whodey319 Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 I have never posted any political comments on any board, but i will start by saying that i am a republican and voting for George Bush on election day. Lately i've felt that the election is a joke in this country. I have no idea what John Kerry stands for because all he does is attack Bush and other Republicans. On the flip side, all i ever hear Bush talk about is how hard it was to send troops to the middle east and how kerry always flip flops. I feel sorry for the less educated people in this country because they are going to vote and not know who or what they are voting for. I will be graduating college in december and i feel i qualify for being an educated person who keeps up with current events and i have no idea whats going on in some cases. It is sad that the democratic party sent out a mass email during the last debate to get people to vote online and say that kerry won the debate so people who didnt see it would think kerry won. I saw some of these poles where there were millions of votes (on msnbc.com it said that 82% of people felt kerry won and almost 3 millions people voted). Give me a break, this defeats our whole political system and how it should work. Candidates no longer campaign for what they believe in, they campaign against what the other guy believes. The system in this country is severely flawed and I feel it will be a long time before another president is elected that people truely believe in. Just wanted to get this out there and see what people thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckWoody Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 I agree. They haven't given us much to go on. For me, it is boiling down to one thing...character. I feel that Bush has strong character and convictions. Kerry also showed he has strong convictions with his testimony during Viet Nam. He just doesn't have much character. I'll be voting for Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 22, 2004 Report Share Posted October 22, 2004 Word-Bush believes in his convictions, although he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. Kerry? Who knows? I'll vote Bush, if only to continue to pound terrorists with high-explosive munitions and keep them running so they won't get another foothold here in the States. They say fuck us? FUCK YOU and your camel, etc...not trying to be racist, they really do have camels over there, I'm sorry for the innocent camel deaths that have occured as a result of USA bombs, but you WERE riding them at the time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengalfan4life Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 I agree, It comes down to character. Not just saying something, but putting your actions behind what you say. Kerry says whatever will win him votes. He has no character! Bush will keep us safe and that is the most inportant thing in this election. Ohio is very important so get everyone who backs Bush to vote!!! America with Kerry in command is a scary thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalLady Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 I agree, It comes down to character. Not just saying something, but putting your actions behind what you say. Kerry says whatever will win him votes. He has no character! Bush will keep us safe and that is the most inportant thing in this election. Ohio is very important so get everyone who backs Bush to vote!!! America with Kerry in command is a scary thought! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hear that, President Kerry, that sounds bad bad bad. I shutter to think what would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengalfan4life Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 Just reading President Kerry makes me kringe!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 I hear that, President Kerry, that sounds bad bad bad. I shutter to think what would happen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the next commander and chief...hmm who should we pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalLady Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 the next commander and chief...hmm who should we pick? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Teletubbies, teletubbies, aaaawwww high and low!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted October 23, 2004 Report Share Posted October 23, 2004 here we have the president being a man,working hard and not afraid of getting dirt and sweat on him now look at the rich playboy Kerry. nice flower tag hanging on his zipper thats so he looks hip carrying that surf board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitkat Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 here we have the president being a man,working hard and not afraid of getting dirt and sweat on him now look at the rich playboy Kerry. nice flower tag hanging on his zipper  thats so he looks hip carrying that surf board <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please tell me your kidding. You are making "character" comments based on photo ops? I hope you were being sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFresh Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 DAMAGE CONTROL I have no idea what John Kerry stands for because all he does is attack Bush and other Republicans. If you were truly curious you'd take a break from the sound bite "news" you get your information from and actually research the candidate. On the flip side, all i ever hear Bush talk about is how hard it was to send troops to the middle east and how kerry always flip flops. I feel sorry for the less educated people in this country because they are going to vote and not know who or what they are voting for. How can you feel sorry for the uneducated when you yourself admit your own ignorance? It is sad that the democratic party sent out a mass email during the last debate to get people to vote online and say that kerry won the debate so people who didnt see it would think kerry won. Kerry's emails and Bush's emails asked for this type of support. Why exactly is it "sad" that they made this request. Also, I assure you the motives behind this request by either candidate was hardly the sleazy request you state. I saw some of these poles where there were millions of votes (on msnbc.com it said that 82% of people felt kerry won and almost 3 millions people voted). Give me a break, this defeats our whole political system and how it should work. Let me get this straight.... online polls concerning the outcome of a televised "debate" undermine our political system? I hear that, President Kerry, that sounds bad bad bad. I shutter to think what would happen. What would happen? Explain to me what you find so terrifying about John Kerry as president?  I agree, It comes d own to character. Not just saying something, but putting your actions behind what you say. Kerry says whatever will win him votes. He has no character! Bush will keep us safe and that is the most inportant thing in this election. Ohio is very important so get everyone who backs Bush to vote!!! America with Kerry in command is a scary thought! Exactly what reasoning do you have in saying John Kerry "has no character." You also need to explain why Kerry as president is a "scary thought." Bush has "kept us safe?" What about the over 1200 American deaths in the Iraq and Afghani conlficts? The 3000 killed inthe 9/11 terror attacks? Stop the rhetoric and start making points. A Kerry supporter could just as easily make the claim "Bush as president for four more years is a scary thought."  Word-Bush believes in his convictions, although he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. Kerry? Who knows? I'll vote Bush, if only to continue to pound terrorists with high-explosive munitions and keep them running so they won't get another foothold here in the States. They say fuck us? FUCK YOU and your camel, etc...not trying to be racist, they really do have camels over there, I'm sorry for the innocent camel deaths that have occured as a result of USA bombs, but you WERE riding them at the time.... What good is following one's convictions when those convictions have been detrimental to human life and the welfare of your nation's citizens? Do you honestly want this sort of chest-thumping imbecility you display in your Commander-in-Chief? The way you spiel proves you know nothing about who and what we're fighting over there! Do you think there are groups of avowed terrorists amassing on camels in the desert and we're dropping bombs on them? Do you want a president in office who believes this sort of fantasy? You folks sound like whiny children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 [ You folks sound like whiny children. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> your "rhetoric" sounds just like the democratic spin that we all hear... the same stuff over and over... some like bush, some don't... i personally do, and you obviously don't... neither one of us (nor anyone that you pointed out in your post) will change our minds there... anyway, we have little to base how good of a president Kerry would be, besides his 20+ years in the senate... i'm not going to mention his record specific voting records of Kerry during that time b/c they can be twisted to just about anything you want, but he has voted against military spending, cutting intellegence, and raising taxes more times than not... He has already told us that he will be raising taxes (he says only on the elite, but if you have a small business that grosses over 200,000, your taxes will also raise, and if you in a single household, that number drops to around 85,000... which is hardly the "elite") His plan just won't work... canada isn't going to allow us to buy prescription drugs in bulk from them, b/c they enjoy their low prices and it wouldn't stay that way if our markets joined theirs... just so you know that i'm not close minded, i will say that bush's health care plan probably won't work as well as he wants either (if he cuts the deficit by half in the next four years, i will personally bungey jump off the big mac bridge... it ain't gonna happen) I feel that he is going to do what he says w/ that issue (besides cutting the deficit), and kerry isn't going to be able to do half of what he is proposing... i don't know if he's still screaming for universal health care, but there are pluses and minuses to that program, and a huge minus is our taxes (everyone's) will go through the roof... If kerry does win though, it will be interesting watch him trip over his statements in this debate, unless he just forgets what he promises and does what he wants, or i should say, what the 100 advisors he talks to wants As far as who will do better against terrorism, Kerry is an anti-war person by heart... there is nothing wrong w/ this type of person, except if they are trying to be commander in chief of the most powerful nation in the world, in the middle of intense fighting... He isn't going to want to be known as a "war president", he wants to be the one to bring them home, which is great... unless we're not done yet... will he stay there if, in 4 years, we are still needed there... if he decides to pull out, there is absolutely no chance that we can create a democracy in iraq... i'm not saying he definately will, but can you say he definately won't? If you answer yes there, you are lying, b/c i'm not sure he's made his mind up on this... bush will keep pushing forward and win the war... Kerry may think that the french and russians will be on board, but they won't... flat out, they aren't going to iraq and they have plainly stated so... and about the 9/11 attacks, it is very clear that all the planning came under the clinton years, but i'm not necessarily blaming him... all the terrorists came into the country during the 2000 election, b/c the country was lost at the time... bush had horrible intelligence b/c the cia and fbi didn't talk or share info... it did happen on his watch so both bush and clinton are to partially blame, if you blame anyone... but pre 9/11 mindset is that the terrorists wouldn't do anything like that... we know otherwise now... the iraq war, reguardless of what cnn and cbs say, is going rather well in historic terms... there were mistakes made, but bush is human... we should have had more military police in iraq almost instantly, but we didn't... this war has brought countries like pakistan to come onboard, which is the first step in stopping terrorism there... there are many positive things going on in the world today... you may hate bush, but he has liberated two countries and millions upon millions of people that were under a dictatorship... they can now enjoy freedom... and if you bring up wmd, the whole world thought it was there... we don't know where it is, but it was there... even the french and russians thought it was there and he was a threat to use it... of course, they voted against the war b/c of the oil-for-food program and their massive corruption in the program now lets here your spin... i mean opinon on things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Jesus Christ Big Fresh, I was making a joke...but I was serious about blowing terrorists up before they blow us up. Maybe you'd prefer Kerry's brand of diplomacy, where we could assemble a coalition of unwilling participants to join us in a war our leader (assuming it's Kerry) doesn't believe in? BTW, I DO know what the fuck I'm talking about...I've been to Iraq during the first Gulf War and it certainly isn't a picnic. My cousin's there now. My Dad and both his brothers are USMA grads, 'Nam vets all of them. My Dad's a retired 2-star general-we talk about things like war, politics, etc...it's very clear that the country is divided over this election but Kerry's proven to be a pompous panderer to any cause or vote that will make him look good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 DAMAGE CONTROL Kerry's emails and Bush's emails asked for this type of support. Why exactly is it "sad" that they made this request. Also, I assure you the motives behind this request by either candidate was hardly the sleazy request you state. Let me get this straight.... online polls concerning the outcome of a televised "debate" undermine our political system? Exactly what reasoning do you have in saying John Kerry "has no character." You also need to explain why Kerry as president is a "scary thought." Bush has "kept us safe?" What about the over 1200 American deaths in the Iraq and Afghani conlficts? The 3000 killed inthe 9/11 terror attacks? Stop the rhetoric and start making points. A Kerry supporter could just as easily make the claim "Bush as president for four more years is a scary thought." What good is following one's convictions when those convictions have been detrimental to human life and the welfare of your nation's citizens? Do you honestly want this sort of chest-thumping imbecility you display in your Commander-in-Chief? The way you spiel proves you know nothing about who and what we're fighting over there! Do you think there are groups of avowed terrorists amassing on camels in the desert and we're dropping bombs on them? Do you want a president in office who believes this sort of fantasy? You folks sound like whiny children. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is that you doodoowiper? I hope so I need a laugh. Please keep posting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFresh Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 your "rhetoric" sounds just like the democratic spin that we all hear... the same stuff over and over... some like bush, some don't... i personally do, and you obviously don't... neither one of us (nor anyone that you pointed out in your post) will change our minds there... Please don't assume I have any intention of changing your mind. I think it goes deeper than "I like him" "You don't like him," though. This guy is the one holding the reins in this country and we NEED to call him to task for his administrations Bengals. My personal opinions mean nothing when my vote and yours can have serious impact on the lives of people - including myself. anyway, we have little to base how good of a president Kerry would be, besides his 20+ years in the senate... i'm not going to mention his record specific voting records of Kerry during that time b/c they can be twisted to just about anything you want, but he has voted against military spending, cutting intellegence, and raising taxes more times than not... I see you disagree with his stance on this matter, and that's fair. However, it should be noted that many of the military issues Kerry has voted against were for obsolete, Cold War-style programs that added what many generals considerd needless fat to our military budget. You can't remain credible and just assume all military spending is good and all taxes are bad, it oversimplifies the reality of the situation. He has already told us that he will be raising taxes (he says only on the elite, but if you have a small business that grosses over 200,000, your taxes will also raise, and if you in a single household, that number drops to around 85,000... which is hardly the "elite") You're right. Kerry WILL increase the tax burden on the citizens of the US. A situation which would not have to happen had the Bush administration not administered enormous and unafforadable tax CUTS in the past four years. As he has stated, these are better described as tax cut repeals than tax increases. Kerry would not have to raise taxes if the Bush administration hadn't put us so deeply inthe hole with its enormous tax cuts and equally enormous expenditures. His plan just won't work... canada isn't going to allow us to buy prescription drugs in bulk from them, b/c they enjoy their low prices and it wouldn't stay that way if our markets joined theirs... Actually, basic economic principle would disagree with this statement. A flooded market nearly guarantees lowered prices for all involved. A price increase for Canadian buyers may occur as a reactionary inflation, but eventually the increased competition should drive prices to lower than they were. just so you know that i'm not close minded, i will say that bush's health care plan probably won't work as well as he wants either (if he cuts the deficit by half in the next four years, i will personally bungey jump off the big mac bridge... it ain't gonna happen) I feel that he is going to do what he says w/ that issue (besides cutting the deficit), and kerry isn't going to be able to do half of what he is proposing... i don't know if he's still screaming for universal health care, but there are pluses and minuses to that program, and a huge minus is our taxes (everyone's) will go through the roof... If kerry does win though, it will be interesting watch him trip over his statements in this debate, unless he just forgets what he promises and does what he wants, or i should say, what the 100 advisors he talks to wants Both candidates have had to make some enormous (and likely unachievable) promises in this campaign. If the elected one lives up to 80% of them I'd likely soil myself. As far as who will do better against terrorism, Kerry is an anti-war person by heart... there is nothing wrong w/ this type of person, except if they are trying to be commander in chief of the most powerful nation in the world, in the middle of intense fighting... He isn't going to want to be known as a "war president", he wants to be the one to bring them home, which is great... unless we're not done yet... will he stay there if, in 4 years, we are still needed there... I don't agree with this statement because it does not properly explain what sort of war we're really involved with. If you are trying to equate the battling of insurgents in Iraq with a global war on terrorism, this is a highly spun position. We are not in the middle of "intense fighting" in the "war on terror." We are imbroiled in a dangerous situation in Iraq in which the current methods endorsed by the administration are proving ineffective. If we were in an old-school hot war, I'd agree with you, but this is not at all the type of war my father and grandfathers fought in. if he decides to pull out, there is absolutely no chance that we can create a democracy in iraq... i'm not saying he definately will, but can you say he definately won't? If you answer yes there, you are lying, b/c i'm not sure he's made his mind up on this... bush will keep pushing forward and win the war... Kerry may think that the french and russians will be on board, but they won't... flat out, they aren't going to iraq and they have plainly stated so... Kerry's ability as a diplomat remains to be seen, and it is certain how difficult it would be to involve other countries - particularly after this administration's policies. The Bush administration is operating under the ideology that all countries somehow want and will function under American style government. This is patent foolishness. Bill Maher said it best when he explained, "If an Iraqi man were given the choice between living under a totalitarian regime and seeing his sister walk down the street in a miniskirt, he'd take the dictator." and about the 9/11 attacks, it is very clear that all the planning came under the clinton years, but i'm not necessarily blaming him... all the terrorists came into the country during the 2000 election, b/c the country was lost at the time... bush had horrible intelligence b/c the cia and fbi didn't talk or share info... it did happen on his watch so both bush and clinton are to partially blame, if you blame anyone... but pre 9/11 mindset is that the terrorists wouldn't do anything like that... we know otherwise now... the iraq war, reguardless of what cnn and cbs say, is going rather well in historic terms... there were mistakes made, but bush is human... we should have had more military police in iraq almost instantly, but we didn't... this war has brought countries like pakistan to come onboard, which is the first step in stopping terrorism there... there are many positive things going on in the world today... The success in bringing other countries to our "side" is a red herring. It's also not just CBS and CNN which have pointed out the problems in Iraq. Bush is human, indeed, but his poor character is displayed in his unwillingness to admit his mistakes. There are policies and strategies at work in Iraq that have PROVEN to be failures. Instead of altering our plans to adopt more effective ones, however, the Bush administration has ignored many generals and gone on with more of the same. you may hate bush, but he has liberated two countries and millions upon millions of people that were under a dictatorship... they can now enjoy freedom... You are spouting rhetoric here. Do you think that we just lifted up the dictator bucket and found America 2 and 3 underneath? The type of society we see in these countries have embraced dictatorship for years. Do you think if these countries honestly desired American style democracy that they'd have lived under those circumstances for so long? It's just ethnocentric blindness to assume all other people think the same way Americans do. and if you bring up wmd, the whole world thought it was there... we don't know where it is, but it was there... even the french and russians thought it was there and he was a threat to use it... of course, they voted against the war b/c of the oil-for-food program and their massive corruption in the program It is easily discernable that a large contention of the Bush administration had been planning to invade Iraq and dispose of Hussein long before 9/11 or the ingraining of "WMD" into the public vernacular. I am well aware that other countries were swayed by the intelligence. I am also aware that the sanctions and inspections were and could have been more effective than the Bush administration would have us believe. now lets hear your spin... i mean opinion on things... Cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Geeez Big Fresh....I would say write a book next time ... but you ALREADY DID !!!! Kerry says what it takes to get his ass elected. He was all for the war and him and the ENTIRE SENATE AND CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT. Let`s not forget that. Saddam DID have WMD`s and used them against his own people WHILE he was under sanctions and U.N. resolutions...oh and making BILLIONS of dollars off of our "allies" while he was under sanctions and defying 17 U.N. reolutions too ! He had no reason to comply ...because he knew that the U.N. (his friends) would NEVER come after him. He kicked out weapons inspectors and shot at our airplanes while making BILLIONS and defying U.N. resolution and sanctions. Now while that was OK when Clinton was in office...and even BEFORE 9/11....after 9/11 it just couldn`t happen anymore. Get it ? ....of course you don`t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Well said old school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 you may or may not agree, but we aren't agrueing about facts that are spun... we just seem to differ in opinion to how things should/will be run in iraq... i can respect that, but respectfully disagree on many well-taken points you mention... btw... my bad, didn't mean to assume that i or you would change each others minds... we don't want to flip flop, right??? 1) since votes and military spending is way out of my league, as far as fully understanding, i will not be able to fully defend myself, but he does seem to be on the wrong side of majority alot... 2) about the tax issues.. bush has gone through alot in the past 4 years that directly reflect this problem... we have all heard them before so i won't even repeat them... but historically, cutting taxes and putting money into the peoples hands, is the way to build the economy... it seems you feel that more gov't programs, less money in your pocket, and more in uncle sams is the way you want it... we just differ in opinion 3) about canadian drugs and lowered drug prices if we buy from bulk from them... i agree, i have been taking many economics courses and if you buy more of something, you should get it cheapier... EXCEPT, when you start thinking about supply and demand, which is the main thing to look at in economics... if the demand for drugs in canada rises, b/c they are running low after selling most of it to us, the prices will begin to rise... since a majority of all the drugs that we would be buying, comes from america to begin w/, all the drug companies have to do, is raise the prices to canada... since we have no price restrictions on prescriptions, they can and would do that... therefore, in theory your right, but thats not the whole picture... 4) the war issue you brought up makes the most sense to me, but still just a difference in opinion... you feel we are fighting iraq and fighting terrorism.. i feel we are fighting terrorism in iraq and afghanistan, among many other things... we are not at war w/ iraq... the days of fighting nations in uniforms are over... we will now be fighting more w/ capturing leaders (b/c we can capture and/or kill leaders of terrorist, but not countries), gaining intel, and arresting people... we are fighting terrorism in many countries across the globe, and many arrests are being made... 5) the fact that bush didn't answer the question directly is easy to explain... what if he did, we would be seeing mass ads w/ him saying that in it... that was a loaded question that was asked, and he couldn't have answered it correctly... he did have the balls to say that he made mistakes in his appointing people... that is a direct hit to his own administration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalsCat Posted October 27, 2004 Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 Hahah you are a fucking tool?? tax cuts we couldnt afford? who could afford them?? fuck man the goverment makes plenty of money kerry doesn't have to raise taxes.. but he is going to because he wants the spend more of your money on pointless things... go figure huh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFresh Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Kerry says what it takes to get his ass elected. I agree. Just about anything, anyway. That's no more or less than any challenger has had to do in the past. He was all for the war and him and the ENTIRE SENATE AND CONGRESS VOTED FOR IT. Let`s not forget that. You're flubbing the facts. There were dissenters, even for the first vote that concerned giving the president the power to take military action. I can only parrot what Kerry has said about this. His camp says - and this is fair - that the vote was not for a war, only the concession of power to the Executive branch. This is technically correct. Personally, I think it was egregious that this passed. The President should not be given the authority to usurp the will of the people and have full control over the military by my opinion. This is a subject I highly disagree with Kerry on, he should not have voted yes. Saddam DID have WMD`s and used them against his own people WHILE he was under sanctions and U.N. resolutions...oh and making BILLIONS of dollars off of our "allies" while he was under sanctions and defying 17 U.N. reolutions too ! This is mostly an oversimplification. As far as Saddam using WMD's "on his own people," you're not being honest. There is no evidence to support this notion although this idea has been repeated ad nauseum by many. There is evidence to suggest that the Ba'athist regime did attack Iraqi Kurdish populations with weapons-grade anthrax, but the Kurds were not Hussein's "own people" any more than Iran was at the time. I also don't know that anthrax is considered a WMD. I am not condoning these actions, I am merely showing that they do not make an effective argument. He kicked out weapons inspectors and shot at our airplanes while making BILLIONS and defying U.N. resolution and sanctions. Now while that was OK when Clinton was in office...and even BEFORE 9/11....after 9/11 it just couldn`t happen anymore. Get it ? ....of course you don`t. The US military under Clinton was quick to respond to Iraqi military actions toward the US and our allies. Weapons inspectors post 9/11 were making steady progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFresh Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 1) since votes and military spending is way out of my league, as far as fully understanding, i will not be able to fully defend myself, but he does seem to be on the wrong side of majority alot... You have to make the case that voting against the majority is a bad thing. Just because a bill passes doesn't by rote make it good for the country. 2) about the tax issues.. bush has gone through alot in the past 4 years that directly reflect this problem... we have all heard them before so i won't even repeat them... but historically, cutting taxes and putting money into the peoples hands, is the way to build the economy... it seems you feel that more gov't programs, less money in your pocket, and more in uncle sams is the way you want it... we just differ in opinion In fact, Bush has implemented huge new government programs in the past four years and increased our spending an enormous amount. I am doing worse financially than I did four years ago. My boss (a staunch Republican, I might add) has been unable to give me a raise because the economy has been poor; rampant inflation has lowered my spending ability; I DON'T pay less in taxes and I get a smaller return. If I truly felt the way you said I did, I'd vote for Bush. 4) the war issue you brought up makes the most sense to me, but still just a difference in opinion... you feel we are fighting iraq and fighting terrorism.. i feel we are fighting terrorism in iraq and afghanistan, among many other things... we are not at war w/ iraq... My thinking is this. If you have a wasp nest hanging from a tree in your front lawn and you want to get rid of it, which method will likely get you stung less: a.) Carefully smoking them out and killing them one by one. or b.) Smashing the nest with a baseball bat. When we first went into Iraq, fighing terrorism had nothing to do with it. Now terrorists are flooding the country and Al Qaeda has recruited new members to numbers far higher than they were at the time of 9/11. The majority of Iraqis by current polls consider the US forces to be invaders and occupiers, not liberators. the days of fighting nations in uniforms are over... we will now be fighting more w/ capturing leaders (b/c we can capture and/or kill leaders of terrorist, but not countries), gaining intel, and arresting people... we are fighting terrorism in many countries across the globe, and many arrests are being made... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldschooler Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 I agree. Just about anything, anyway. That's no more or less than any challenger has had to do in the past. You're flubbing the facts. There were dissenters, even for the first vote that concerned giving the president the power to take military action. I can only parrot what Kerry has said about this. His camp says - and this is fair - that the vote was not for a war, only the concession of power to the Executive branch. This is technically correct. Personally, I think it was egregious that this passed. The President should not be given the authority to usurp the will of the people and have full control over the military by my opinion. This is a subject I highly disagree with Kerry on, he should not have voted yes. This is mostly an oversimplification. As far as Saddam using WMD's "on his own people," you're not being honest. There is no evidence to support this notion although this idea has been repeated ad nauseum by many. There is evidence to suggest that the Ba'athist regime did attack Iraqi Kurdish populations with weapons-grade anthrax, but the Kurds were not Hussein's "own people" any more than Iran was at the time. I also don't know that anthrax is considered a WMD. I am not condoning these actions, I am merely showing that they do not make an effective argument. The US military under Clinton was quick to respond to Iraqi military actions toward the US and our allies. Weapons inspectors post 9/11 were making steady progress. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don`t know why you feel the need to break down what people say ? It just shows people how anal retentive you are. Kerry, the Senate and Congress OK`d the war in Iraq. Now they are saying because they gave him permission that it`s HIS fault ? Anyway Saddam USED NERVE gas on the Kurds. The Kurds ARE IRAQI`S ...they live in Northern Iraq. http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_we...emiraqgas2.html And LMFAO at Clinton quick to respond and weapons inspectors were making "steady progress" !!!!! You call 12 years of being jerked around while Saddam made billions "steady progress" ? hahahaha what a laugh. Oh and here is just a little bit of Clinton`s "responses to terrorist. Clinton was inattentive towards fighting terrorism. It is no stretch to say he spent more money and made more of a concerted effort trying to eliminate Bill Gates than Osama bin Laden. An examination of Clinton’s responses to terrorist attacks during his administration demonstrates he was all talk and no action. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised, “We have already begun the process of determining what happened and who, if anyone, was responsible. We will devote an enormous effort to that.†After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 400 U.S. military personnel, Clinton said, “Let me be very clear: We will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them. Anyone who attacks one American attacks every American, and we protect and defend our own.†It wasn’t until this past June when the Bush administration indicted twelve suspects, that there was any progress towards justice. After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno said, “We're going to pursue every last murderer until justice has been done." After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, Clinton threatened, “[You] will not find a safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail. America will not stop standing guard for peace or freedom or stability in the Middle East and around the world.†What people that WERE brought to justice other than by the BUSH administration, were brought to justice by Saudi Arabia and they wouldn`t let the U.S. talk to them. Oh and the 1993 WTC bombings they DID capture those guys and sentenced them to 240 years each. But 1 man escaped to Baghdad. (which has no ties to terror ) All talk and no action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 voting against the military isn't necessarily a bad thing, but he voted against going into iraq for the first war w/ them... we had the whole world on our side then, why vote against it at that point? It is a good point, b/c being a "war president" isn't necessarily a good thing, and in the past (pre 9/11) it would have been a good thing to be anti-war president at all costs... things have changed and now we need to have a good military mind at the helm, imo... about bush's programs... huh??!!??... sorry my man, but i don't follow you w/ this point... bush didn't add any programs, unless your talking about security, and if you don't want them, then i have other questions for you... bush wants to cut more taxes, kerry wants to roll back bush's tax cuts and will probably be forced to raise all of our taxes to pay for the health care program, along w/ other spending he wants (2+ trillions dollars... wow, thats a lot of spending!!!) about the economy, there are many indicators that show that the economy is coming back... houses are being bought at all time rates... the GDP is up... there are mixed signals b/c the jobs are down, but unemployment is at very respectable numbers... my personal opinon is that the jobs are down b/c of technological advances... manufacturing jobs are down acrossed the nation, and this is b/c businsess are using more machines... therefore, more work gets done w/ less people... that is why, when bush is asked about jobs, he turns to education... not only b/c its an easy way of changing the subject , but also b/c it is so important to our economy in the future... our new jobs will be high level jobs that will required better education... about your way of thinking... its easy to think to just crush the nest w/ a bat.... there are some holes in this way of thinking though... it would be more like going inside the nest, not just crushing it w/ a bat (unless you mean to nuke them, and i don't even think many republicans think that is a good idea...) we would have to go inide the nest, and risk many lives, and possibly all of their lives... what if we started looking in there, and they let a bomb off... they could kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers then... that would be bad... about how the iraqis think of us... i obviously can't speak for them, but there is a movie coming out soon... i mentioned it in the "explosive lies" forum, but i'll post the link here too... if you want my explaination to the movie, its over there... but check out this link... it seems like it will be a very beneficial movie... it won't effect the election at all too, so that proves it should be non-partisan... voicesofiraq.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean Posted October 29, 2004 Report Share Posted October 29, 2004 Kerry's position on all fronts... from a bumber sticker. "You Decide! I'll agree!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.