schoolboard elections, because that's about as far up the political ladder as you will get and still deal with people who have any sense of reality.
As for the presidential thing... you have to decide who's going to support policy that closely follows your own conscience. I don't like it when people, albeit well within their rights, vote straight ticket D or R. I have never voted party line, and I doubt I ever will.
He is?Swank said:
Swank,
Most of what you propose as an argument against Bush could have been said about John Kennedy in 1960: Wealthy, never worked, son of a politically powerful family accused of Nazi sympathies, "unpalatable" religious beliefs (is this you demonstrating tolerance?), inattentive to detail, a bad student, little if any foreign policy experience - blah blah blah.
To blame Bush for a rise in terrorism is like blaming an umbrella salesman for the rain. It is a ridiculous argument.
To a man, everyone I hear rail against Bush cites his "weak" environmental record as a top reason for their disdain for him. Give me a break. There is nothing Bush could do to appease the environmental "community" - a suspect movement that invents it's own standards, creates and disseminates alarmist "science" into the popular dialog, and at the expense of the truth and well being of the citizenry (what the fuck is an "Environmental President" anyway? This is exactly what I mean about these people inventing things).
I could care less about either of these guys' family fortunes, what they did when they were 23 years old, who smoked what, who fucked who, baked bread or spilled oil.
In the end, Bush is closer to what this country needs right now: Unwavering, unapologetic stewardship. The fact that he is "less" liberal than Kerry is just one more reason to support him in my book.
Liberalism, as it has degenerated into pseudo socialist, anti-American silliness is poison.
Kerry is a modern Liberal in every sense. He is Ted Kennedy and Michael Dukakis wearing shoes he borrowed from Jimmy Carter.
Is he an evil man, a dyslexic man, a stupid man? Who knows, I'll leave that kind of personal vitriol to you compassionate liberals to spew. In the meantime I will pray for his defeat and settle for Bush.
-Cap
BTW- I agree that Ralph Nader is a great man. I don't agree that he is out of touch - quite the contrary. Nader possesses the sincerity and moral fortitude the Democrats lost forty years ago. That is why he will never be accepted by the Dems as a viable candidate.
Most of what you propose as an argument against Bush could have been said about John Kennedy in 1960: Wealthy, never worked, son of a politically powerful family accused of Nazi sympathies, "unpalatable" religious beliefs (is this you demonstrating tolerance?), inattentive to detail, a bad student, little if any foreign policy experience - blah blah blah.
To blame Bush for a rise in terrorism is like blaming an umbrella salesman for the rain. It is a ridiculous argument.
To a man, everyone I hear rail against Bush cites his "weak" environmental record as a top reason for their disdain for him. Give me a break. There is nothing Bush could do to appease the environmental "community" - a suspect movement that invents it's own standards, creates and disseminates alarmist "science" into the popular dialog, and at the expense of the truth and well being of the citizenry (what the fuck is an "Environmental President" anyway? This is exactly what I mean about these people inventing things).
I could care less about either of these guys' family fortunes, what they did when they were 23 years old, who smoked what, who fucked who, baked bread or spilled oil.
In the end, Bush is closer to what this country needs right now: Unwavering, unapologetic stewardship. The fact that he is "less" liberal than Kerry is just one more reason to support him in my book.
Liberalism, as it has degenerated into pseudo socialist, anti-American silliness is poison.
Kerry is a modern Liberal in every sense. He is Ted Kennedy and Michael Dukakis wearing shoes he borrowed from Jimmy Carter.
Is he an evil man, a dyslexic man, a stupid man? Who knows, I'll leave that kind of personal vitriol to you compassionate liberals to spew. In the meantime I will pray for his defeat and settle for Bush.
-Cap
BTW- I agree that Ralph Nader is a great man. I don't agree that he is out of touch - quite the contrary. Nader possesses the sincerity and moral fortitude the Democrats lost forty years ago. That is why he will never be accepted by the Dems as a viable candidate.
Neither 
Im not an American citizen! 
But if i had the right, John Kerry.
Im not an American citizen! But if i had the right, John Kerry.
Ah, apologies if that appeared confrontational, I hold no ill will towards the right, as it were. To me Bush isn't even a true republican, nor is he at all liberal, he's a bit of a lone wolf in most respects.
On that note, to categorically lump all left thinking together as evil and anit-american, well you seem to be a very intelligent man and so I take that to be a little ribbing. As a point of curiosity, to all those of you that despise the left and consider liberal to be a dirty word, how do you define liberal, and then in turn, conservative? I'm curious to know.
Kennedy and Bush are not the same man despite similar traits. They have some superficiality in common, but there's far more dissimilar. I don't judge the man soley by his background either, if his performance and policy were adequite I'd cheer him on. Furthermore, to suggest that anybody voting democratic idolizes Kennedy is a bit of an assumption. He was a great figure and came through for the nation in some high profile moments, but certainly does not rank among our very greatest presidents in terms of raw ability and performance.
As far as the environmental stuff, that could easily be a large and disaterous thread on it's own. Let me state that I'm not a 'greenie' or any sort of environmental activist. I am, however, realistic about what has happened and somewhat studied in the matter. I will say that Bush has been through several heads of the EPA because he's needed to replace those that refused to play ball with his pro-corporate anti-environment policies. Lawmakers on both sides of the spectrum have spoken against Bush's unraveling of years of careful and hard-won policy towards conservation and the environment. The scientific community isn't partisan to any great extent, and it's not alarmist quacks crying foul on Bush. A general condemnation of his regard for scientific evidence was drawn up and signed by all of the nation's most respected and venerated scientific authorites, including many nobel recipiants. When the Bush administration get's a scientific report that they don't like the sound of, they bury it and find somebody else who will tell them what they want to hear. It's not conspiracy, it's public and documented, free for all to reserach and discover. Caring about the condition of the environment is our duty so that future generations don't ahve to deal with the ramifications of our greed, waste, and irresponsibility. It isn't really a partisan issue in my opinion. I know many highly conservative people who are aghast at Bush's treatment of the environment and it factors towards their voting.
I also think it is valid to cite Bush's policy on terrorism as weak. He is the commander in chief, and under his watch we've lost the war on terrorism so far. His policies have allowed for a record rise in trained terrorist street soldiers. The administration recently came under fire announcing that terrorism was down, something that so many people were able to show was absolute bunk that Colin Powell was forced to come out and call the report a serious mistake. Bush's diplomacy is weak any way you look at it. He is indeed resolute in his good/evil few of all matters, but we all know that the real world isn't cast in black and white shades. Diplomacy is complicated, nuanced, and difficult, and right now the man who has the reins is a fellow who brags about not reading the newspaper and 'shooting from the gut' when making decisions that affect life and death as well as our national security.
I agree, John Kerry is certainly a patrician, though not to Bush's extent. If you examine the record of both men, however, you'll find Kerry has demonstrated a sincere concern for the working class and middle America throughout his career. Don't get your info from political adds and talk radio, go to the source, read about the bills he's worked on, causes he's championed. It's highly unlikely we'll see a president from a humble background in the near future, but of the two you can better believe that Kerry has lived and worked in something closer to the real world far more than Bush. I'm not sure why so many people associate liberal ideas with wealth and snottiness; the millionares of this country overwhelmingly vote Republican every year. The stronghold of the GOP is first and foremost white people, specifically men, also of the highest and lowest percentile of income. The middle class and minorities form the base for Democratic constituancies.
And so far as old Ralph, I'll never be half the man he is, but for somebody who has made his name on insisting on truth, his claims that his campaign doesn't damage Kerry's chances are dubious at best. He fought for consumers by taking the numbers to the people and not allowing corporations to waffle on statistics, yet now he's doing just that. Polling after polling shows he's sucking support away from Kerry at exponentially higher rates than Bush in crucial regions, yet he ignores this reality. I've heard him speak many times, and I understand his arguments in support of his position, but it just doesn't add up for me. Perhaps he's a visionary too far ahead of the game for me to get a fix on, but I have doubts. Ultimately I'm pragmatic; Kerry isn't perfect but I believe him to be far more qualified to protect our nation's interest and security than Bush. Kerry has proved throughout his career that he can lead and deliver, Bush, so far as I can tell, fails at most things. If I were interviewing the two men for a job I have little doubt who would impress me more, with both resume and conduct.
I agree with voting across party lines whole heartedly, that's democracy in action. Liberals love democracy and the principles on which our country was founded. The principles on which the country were founded are what make it great, and I believe George Bush has stepped out of line with those concepts. Liberty and true democracy are our guiding lights and the cornerstone of our national strength. Bush has done more to reduce them in our country during his tenure than any other president in my memory. It's not a partisan issue for me, It's idelogical. I see Bush as a threat to our nation's greatness in several ways, and I'm personally hoping he is removed.
On that note, to categorically lump all left thinking together as evil and anit-american, well you seem to be a very intelligent man and so I take that to be a little ribbing. As a point of curiosity, to all those of you that despise the left and consider liberal to be a dirty word, how do you define liberal, and then in turn, conservative? I'm curious to know.
Kennedy and Bush are not the same man despite similar traits. They have some superficiality in common, but there's far more dissimilar. I don't judge the man soley by his background either, if his performance and policy were adequite I'd cheer him on. Furthermore, to suggest that anybody voting democratic idolizes Kennedy is a bit of an assumption. He was a great figure and came through for the nation in some high profile moments, but certainly does not rank among our very greatest presidents in terms of raw ability and performance.
As far as the environmental stuff, that could easily be a large and disaterous thread on it's own. Let me state that I'm not a 'greenie' or any sort of environmental activist. I am, however, realistic about what has happened and somewhat studied in the matter. I will say that Bush has been through several heads of the EPA because he's needed to replace those that refused to play ball with his pro-corporate anti-environment policies. Lawmakers on both sides of the spectrum have spoken against Bush's unraveling of years of careful and hard-won policy towards conservation and the environment. The scientific community isn't partisan to any great extent, and it's not alarmist quacks crying foul on Bush. A general condemnation of his regard for scientific evidence was drawn up and signed by all of the nation's most respected and venerated scientific authorites, including many nobel recipiants. When the Bush administration get's a scientific report that they don't like the sound of, they bury it and find somebody else who will tell them what they want to hear. It's not conspiracy, it's public and documented, free for all to reserach and discover. Caring about the condition of the environment is our duty so that future generations don't ahve to deal with the ramifications of our greed, waste, and irresponsibility. It isn't really a partisan issue in my opinion. I know many highly conservative people who are aghast at Bush's treatment of the environment and it factors towards their voting.
I also think it is valid to cite Bush's policy on terrorism as weak. He is the commander in chief, and under his watch we've lost the war on terrorism so far. His policies have allowed for a record rise in trained terrorist street soldiers. The administration recently came under fire announcing that terrorism was down, something that so many people were able to show was absolute bunk that Colin Powell was forced to come out and call the report a serious mistake. Bush's diplomacy is weak any way you look at it. He is indeed resolute in his good/evil few of all matters, but we all know that the real world isn't cast in black and white shades. Diplomacy is complicated, nuanced, and difficult, and right now the man who has the reins is a fellow who brags about not reading the newspaper and 'shooting from the gut' when making decisions that affect life and death as well as our national security.
I agree, John Kerry is certainly a patrician, though not to Bush's extent. If you examine the record of both men, however, you'll find Kerry has demonstrated a sincere concern for the working class and middle America throughout his career. Don't get your info from political adds and talk radio, go to the source, read about the bills he's worked on, causes he's championed. It's highly unlikely we'll see a president from a humble background in the near future, but of the two you can better believe that Kerry has lived and worked in something closer to the real world far more than Bush. I'm not sure why so many people associate liberal ideas with wealth and snottiness; the millionares of this country overwhelmingly vote Republican every year. The stronghold of the GOP is first and foremost white people, specifically men, also of the highest and lowest percentile of income. The middle class and minorities form the base for Democratic constituancies.
And so far as old Ralph, I'll never be half the man he is, but for somebody who has made his name on insisting on truth, his claims that his campaign doesn't damage Kerry's chances are dubious at best. He fought for consumers by taking the numbers to the people and not allowing corporations to waffle on statistics, yet now he's doing just that. Polling after polling shows he's sucking support away from Kerry at exponentially higher rates than Bush in crucial regions, yet he ignores this reality. I've heard him speak many times, and I understand his arguments in support of his position, but it just doesn't add up for me. Perhaps he's a visionary too far ahead of the game for me to get a fix on, but I have doubts. Ultimately I'm pragmatic; Kerry isn't perfect but I believe him to be far more qualified to protect our nation's interest and security than Bush. Kerry has proved throughout his career that he can lead and deliver, Bush, so far as I can tell, fails at most things. If I were interviewing the two men for a job I have little doubt who would impress me more, with both resume and conduct.
I agree with voting across party lines whole heartedly, that's democracy in action. Liberals love democracy and the principles on which our country was founded. The principles on which the country were founded are what make it great, and I believe George Bush has stepped out of line with those concepts. Liberty and true democracy are our guiding lights and the cornerstone of our national strength. Bush has done more to reduce them in our country during his tenure than any other president in my memory. It's not a partisan issue for me, It's idelogical. I see Bush as a threat to our nation's greatness in several ways, and I'm personally hoping he is removed.
Bush has been the only president with the balls to do something REAL about terrorism. We have been at war with militant Islamics since the Iranians ATTACKED the US Embassy. That was an act of war. Each attack since in Lebanon and the attack against the USS Cole is an act of war! Up until Bush the respose has been to lob a couple of cruise missles or appease the terrorists. The first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was an act of war. Sorry guys, but war is hell and sticking ones head in the sand solves nothing. Bush didn't start this war, but at least he knows what to do since we are at war and have been since 1979.
Well, my only comments here would be that terrorism was literally the very last thing on the Bush administration's 'to do list' prior to 911, this has been confirmed time and again. He didn't go after it of his own volition, it was forced upon him. To suggest that Gore or any other commander in chief wouldn't make a move after 911 to protect our nation is rather ridiculous. No president would react to the murder of thousands by extremists with a passive shrug.
Bush's 'ballsy' appraoch hasn't really put us in a better position in the bigger scheme. We've dumped enormous resources into Iraq, which undoubtedly did almost nothing in the war on terrorism but satisfied Bush's own agenda. Bin Laden is at large, Al Queda is bigger than ever, and the Taliban and warlords still dominate Afghanistan. We've weakened our international credibility, stretched our armed forces thin with poor planning, and have little to show for it but a huge mess in a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and din't pose any danger to the US. Meanwhile millions of tons of freight and cargo come into our country unchecked and we've found our intelligence agencies are woefully incapable of battling the problem. Bush misled the public with trumped up rhetoric to mold teh war on terror to his won agenda instead of following the advice of the most qualified to make decisions on the matter.
It's common place to say that Bush has stepped up to the plate and this makes him a great man, but I don't recall many people seggesting we go to war and create a new regime of national security in order to deal with terrorists before 911; it certainly wasn't on Bush's radar. Diplomacy and security require more measures than shipping our troops overseas and having them shoot up anything looks suspicious. We'll never win with those tactics, it's like trying to stomp out a swarm of bees with your boot. It's blunt and ineffective, the current state of affairs shows this. We're not winning right now under the Bush model, it simply has nto worked. See the recent bi-partisan complaint against Bush's foreign policy signed off on by several dozen former diplomats, statesmen, and military leaders, including the man who lead the airforce in the first Gulf War. The military leadership doesn't like Bush's approach, nor do our diplomats and experts. They think it's bad for America, and I tend to agree.
Bush's 'ballsy' appraoch hasn't really put us in a better position in the bigger scheme. We've dumped enormous resources into Iraq, which undoubtedly did almost nothing in the war on terrorism but satisfied Bush's own agenda. Bin Laden is at large, Al Queda is bigger than ever, and the Taliban and warlords still dominate Afghanistan. We've weakened our international credibility, stretched our armed forces thin with poor planning, and have little to show for it but a huge mess in a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks and din't pose any danger to the US. Meanwhile millions of tons of freight and cargo come into our country unchecked and we've found our intelligence agencies are woefully incapable of battling the problem. Bush misled the public with trumped up rhetoric to mold teh war on terror to his won agenda instead of following the advice of the most qualified to make decisions on the matter.
It's common place to say that Bush has stepped up to the plate and this makes him a great man, but I don't recall many people seggesting we go to war and create a new regime of national security in order to deal with terrorists before 911; it certainly wasn't on Bush's radar. Diplomacy and security require more measures than shipping our troops overseas and having them shoot up anything looks suspicious. We'll never win with those tactics, it's like trying to stomp out a swarm of bees with your boot. It's blunt and ineffective, the current state of affairs shows this. We're not winning right now under the Bush model, it simply has nto worked. See the recent bi-partisan complaint against Bush's foreign policy signed off on by several dozen former diplomats, statesmen, and military leaders, including the man who lead the airforce in the first Gulf War. The military leadership doesn't like Bush's approach, nor do our diplomats and experts. They think it's bad for America, and I tend to agree.
The two things that Bush has done which really put me off concerning him is the somewhat shady Florida ballot incident and the neat way that he sequed from pursuing Al Quaeda terrorists in Afghanistan to attacking and taking control of a different foreign nation with much more valuable natural resources. It's all sleight of hand with him, baby. He seems quite apt at taking over countries, ours as well as others!
C
Casey
Guest
But Republican marketing machine is SOOO much better than the Demmy's. They run their party like a corporation, heavely lawyered, lotsa money, strategical marketing techniques. But they've done such a throurough job of painting Kerrys as a flipflop. Even though Bush flip flops WAYY more than Kerry ever has.
The point is we CANNOT win the War on Terror with George Bush in office. He's damaged goods, any way you look at it. He can Never win the peace. Arabs are WAY to cynical of Bush and his intentions, especially with his ties to the Suadi Royal family, and Prince Bandar and oil.
Its not just the PLAN, its the MAN!!!!
The point is we CANNOT win the War on Terror with George Bush in office. He's damaged goods, any way you look at it. He can Never win the peace. Arabs are WAY to cynical of Bush and his intentions, especially with his ties to the Suadi Royal family, and Prince Bandar and oil.
Its not just the PLAN, its the MAN!!!!
C
Casey
Guest
or killing them.
Bush is entertaining . . . but I'm not exactly laughing with him if you get my drift.
Come back to us Bill . . . we're sorry . . . I'll even buy your bloated self-congratulatory book.
Come back to us Bill . . . we're sorry . . . I'll even buy your bloated self-congratulatory book.
Swank,
You keep falling back on "Bush's agenda" as his sole motivation for the war. I'm curious: What is this secret agenda you keep referring to? I'd love to know. And if you bother to respond please be specific - quote or link viable sources that support this contention that Bush is operating with ulterior motives.
>Diplomacy and security require more measures than shipping our troops overseas and having them shoot up anything looks suspicious. We'll never win with those tactics, it's like trying to stomp out a swarm of bees with your boot. It's blunt and ineffective, the current state of affairs shows this. We're not winning right now under the Bush model, it simply has nto worked.<
First of all, we have completely tip-toed around Iraq in a way that must have genuine conquerers like Alexander the Great rolling in his grave. Our method has been sensitive almost to the detriment of the mission, and I suspect there would be far fewer dead American soldiers if the U.S. took the ruthless approach so many critics accuse us of.
Second, to claim that Bush's approach has not worked assumes a lot. I ask in response: How do you know? What is the precedent by which you measure your criticism and base your claim? And I'm not asking rhetorically - I sincerely would like to know how you come to this conclusion.
A number of times you have referred to "diplomacy" as one of Bush's severe weak points and I for the life of me cannot imagine why this even enters into the debate. Who are you suggesting he be more "diplomatic" toward - al Qaeda? LOL - Radical Islam?
After 9/11 what are we supposed to be afraid that we might upset these freaks? The one thing we can now be sure of is that their next big attack on the U.S. (and there will be one) will not feature any weapons of mass destruction gotten by way of Saddam Hussein. Now, or ever.
What you base it on I don't know, but you cite Kerry's superior diplomatic skills as a positive - and it is this very type of thing that scares me most about him, and all of the other Democratic "leaders" who flipped on the war faster than France surrendered to the Nazis.
The hand wringing, pie-in-the-sky diplomacy you believe will be our salvation is what got us to where we are now. It is suicide. 3,000 dead right down the street from you and the promise of more to come ought to be proof enough.
You keep falling back on "Bush's agenda" as his sole motivation for the war. I'm curious: What is this secret agenda you keep referring to? I'd love to know. And if you bother to respond please be specific - quote or link viable sources that support this contention that Bush is operating with ulterior motives.
>Diplomacy and security require more measures than shipping our troops overseas and having them shoot up anything looks suspicious. We'll never win with those tactics, it's like trying to stomp out a swarm of bees with your boot. It's blunt and ineffective, the current state of affairs shows this. We're not winning right now under the Bush model, it simply has nto worked.<
First of all, we have completely tip-toed around Iraq in a way that must have genuine conquerers like Alexander the Great rolling in his grave. Our method has been sensitive almost to the detriment of the mission, and I suspect there would be far fewer dead American soldiers if the U.S. took the ruthless approach so many critics accuse us of.
Second, to claim that Bush's approach has not worked assumes a lot. I ask in response: How do you know? What is the precedent by which you measure your criticism and base your claim? And I'm not asking rhetorically - I sincerely would like to know how you come to this conclusion.
A number of times you have referred to "diplomacy" as one of Bush's severe weak points and I for the life of me cannot imagine why this even enters into the debate. Who are you suggesting he be more "diplomatic" toward - al Qaeda? LOL - Radical Islam?
After 9/11 what are we supposed to be afraid that we might upset these freaks? The one thing we can now be sure of is that their next big attack on the U.S. (and there will be one) will not feature any weapons of mass destruction gotten by way of Saddam Hussein. Now, or ever.
What you base it on I don't know, but you cite Kerry's superior diplomatic skills as a positive - and it is this very type of thing that scares me most about him, and all of the other Democratic "leaders" who flipped on the war faster than France surrendered to the Nazis.
The hand wringing, pie-in-the-sky diplomacy you believe will be our salvation is what got us to where we are now. It is suicide. 3,000 dead right down the street from you and the promise of more to come ought to be proof enough.
Ahhhhhhh! It's the end of time! World War III! Annie, grab your gun! Honey, war is good for business, and right now business is good!
Let's all forget how good things were when us flipfloppy demmies were running the shop. There was plenty of work, we were all free to come and go as we pleased, and the biggest scandal in the white house was Slick Willy getting his knob polished in the Oval Office.
Fast forward past a shamelessly stolen election and planes hijacked by lunatics are crashing into buildings, we bomb the country that hosted them, then bomb the one next door just for shits and giggles. The whole world is up in arms over this administration's ruthless and unfounded aggression. Not one WOMD has been uncovered. NOT ONE! OOOOPS! Every single non-republican in the world is aghast at how vicious and greedy those in power are behaving. They are dizzy with power, falling over one another in their mad scramble for money and power and they don't care how poorly their policies reflect on the last, great world superpower.
Take off the blinders and see what a shit-flop wreck we've made of things!
I'm no limpwristed commielover liberal. I'm a mean-ass liberal. I say if they kill one of us, we kill 10 of them! The only way to keep our country safe from aggression is through pure, undiluted fear. Bomb the shit out of them but fuck, don't try to rebuild and then occupy their country! That has never worked! Ever! Not once in all of history. Not for us, not for England, not for Rome. I don't mind greed or dishonesty so much as I fucking hate stupidity, and those who do not learn from history are the stupidest of all!
When we were attacked, we should have made their country a shambles and then said, "Here you go! Enjoy! Next time you come back, mind your fucking manners!" and got the fuck out. You don't sit on the carcass and pick the bones til the hyenas come and bite your ass! The US is too grand for that kind of behaviour!
Let's all forget how good things were when us flipfloppy demmies were running the shop. There was plenty of work, we were all free to come and go as we pleased, and the biggest scandal in the white house was Slick Willy getting his knob polished in the Oval Office.
Fast forward past a shamelessly stolen election and planes hijacked by lunatics are crashing into buildings, we bomb the country that hosted them, then bomb the one next door just for shits and giggles. The whole world is up in arms over this administration's ruthless and unfounded aggression. Not one WOMD has been uncovered. NOT ONE! OOOOPS! Every single non-republican in the world is aghast at how vicious and greedy those in power are behaving. They are dizzy with power, falling over one another in their mad scramble for money and power and they don't care how poorly their policies reflect on the last, great world superpower.
Take off the blinders and see what a shit-flop wreck we've made of things!
I'm no limpwristed commielover liberal. I'm a mean-ass liberal. I say if they kill one of us, we kill 10 of them! The only way to keep our country safe from aggression is through pure, undiluted fear. Bomb the shit out of them but fuck, don't try to rebuild and then occupy their country! That has never worked! Ever! Not once in all of history. Not for us, not for England, not for Rome. I don't mind greed or dishonesty so much as I fucking hate stupidity, and those who do not learn from history are the stupidest of all!
When we were attacked, we should have made their country a shambles and then said, "Here you go! Enjoy! Next time you come back, mind your fucking manners!" and got the fuck out. You don't sit on the carcass and pick the bones til the hyenas come and bite your ass! The US is too grand for that kind of behaviour!
On a lighter note, I can't wait to see the Saturday Night Live parodies of the Bush & Kerry campaigns. And the debates...those had me rolling in 2000.
"Vice-president Gore, How would you sum up your campaign in one word?"
"Lock Box"
"Governor Bush, how would you sum up your campaign in one word?"
"Strategery"
I loved that shit.
And the skits showing the future with each in office...
Gore- "Now class, take out your text books and turn to last weeks reading assignment..."
Bush- "Help daddy, I never really thought I'd win this thing."
"Vice-president Gore, How would you sum up your campaign in one word?"
"Lock Box"
"Governor Bush, how would you sum up your campaign in one word?"
"Strategery"
I loved that shit.
And the skits showing the future with each in office...
Gore- "Now class, take out your text books and turn to last weeks reading assignment..."
Bush- "Help daddy, I never really thought I'd win this thing."
Capn, I think you may be interpreting the word diplomacy as strictly negotiation or some form of capitulation. Nobody wants or needs to hear an international relations primer from me, but when I say diplomacy I mean it in the sense of statecraft and foreign policy formulation. The word diplomat of course has connotations with all of us that allude to one who bargains or negotiates, but providing vision and agenda setting for how the world's most powerful nation interacts with her allies, enemies, and the world at large is in fact a very complicated and difficult business. When I praise Kerry's qualifications in the field, I mean that I believe him to possess a good understanding of international issues, world politics, and foreign sensibilities. He's lived abroad, served on the senate foreign relations committee and has working relationships with many world leaders. I think that perhaps your dislike of the liberal camp causes you to automatically associate any talk of diplomatic skill with a plan to prostrate ourselves before those who seek to destroy the country. I'm suggesting Kerry would have a more expansive and effective ability to bolster our strength internationally and have a more informed position on how to handle our international troubles. Though we're top dogs, we'd be a nation of fools to sit back on our bombs and assume that America can survive as a monolithic entity unwilling to work with the rest of the world.
I don't really agree with your comments about our operations in Iraq either. Our invasion and toppling of the Hussein regime was the most technically advanced and efficient military operation the world has ever seen (thanks to the super advanced military that was developed and trained under Clinton's watch, our super advanced military was developed and trained during the decade of the biggest Democrat out there). It is a point of pride for me that my nation's military goes out of it's way to spare casualties, destruction, and human suffering during such actions (though Abu Ghraib [sic?] and the like have cast a pall on much of this). I suppose my point is, and this moves towards one of your other questions, why exactly where we there? True enough, 3000 people were murdered in New York, and now more than a 1000 of our soldiers our dead in Iraq, but I'm just not real sure how this has advanced our standing in the world or made us more secure from terrorist threat. Iraq was not a threat to the US, any way you slice it. The intelligence was bad, it's been admitted by teh administration.
But then why was there even intelligence? Can you recall an event that sparked off the dire need to storm into Iraq? What did the regime do to particularly spark our ire and require full scale invasion when there were numerous other areas of the world swarming with terrorist activity that posed a far greater threat? It's been reported by White House employees that Rumsfield and Bush starting looking for a way into Iraq just days after 911 before any intelligence on the matter had been gathered, I believe the Bob Woodward book consolidates most of these reports, including interviews with the president himself, if you're interested. It seems clear to anybody with their eyes open that the storied agenda came down from the top spots, and intelligence, any intelligence, that would support their assertion that Iraq was in dire need of full scale invasion was to be provided. As it was, all our reasons provided to the UN for going to war have proven to be absolutely unfounded. Bush is surrounded by neo-con idealouges. Paul Wolfowitz has been demanding an invasion of Iraq for nearly a decade, and we all know where Rumsfield and Cheney sat on the issue. Presidential administrations are collaborative, and Bush has surrounded himself, with the exception of Powell, whose advice has yet to be heeded, with either hardcore hawks or simple 'yes men.' These are his advisors and consul, and in all likelyhood the 'agenda' is coming as much from them if not more so than Bush.
Then of course, we still don't why they wanted to invade Iraq so bad. Theories abound. The knee-jerk suspicions of oil power and control, corporate interests, all that has always seemed unlikely to me. Did Bush, who by all accounts suffers from some severe daddy issues, want to succeed where his father stopped short? A persoanl vendetta seems a bit of a stretch as well. Honestly, I really couldn't say. I do know that our reasons for going to war were created on the fly, and that the desire to invade Iraq didn't really have anything to do with the war on terrorism or our national security. An interesting fact is that something in the neighborhood of 65% of Americans (gallop pole, should be available online somewhere) were under the impression that Hussein was behind 911 at the time we invaded Iraq. It's madness my friend, and war mongering at it's worst. Bush isn't responsible for the ignorance of the general populace, but you had better believe they were more than aware of it and took advantage to do what they wanted to do. Please, if you would, convince me that our presence in Iraq had somehow made out nation stronger and safer. Show me how it has helped in any way, because I'm looking for something to feel positive about.
And finally, I say Bush has failed in his war on terrorism for, well, all of the above. He's squandered time and resources, and most importantly nearly universal international support, in order to pursue his war in Iraq. As I said before, the CIA reports came out, and terrorist numbers and networks are booming. We are terrifyingly vulnerable domestically. Friends of mine in state government lament that they can get no federal money to properly prepare personell and update security measures for the new level of protection we need from terrorists, but we've spent I don't even know how much on Iraq, I believe the initial bill was 80 billion. We've raided the coffers for nothing, and underfunded and shortchanged our military even then. How shameful that we send our young men and women out to fight an unneeded and unprovoked war, and then ask them to purchase their own body armor, as the adminstration didn't want to spend so badly as to really sink their polling numbers. Congress has thankfully greenlighted more troops for Iraq despite Bush's objections. The man is campaigning right now and doesn't want increased spending and attention on his miserably failed war. Shameful.
Once again, it's not a partisan issue for me. I see Bush as both facile and morally reprehensible. He's not the man for the job in my opinion, and frankly I'd vote in damn near anybody else. I get the sense you don't like politicians because you consider them to be self-serving insiders and dishonest conivers. My friend, take a look at Bush's presidency and career, forget the politics of the moment, and decide whether he truly deserves to reside outside of your scrutiny.
I don't really agree with your comments about our operations in Iraq either. Our invasion and toppling of the Hussein regime was the most technically advanced and efficient military operation the world has ever seen (thanks to the super advanced military that was developed and trained under Clinton's watch, our super advanced military was developed and trained during the decade of the biggest Democrat out there). It is a point of pride for me that my nation's military goes out of it's way to spare casualties, destruction, and human suffering during such actions (though Abu Ghraib [sic?] and the like have cast a pall on much of this). I suppose my point is, and this moves towards one of your other questions, why exactly where we there? True enough, 3000 people were murdered in New York, and now more than a 1000 of our soldiers our dead in Iraq, but I'm just not real sure how this has advanced our standing in the world or made us more secure from terrorist threat. Iraq was not a threat to the US, any way you slice it. The intelligence was bad, it's been admitted by teh administration.
But then why was there even intelligence? Can you recall an event that sparked off the dire need to storm into Iraq? What did the regime do to particularly spark our ire and require full scale invasion when there were numerous other areas of the world swarming with terrorist activity that posed a far greater threat? It's been reported by White House employees that Rumsfield and Bush starting looking for a way into Iraq just days after 911 before any intelligence on the matter had been gathered, I believe the Bob Woodward book consolidates most of these reports, including interviews with the president himself, if you're interested. It seems clear to anybody with their eyes open that the storied agenda came down from the top spots, and intelligence, any intelligence, that would support their assertion that Iraq was in dire need of full scale invasion was to be provided. As it was, all our reasons provided to the UN for going to war have proven to be absolutely unfounded. Bush is surrounded by neo-con idealouges. Paul Wolfowitz has been demanding an invasion of Iraq for nearly a decade, and we all know where Rumsfield and Cheney sat on the issue. Presidential administrations are collaborative, and Bush has surrounded himself, with the exception of Powell, whose advice has yet to be heeded, with either hardcore hawks or simple 'yes men.' These are his advisors and consul, and in all likelyhood the 'agenda' is coming as much from them if not more so than Bush.
Then of course, we still don't why they wanted to invade Iraq so bad. Theories abound. The knee-jerk suspicions of oil power and control, corporate interests, all that has always seemed unlikely to me. Did Bush, who by all accounts suffers from some severe daddy issues, want to succeed where his father stopped short? A persoanl vendetta seems a bit of a stretch as well. Honestly, I really couldn't say. I do know that our reasons for going to war were created on the fly, and that the desire to invade Iraq didn't really have anything to do with the war on terrorism or our national security. An interesting fact is that something in the neighborhood of 65% of Americans (gallop pole, should be available online somewhere) were under the impression that Hussein was behind 911 at the time we invaded Iraq. It's madness my friend, and war mongering at it's worst. Bush isn't responsible for the ignorance of the general populace, but you had better believe they were more than aware of it and took advantage to do what they wanted to do. Please, if you would, convince me that our presence in Iraq had somehow made out nation stronger and safer. Show me how it has helped in any way, because I'm looking for something to feel positive about.
And finally, I say Bush has failed in his war on terrorism for, well, all of the above. He's squandered time and resources, and most importantly nearly universal international support, in order to pursue his war in Iraq. As I said before, the CIA reports came out, and terrorist numbers and networks are booming. We are terrifyingly vulnerable domestically. Friends of mine in state government lament that they can get no federal money to properly prepare personell and update security measures for the new level of protection we need from terrorists, but we've spent I don't even know how much on Iraq, I believe the initial bill was 80 billion. We've raided the coffers for nothing, and underfunded and shortchanged our military even then. How shameful that we send our young men and women out to fight an unneeded and unprovoked war, and then ask them to purchase their own body armor, as the adminstration didn't want to spend so badly as to really sink their polling numbers. Congress has thankfully greenlighted more troops for Iraq despite Bush's objections. The man is campaigning right now and doesn't want increased spending and attention on his miserably failed war. Shameful.
Once again, it's not a partisan issue for me. I see Bush as both facile and morally reprehensible. He's not the man for the job in my opinion, and frankly I'd vote in damn near anybody else. I get the sense you don't like politicians because you consider them to be self-serving insiders and dishonest conivers. My friend, take a look at Bush's presidency and career, forget the politics of the moment, and decide whether he truly deserves to reside outside of your scrutiny.
Last edited:
Captain,
Not only are you an engineering genius. The "MacGyver" of the Penis Enlargement world so to speak....sounds like we are on the same page politically.
I have become tired of arguing with cynics who don't let the facts get in the way of their hatred for W.
Criticism and hate of the current President don't constitute a political platform.
To all you Liberals...W will win in a landslide this year, there will be no draft, the sky will not fall etc. Hopefully you will learn that courage to say what you really mean and actually having a plan of action is the only thing that will make people vote for you.
Not only are you an engineering genius. The "MacGyver" of the Penis Enlargement world so to speak....sounds like we are on the same page politically.
I have become tired of arguing with cynics who don't let the facts get in the way of their hatred for W.
Criticism and hate of the current President don't constitute a political platform.
To all you Liberals...W will win in a landslide this year, there will be no draft, the sky will not fall etc. Hopefully you will learn that courage to say what you really mean and actually having a plan of action is the only thing that will make people vote for you.
C
Casey
Guest
Landslide? Bush's approval ratings hit the lowest point in his presidency the other week. History shows that the incumbent either loses big, or wins big.
Also Bush wouldnt have half the supporters if he didn't have FoxNews and friends, permanantley campaigning for him and his party.
Also Bush wouldnt have half the supporters if he didn't have FoxNews and friends, permanantley campaigning for him and his party.
>Capn, I think you may be interpreting the word diplomacy as strictly negotiation or some form of capitulation.<
You are correct. This as it pertains to al Qaeda, radical Islam, and any nation that would lend support to that cause and its objective. To negotiate with an enemy who refuses to negotiate is capitulation - it is insane. This movement has made clear that their objective is one that begins and ends with the demise of the United States - all of Western civilization, to be sure - and unfortunately that seems lost on many of my liberal friends. Calls for us to better "understand" this enemy and a pathetic need to reason with them, are not in short supply from the left. If it weren't so dangerous it would be laughable.
Maybe it is that you are comparing the diplomatic skills of the two, Bush and Kerry, in a more traditional Chamberlainsque context?
In that case I offer that "diplomacy" is worthless when dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein - and I hope we don't need to go into why. Just reference these very recent comments by Vladimir Putin (not exactly a Bush supporter when it comes to Iraq):
"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing terrorist acts on the United States and beyond its borders." - Russian President Vladimir Putin, 6/18/2004
Do I also need to post the Bill Clinton and John Kerry quotes that raise the alarm that Hussein poses a threat to the U.S. and the stability of the Middle East?
In the end I agree with you: John Kerry is a very smart man - he knows what is happening here - and his fence walking 'opposition' to Bush's Iraq policy amounts to cheap election year pandering. I have no problem with him or anyone else running against Bush - it's when he runs against the interests of the United States that my nerves get strained.
I suppose my point is, and this moves towards one of your other questions, why exactly where we there? True enough, 3000 people were murdered in New York, and now more than a 1000 of our soldiers our dead in Iraq, but I'm just not real sure how this has advanced our standing in the world or made us more secure from terrorist threat. Iraq was not a threat to the US, any way you slice it.<
In the words of another anti-intellectual (read: "stupid") American president:
"Well, there you go again."
Reference Putin's comments, Clinton's comments, Kerry's comments, Saddam Hussein's comments, the United Nation's Security Counsel's comments, and on and on - and tell me again that Hussein was not a threat.
You still have not, nor does anyone else who feels compelled to make the claim, provided an ulterior motive for Bush's approach to Iraq. I agree with you: The knee jerk leftist accusations - all of them - are worthless postulating. I'll go further and say that they amount to dangerous and irrational emotive yammering that willingly turns a blind eye to the facts.
I have no time for that. Iraq was a long festering wound that promised severe consequences if left unattended. Good riddance Hussein. I give Bush credit for doing what no one - not any American president before him or any other world "leader" had the fortitude or foresight to do: Kick Hussein's ass from the seat of power and into a six foot ditch with the rats he so resembles.
My friend, take a look at Bush's presidency and career, forget the politics of the moment, and decide whether he truly deserves to reside outside of your scrutiny.
I love this Swank. How is Bush outside of my scrutiny? Why is it that I and anyone who supports the president must meet a standard that those, like you, refuse to apply to themselves?
Where have I been anything but objective about the two candidates? I am not the one who described one man as a hallowed diplomatic genius and the other a blithering idiot.
Bud,
To all you Liberals... Hopefully you will learn that courage to say what you really mean and actually having a plan of action is the only thing that will make people vote for you.
Loud and clear. In the final analysis liberalism at its worst has been hopelessly hijacked by a pack of ill tempered emotionally immature children; at best it is impotent. I'll go so far as to say that liberalism - a once noble and worthy half of our political system - is dead. If it were possible for real liberals like Adlai Stevenson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Hubert Humphrey to suddenly wake up and get a view of what has become of their ideology they would never stop throwing up.
Kong,
Bomb the shit out of them but fuck, don't try to rebuild and then occupy their country! That has never worked! Ever! Not once in all of history. Not for us, not for England, not for Rome. I don't mind greed or dishonesty so much as I fucking hate stupidity, and those who do not learn from history are the stupidest of all!
Germany and Japan, for mere starters, go against the grain of your theory - and I can't recall the last time either of these countries posed a threat to anything other than the American auto industry.
You are correct. This as it pertains to al Qaeda, radical Islam, and any nation that would lend support to that cause and its objective. To negotiate with an enemy who refuses to negotiate is capitulation - it is insane. This movement has made clear that their objective is one that begins and ends with the demise of the United States - all of Western civilization, to be sure - and unfortunately that seems lost on many of my liberal friends. Calls for us to better "understand" this enemy and a pathetic need to reason with them, are not in short supply from the left. If it weren't so dangerous it would be laughable.
Maybe it is that you are comparing the diplomatic skills of the two, Bush and Kerry, in a more traditional Chamberlainsque context?
In that case I offer that "diplomacy" is worthless when dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein - and I hope we don't need to go into why. Just reference these very recent comments by Vladimir Putin (not exactly a Bush supporter when it comes to Iraq):
"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing terrorist acts on the United States and beyond its borders." - Russian President Vladimir Putin, 6/18/2004
Do I also need to post the Bill Clinton and John Kerry quotes that raise the alarm that Hussein poses a threat to the U.S. and the stability of the Middle East?
In the end I agree with you: John Kerry is a very smart man - he knows what is happening here - and his fence walking 'opposition' to Bush's Iraq policy amounts to cheap election year pandering. I have no problem with him or anyone else running against Bush - it's when he runs against the interests of the United States that my nerves get strained.
I suppose my point is, and this moves towards one of your other questions, why exactly where we there? True enough, 3000 people were murdered in New York, and now more than a 1000 of our soldiers our dead in Iraq, but I'm just not real sure how this has advanced our standing in the world or made us more secure from terrorist threat. Iraq was not a threat to the US, any way you slice it.<
In the words of another anti-intellectual (read: "stupid") American president:
"Well, there you go again."
Reference Putin's comments, Clinton's comments, Kerry's comments, Saddam Hussein's comments, the United Nation's Security Counsel's comments, and on and on - and tell me again that Hussein was not a threat.
You still have not, nor does anyone else who feels compelled to make the claim, provided an ulterior motive for Bush's approach to Iraq. I agree with you: The knee jerk leftist accusations - all of them - are worthless postulating. I'll go further and say that they amount to dangerous and irrational emotive yammering that willingly turns a blind eye to the facts.
I have no time for that. Iraq was a long festering wound that promised severe consequences if left unattended. Good riddance Hussein. I give Bush credit for doing what no one - not any American president before him or any other world "leader" had the fortitude or foresight to do: Kick Hussein's ass from the seat of power and into a six foot ditch with the rats he so resembles.
My friend, take a look at Bush's presidency and career, forget the politics of the moment, and decide whether he truly deserves to reside outside of your scrutiny.
I love this Swank. How is Bush outside of my scrutiny? Why is it that I and anyone who supports the president must meet a standard that those, like you, refuse to apply to themselves?
Where have I been anything but objective about the two candidates? I am not the one who described one man as a hallowed diplomatic genius and the other a blithering idiot.
Bud,
To all you Liberals... Hopefully you will learn that courage to say what you really mean and actually having a plan of action is the only thing that will make people vote for you.
Loud and clear. In the final analysis liberalism at its worst has been hopelessly hijacked by a pack of ill tempered emotionally immature children; at best it is impotent. I'll go so far as to say that liberalism - a once noble and worthy half of our political system - is dead. If it were possible for real liberals like Adlai Stevenson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Hubert Humphrey to suddenly wake up and get a view of what has become of their ideology they would never stop throwing up.
Kong,
Bomb the shit out of them but fuck, don't try to rebuild and then occupy their country! That has never worked! Ever! Not once in all of history. Not for us, not for England, not for Rome. I don't mind greed or dishonesty so much as I fucking hate stupidity, and those who do not learn from history are the stupidest of all!
Germany and Japan, for mere starters, go against the grain of your theory - and I can't recall the last time either of these countries posed a threat to anything other than the American auto industry.
C
Casey
Guest
John Kerry knows War in a way George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld will NEVER know.
Why do you think Colin Powell, the only one of those who actually served and fought in a war, objected to an invasion and TRIED to explain how fuckin hard that is? These old elitists cronies dont know shit.
Why do you think Colin Powell, the only one of those who actually served and fought in a war, objected to an invasion and TRIED to explain how fuckin hard that is? These old elitists cronies dont know shit.
Oh lord, we're all gonna die. Remember, if a civil war starts.. http://www.johntitor.com
-ItsElectric
-ItsElectric
I think the problem with the Middle East, as opposed to Germany and Japan, is that it is peopled by a great number of religious fanatics. When you introduce that into the equation, it tips the balance of prudence. When was the last time you heard of someone in Japan blowing up a car outside a US military station, or kidnapping a US citizen and cutting their head off on tv? When dealing with fanatics, the answer is not occupation but simple overwhelming retalliation. Their own death-worshipping belief system will do them in without our help over the course of time and the Islamic religion will mellow...that is, if we can restrain ourselves from constantly stirring the hornets nest. I think we should pull out, increase our defenses at home, keep our military strong and at the ready and allow the fanatical virulence in their countries to destroy themselves from within. If they decide to step outside their hood and take a poke at us once in a while, them we send em back in...screaming and aflame...until the day that their religious controlled governments mature and can comport themselves on the world stage with dignity. As the last great superpower, we have to be mature, stand strong and stay apart from their insanity. You don't get in the pigpin and root with the hogs, which is pretty much Bush's plan for this crisis. Our current military policies only serve to fuel their mania and put our citizens within rock throwing range of their crazies.
Cap'n,
I'll spell you in case your fingers are gettin' tired.
Casey,
Landslide is my prediction....check out Drudge's headline right now. The LA times polls were skewed and predominantly registered Democrats. (drudgereport.com).
Also, Bush has not begun to campaign yet. He is likeable to most Americans, whereas, Kerry really isn't. Kerry had to ask his handlers how to behave at the Reagan funeral. So he then cut in line and put on a show. A guy who is not human enough or genuine enough to know how he is supposed to act and feel at a funeral will never beat Bush.
Casey,
Your argument is flawed in many ways regarding invasion and war.
1.) Most importantly, we did not pick this fight! We have to fight and win, this will require hardship, uncertainty, mistakes and death on both sides. Such is the nature of war.
2.) You do not have to have firsthand experience of anything to participate or know what is involved. That would be like saying "I have never murdered anyone so I would not know how to do it or if it is right or wrong".
3) I will not degrade any man's time of service in the military for our country. However, Kerry's actions post-war were delplorable and cost him the respect of military veterans. He lied and gave comfort to the enemies. If he saw these atrocities in Vietnam, why did he not report them right then and there,as was his duty?
4) We have liberated 2 countries, 40 million people, had unprecedented military successes.......I don't see a problem with the way Iraq or Afghanistan went.
I'll spell you in case your fingers are gettin' tired.
Casey,
Landslide is my prediction....check out Drudge's headline right now. The LA times polls were skewed and predominantly registered Democrats. (drudgereport.com).
Also, Bush has not begun to campaign yet. He is likeable to most Americans, whereas, Kerry really isn't. Kerry had to ask his handlers how to behave at the Reagan funeral. So he then cut in line and put on a show. A guy who is not human enough or genuine enough to know how he is supposed to act and feel at a funeral will never beat Bush.
Casey,
Your argument is flawed in many ways regarding invasion and war.
1.) Most importantly, we did not pick this fight! We have to fight and win, this will require hardship, uncertainty, mistakes and death on both sides. Such is the nature of war.
2.) You do not have to have firsthand experience of anything to participate or know what is involved. That would be like saying "I have never murdered anyone so I would not know how to do it or if it is right or wrong".
3) I will not degrade any man's time of service in the military for our country. However, Kerry's actions post-war were delplorable and cost him the respect of military veterans. He lied and gave comfort to the enemies. If he saw these atrocities in Vietnam, why did he not report them right then and there,as was his duty?
4) We have liberated 2 countries, 40 million people, had unprecedented military successes.......I don't see a problem with the way Iraq or Afghanistan went.
Kong,
Just read your post. Not bad ideas on a lot of points. But remember that prior to WWII, there were a lot of people with that philosophy. IMO, since we are the largest and mightiest benevolent military power, we have a responsibility to make this our fight. 9/11 aside, we would have a hard time watching the rest of the world go down the tubes while we watched.
Just read your post. Not bad ideas on a lot of points. But remember that prior to WWII, there were a lot of people with that philosophy. IMO, since we are the largest and mightiest benevolent military power, we have a responsibility to make this our fight. 9/11 aside, we would have a hard time watching the rest of the world go down the tubes while we watched.
This is kind of an offshoot of the current topic, but all of us should be aware that China is rapidly coming into a position to fill the superpower vacuum left by the Soviet Union. They have had the largest military force for years and now they are only one step behind us in nuclear warfare technology (as far as we know). We could very soon enter into another period of cold war. It's a scary thought.
Kong-
Seriously, fanaticism is a mild description of what was happening in both Germany and Japan in the 1930's and 40's.
People were being butchered in the streets on a daily basis in Germany and spreading, The Emperor of Japan had a grip on his people unlike any other in history - millions of people were ultimately slaughtered...why go on rehashing that; it's a moot point.
These things can change, and they will in the Middle East - but not if we sit by and allow it to grow out of control - if it hasn't already. Iraq is the ideal starting point for a shitload of reasons.
Unfortunately, bombing the hell out of innocent people and then going back to watching Janet Jackson flash her tits just won't cut it.
Seriously, fanaticism is a mild description of what was happening in both Germany and Japan in the 1930's and 40's.
People were being butchered in the streets on a daily basis in Germany and spreading, The Emperor of Japan had a grip on his people unlike any other in history - millions of people were ultimately slaughtered...why go on rehashing that; it's a moot point.
These things can change, and they will in the Middle East - but not if we sit by and allow it to grow out of control - if it hasn't already. Iraq is the ideal starting point for a shitload of reasons.
Unfortunately, bombing the hell out of innocent people and then going back to watching Janet Jackson flash her tits just won't cut it.
Thanks but don't apologize to me ERA. I'm not running for anything. And I honestly can't imagine why anybody would want that job.
I will say though that I agree that Kerry won't come close to beating Bush. This race brings to mind another Massachusetts liberal challenging an incumbent Bush not so long ago.
I will say though that I agree that Kerry won't come close to beating Bush. This race brings to mind another Massachusetts liberal challenging an incumbent Bush not so long ago.
It should have been AL Gore from the beginning. Already in that election you could see that Bush was a crook. And Gore showed the best side of himself.
Ah Cap'n, my feelings are slightly hurt. I wrote a rather long post and attempted to answer all of your challenges, but it does not seem you read it very closely or entirely. I might add, you have also ignored all of my questions to date, so I'm not entirely sure if I owe you the service of meticulously answering your own. Show some good faith in the debate and don't cash me out with some easy rhetoric I've heard a thousand times before, I've asked some fundamentally deeper questions about the topic . . .
Anyway, your first commen is that yo do indeed associate the word diplomat with capitulation and pandering to an enemy when I spent a good amount of words explaining what I meant by diplomat and why I felt Kerry had a superior pedigree to plan and execute foreign policy. I might add that your thoughts on the matter seem somewhat contstrained by the terrorist issue, but we also have a lot of other things going on around the world, many of them threatening to our safety, though non as pertinent as Iraq and Afghanistan.
I feel as if I am trying to offer rather sincere grievances with Bush, and you ignore the issues I raise, then more or less justify your own position by saying that all liberals are fools and hate America. No offense once more, but this is straight out of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the rest of the highly conservative 'info-tanement' clan to your ears.
I'll ask once more - please explain to me what exactly you qualify as a liberal, and perhaps illuminate why they are all evil and foolish. Then, if you would be so kind, why conservatives in fact love America and possess the only vision worth our while. And finally, you assert that Iraq was dangerous and the invasion necessary for our security. Please explain to me what threat Iraq posed, and how it's occupation has strengthened our position in the world. Thank You.
Also, when my last comment was meant to imply that you do not hold Bush or conservatives up to teh standards that you do liberal politicians or those that displease you. It is, as political scientists call it, the personal filter. All the conservative bashing points on Kerry - he's an elite, out of touch, flip-flopping, defense-bungling, overspending goon - can be said about the president himself, to a greater degree depending on which facts you choose to ignore and what rhetoric you tend to believe. On that note, I'll say that knowing the difference between ominous comments and and a real and viable platform for launching a war is one of the many things that diplomatic skill informs upon. On that note, I find there to be nothing stupid or particularly ill-natured on true conservative thinking, a la John McCain. And, though you seem to believe that Democrats and Republicans are apples and oranges, most of the folks in the political debate right now are just a few clicks away from the the same central positions on the political spectrum. The partisan bickering that has polluted the minds of so many voters is more or less career psoturing from pundits and careerist politicians.
Don't forget my questions!
Anyway, your first commen is that yo do indeed associate the word diplomat with capitulation and pandering to an enemy when I spent a good amount of words explaining what I meant by diplomat and why I felt Kerry had a superior pedigree to plan and execute foreign policy. I might add that your thoughts on the matter seem somewhat contstrained by the terrorist issue, but we also have a lot of other things going on around the world, many of them threatening to our safety, though non as pertinent as Iraq and Afghanistan.
I feel as if I am trying to offer rather sincere grievances with Bush, and you ignore the issues I raise, then more or less justify your own position by saying that all liberals are fools and hate America. No offense once more, but this is straight out of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the rest of the highly conservative 'info-tanement' clan to your ears.
I'll ask once more - please explain to me what exactly you qualify as a liberal, and perhaps illuminate why they are all evil and foolish. Then, if you would be so kind, why conservatives in fact love America and possess the only vision worth our while. And finally, you assert that Iraq was dangerous and the invasion necessary for our security. Please explain to me what threat Iraq posed, and how it's occupation has strengthened our position in the world. Thank You.
Also, when my last comment was meant to imply that you do not hold Bush or conservatives up to teh standards that you do liberal politicians or those that displease you. It is, as political scientists call it, the personal filter. All the conservative bashing points on Kerry - he's an elite, out of touch, flip-flopping, defense-bungling, overspending goon - can be said about the president himself, to a greater degree depending on which facts you choose to ignore and what rhetoric you tend to believe. On that note, I'll say that knowing the difference between ominous comments and and a real and viable platform for launching a war is one of the many things that diplomatic skill informs upon. On that note, I find there to be nothing stupid or particularly ill-natured on true conservative thinking, a la John McCain. And, though you seem to believe that Democrats and Republicans are apples and oranges, most of the folks in the political debate right now are just a few clicks away from the the same central positions on the political spectrum. The partisan bickering that has polluted the minds of so many voters is more or less career psoturing from pundits and careerist politicians.
Don't forget my questions!
For what it's worth, people who don't meticulously study history or polling statistics are really just blowing smoke when guess who is going to win in November. But . . .
History has shown that an incumbent president with Bush's type of numbers almost never wins. Also, a downslide in popularity as he's experienced moving towards the election has historically meant doom. Bush is also greatly weakened in the all important battle ground states, in most of which Kerry has taken a few points lead. Kerry has yet to pick a VP, which if it's John Edwards polling has showed will add several points to his side in nearly all areas, and Kerry has recently managed to raise considerable campaign funds. Bush barely managed to win, if he really did, the first time. He's in a lot worse shape right now than he was four years ago.
Bush certainly has begun to campaign, that was a tagline four months ago. He's spent huge amounts of money, and been quite active with fundraising and election year talk. Let's not forget that a debate has yet to be held, and no matter what side you're on, I think anybody would agree Kerry will be asking some tough questions that most likely will make Bush look bad, whether this is fair or not. Kerry used to be a state prosecutor and is eloquent and a qucik thinker, even teh most ardent Bush supporter probably wouldn't be willing to say the same for George. One las factor is the Michael Moore film, which once again, many of you are guffawing and gagging, but don't factor out a major movies ability to interest and persuade people. You may not like him, but Moore is quite effective at what he does, and what he's set out to do is take Bush to the mat, hard.
All that being said, this is one of the most exciting presidental races a in a great long while. Even though I diplore the current state of things I'm at least grateful it has politicized America to a certain extent and opened debate. One downside to the prosperity of the Clinton years was the apathy that smooth sailing tends to induce in the genreal public. Misguided politics is dangerous, but nothing is more poisonous to our nation than apathy.
History has shown that an incumbent president with Bush's type of numbers almost never wins. Also, a downslide in popularity as he's experienced moving towards the election has historically meant doom. Bush is also greatly weakened in the all important battle ground states, in most of which Kerry has taken a few points lead. Kerry has yet to pick a VP, which if it's John Edwards polling has showed will add several points to his side in nearly all areas, and Kerry has recently managed to raise considerable campaign funds. Bush barely managed to win, if he really did, the first time. He's in a lot worse shape right now than he was four years ago.
Bush certainly has begun to campaign, that was a tagline four months ago. He's spent huge amounts of money, and been quite active with fundraising and election year talk. Let's not forget that a debate has yet to be held, and no matter what side you're on, I think anybody would agree Kerry will be asking some tough questions that most likely will make Bush look bad, whether this is fair or not. Kerry used to be a state prosecutor and is eloquent and a qucik thinker, even teh most ardent Bush supporter probably wouldn't be willing to say the same for George. One las factor is the Michael Moore film, which once again, many of you are guffawing and gagging, but don't factor out a major movies ability to interest and persuade people. You may not like him, but Moore is quite effective at what he does, and what he's set out to do is take Bush to the mat, hard.
All that being said, this is one of the most exciting presidental races a in a great long while. Even though I diplore the current state of things I'm at least grateful it has politicized America to a certain extent and opened debate. One downside to the prosperity of the Clinton years was the apathy that smooth sailing tends to induce in the genreal public. Misguided politics is dangerous, but nothing is more poisonous to our nation than apathy.
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
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:
DlCh is our newest member. Welcome!
MoS Notifier:
DlCh is our newest member. Welcome!