President

[secretboy]

Flip-flopping?

Jesus, you people.

Here's a Bush-Gore debate from 2000:

BUSH: "It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble."

..or how about...

BUSH: "Let me comment on that. I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I want to empower the people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

Now, in the debate in 2000, Bush certainly shows his colors regarding Iraq from the get-go. But if he didn't outright lie, he fucking FLIP-FLOPPED, just as the administration has recently flip-flopped on a number of issues suspiciously in the election year. Kerry essentially gets painted as a flip-flopper because Bush's team is better at painting others at that kind of thing.

It's all about who has the best spin. And the sad thing is, that's going to decide the election -- who gets painted as the biggest loser, the biggest asshole, the biggest moron. It's all about who can wrap themselves more completely with the flag, so you don't see the herpes sores that cover their naked bodies.

Instead of, you know, stuff that's really important. Like the ISSUES.

Seriously. If you're not going to vote for one or the other, or have strong ideas about one or the other based on stupid jingoism like "X is an idiot" or "X is untrustworthy" or whatever...just please go drown yourself right now. There is enough spin right now to drown half the world and still have some left over, so we should all be good. And if we run out of spin, we can go back to water, that old serviceable stuff.

Figure out what is important to you, and figure out where the candidate stands on those real issues, and vote that way. If you are Pro-life or Pro-choice and feel strongly that way, then vote along those lines. If you feel a certain way about the economy, vote that way.

As it is, we are faced with two very real choces in America:

One has promoted an agenda -- essentially -- that American power is dependent on strategic reserves (such as oil, that evil three-letter-word) and the architects of the Carter Doctrine currently in high echelons of the current government say we need a strong and powerful presence in the Middle East despite the cost, if we are going to curb the 'real' threat of the 'real' Axis of Evil: China, Russia, and the European Union. But if our 'allies' remain too weak to threaten us, the US can achieve safety and power for the time being.

Another believes we should remain militarilly dominant but not take risks to anger potential allies, and concentrate on economic development in the Clintonian model. We should continue to secure our interest in strategic interests (such as oil) but not try anything new, thus staying in the precarious position the US is in with regards to such interests, thus possibly destroying the preeminence of the United States has not today, but 40-60 years down the road, in order to have a safer and more effective world today. Sure, America might be weaker in the long run, but with steady friendships with powers that have learned to trust us, we can rely on the aid of others.

--

This is me trying to be bi-partisan, and focusing on what I am really offended by: that people could buy into such fucking jingoism. I, myself, would love to see a strong United States of America -- but I would like our policies to be honorable. They were not honorable in the Clinton administration, they are not honorable now (less so - our president no longer lies about his weasel waxed, he lies about starting a fucking war), Kerry has only paid lip service to making them honorable in the future, but his voting record stands otherwise.

I will still vote for Kerry, in the end. It is the bitter, irascible bastard in me that believes that if you put something over someone in an extremely clumsy way, it is insulting to everyone involved, and that is what is currently happening. Someone should be punished for it.

[edible_eye]

so, after that speech - which was pretty decent all told - you're voting for kerry NOT because of the issues but because you believe gwb should be punished?

voting for kerry because, essentially, he's... not bush?

don't worry about swallowing all that spin. there'll still be plenty of it left over for the rest of us.

thanx for the link.

[secretboy]

Spin? I'm not going on other's interpretations of Bush's words, but by Bush's words.

You do have a point, there, and a very good one. I went and said 'vote for X because of how they believe in, say, agricultural programs, rather than what some newscaster tells you' and then said 'I'm voting for Y because of my own primitive sense of justice'.

With some defense, I simplified my own point - I'm also voting for who I'm voting because I'm underemployed and voting for the person I think will help the economy in my sector. I don't know, I can't know. Both have different ideas about the economy - and either one of the ideas might actually be right, in the long run. They have specific points that they have addressed, or ways that they have voted in the past that do the best to prove the direction they would take the country for the next four years. I can't look into the future and say what's right, so I have to make my best guess.

edible_eye, it looks to me that you seem to take my 'spin' comment as about any kind of interpretation, even if it's about issues, whether specific, such as foreign policy, or broader ones, such as integrity.

My comment, though, was aimed more at people latching on to catch phrases instead of debating the more boring and less punditly aspects. Spin to me isn't the facts laid out, and interpretations made; but specific events distorted and stretched and repeated until they become 'fact' in the media-sphere...something that happens a lot, and at root is not the fault of any ideology or handedness (left or right), but still is something we should be wary of. It's like mallware or spyware on your computer. Fucking frustrating.

Let me put it another way. I am terrified, because there is so little ambivalence in the people I talk to. People are fervent about the race, and when I talk to them, they fall back on someone's talking-points, not their own thoughts. Not what they believe is right. In my initial post, I think I failed to explain that that specifically is what I am worried about.

Also, it seems to be a big thing with the internet - that it's easy to lose the nuance. Perhaps it appeared I was suggesting that the debate in this thread so far was dominated by buzz words and catch phrases. Far from the truth. I am very angry about such things, and am likely to be vitriolic about it...it doesn't mean that all of it or even the majority of it was. If that was how my first post appeared, I apologize.

[AlKilyu]

The flip-flop analogy was invented by Democrats, Dean's people to be exact.

All politicians flip-flop at one point or another, this one in particular does nothing but.

Had the donkeys picked a better candidate, such as Lieberman or even Dean, they'd stand a better chance.

On the other hand, you have Bush who in the first couple of years in his term, faced one of the worst attacks on America and not only defended us, went on the offensive and kicked ass. The attack was leftover garbage from Clinton's era who did not kill Osama when he had the chance because he didn't want to seem "anti-arab".

I know you don't know me SecretBoy, but give me credit for doing a bit more research on the subjects than just quoting a few 527's or Sean Hannity. When people tell me they are voting Kerry I ask why, and the answer I get is "He's not Bush." Alright tell me what about Kerry's policies you like? Or Bush's that you don't? And 99.5% of the time I get the same lame "Bush is a moron, oil, revenge for his daddy" nothing with merit or cold hard facts. These people have the right to vote and have put little to no thought into their choice. I don't care that they haven't chose the candidate I have, I just want to know that they have done just the slightest bit of bi-partisan homework, and because people have gotten so lazy it rarely happens.

[edible_eye]

nah, secretboy - i was just funnin' ya because you'd told anyone who wasn't voting on the issues to "just please go drown yourself right now. There is enough spin right now to drown half the world and still have some left over, so we should all be good.". - secretboy

that's all.
that's the reason i put the word "spin" in my post back at you.

as for the rest of your statement, minus the last paragraph, i agree with what you said. in fact, i think most people here who have entered debate on the presidential race would agree. just about everyone has some thought behind what they say, be it good / bad, relevant / irrelevant, appropriate / inappropriate, whatever. the point is - people are thinking. it's sometimes hard not to be influenced by what all those pretty faces with perfume and make-up on television have to say (male and female), not to mention the catch-phrases they drop like small jewels which are greedily picked up by verbally-challenged others to flaunt ad-nauseum. it's one thing to display those jewels without thinking, quite another to use them for purposes of context and then make a point.

massachusetts is an expensive place to live. they don't call this state taxachusetts for nothing. kerry is a representative of this state, whether or not he's around to prove it. i said this before and i'll say it again now - democrats in this state, massachusetts, believe in and enforce higher taxes for everything. everything and everything and everything. why would kerry do something different nationwide if elected?

the issue of my family and how i'm able to provide for them is the central piece of the election for me. not viet nam, not flip-flopping, not pancaking, not waffling, not an inability to speak publicly, not long flowery speeches that go nowhere.

my family.

i don't like what kerry and his ilk have done in this state. i'll not vote to have it go nationwaide.

- mark

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

When people tell me they are voting Kerry I ask why, and the answer I get is "He's not Bush." Alright tell me what about Kerry's policies you like? Or Bush's that you don't?

http://www.georgewbush.com

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

I like Kerry's stance on education. I don't think that emphasis should be put on standardized test scores, which is what the "No Child Left Behind" Act does. I go to a college that no longer looks at Standardized test scores, which I think is a huge step in the right direction.

I don't like that George W. Bush wants to provide funding for drug tests in schools. :twisted: Just kidding... I don't like that George W. Bush does not mention Osama Bin Laden (not once) in his Agenda for America. I want that mother fucker dead, and Bush seems so un-centered. I like that he sees evil in the world, but it's like he sees it in a blur, and is unable to put emphasis on the true threats to America.

Hans Blix:

"Had we had a few months more (of inspections before the war), we would have been able to tell both the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction (at) all the sites that they had given to us.''

Dick Cheney:

"The headlines all say no weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad. We already knew that,''

If you already knew that, why the fuck was it priority over finding and killing Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network?

Was it because they were *amassing* weapons against the U.S.?

Duelfer's [Duelfer was a weapons hunter in Iraq] report said what ambitions Saddam harbored for such weapons were secondary to his goal of evading the sanctions, and he wanted weapons primarily not to attack the United States or to provide them to terrorists but to oppose his older enemies, Iran and Israel.

Hmm, guess not.

And don't you *dare* tell me that we were protecting Iran and Israel, as President Bush has already mentioned Iran as the next possible threat, and if he gave a *shit* about Israel, he'd have just invaded Pakistan.

Next topic. Taxes, right, E_E?

You have to consider that our country is in a huge deficit. Blidingly huge. Cutting taxes when and with who GWB did was unthinkable. He barely made a dent in the taxes of the middle and lower classes, while, essentially, giving the rich a free-ride. This we know, and there's no denying his double-agenda, here.

Now the deficit isn't something that's going to go away. As the United States participates in the reconstruction of Iraq, funding is crucial. Therefor, some of those tax breaks that the Bush administration applied just aren't going to work.

I'm sorry that you feel you might not be able to provide for your family if there are higher taxes, but would you rather our great nation crumble into a pile of deficit?

During the Clinton administration, the economy was booming. There was surplus, and no deficit in sight. Four years and two wars down the road, all we see is deficit. Unless you want to start seeing drastic cuts in education, social programs, even military, eventually, you're going to have to deal with the taxes, somehow.

Taxes are a tough issue, and I don't know what to tell you. I know times are hard, too, but cutting taxes won't bring our country out of deficit.

[WolfMoon]

Absolutely right!We should raise taxes so that people living in near poverty will now be unable to provide for their families and end up on the streets.But hey,that defecit'll clear up.Screw the little people.The ends justify the means,hurrah!

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

Dick Cheney:

If you already knew that, why the fuck was it priority over finding and killing Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network?

Well we did. Before this report was filed, we had our own inspectors who were in Iraq telling us this last year. We already knew there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. This report was to make it offical and to fill us in on what Saddam was really doing.

And don't you *dare* tell me that we were protecting Iran and Israel, as President Bush has already mentioned Iran as the next possible threat, and if he gave a *shit* about Israel, he'd have just invaded Pakistan.

Invaded Pakistan? Pakistan are some of our most valuable allies in the Middle East. And no, we weren't protecting Iran and Israel. There are reports that cite where Iraqi Intellegence officers have met with Al-Queada operatives. It's stated in the 9/11 report and Saddam has a track record already of financing terrorists. If you put those two pieces of evidence together along with the pursuit of WMDs (which he had plans for) and combined that with his hatred for America, you can see why everyone here in the US, including John Kerry, was unnerved.

[AlKilyu]

Saddam paid off French leaders

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Saddam Hussein used a U.N. humanitarian program to pay $1.78 billion to French government officials, businessmen and journalists in a bid to have sanctions removed and U.S. policies opposed, according to a CIA report made public yesterday.
The cash was part of $10.9 billion secretly skimmed from the U.N. oil-for-food program, which was used by Iraq to buy military goods, according to a 1,000-page report by the CIA-led Iraqi Survey Group.
According to a section of the report on Iraqi weapons procurement, the survey group identified long-standing ties between Saddam and the French government. One 1992 Iraqi intelligence service report revealed that Iraq's ambassador to France paid $1 million to the French Socialist Party in 1988.
The CIA report stated that the Iraqi ambassador was instructed to "utilize [the $1 million] to remind French Defense Minister Pierre Joxe indirectly about Iraq's previous positions toward France, in general, and the French Socialist party, in particular."
In the late 1990s, Iraq also used an oil-purchasing voucher system through the U.N. oil-for-food program, which began in 1996 and ended in 2003, to influence the French to oppose U.S. initiatives at the United Nations and to work to lift sanctions, the report stated.
The Iraqi Intelligence Service paid off French nationals by dispensing vouchers that allowed the holders to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in commissions by selling them to oil buyers.
The payoffs help explain why the French government, along with Russia and China, opposed U.S. efforts in the United Nations in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion, U.S. officials said.
Iraqi intelligence agents also targeted French President Jacques Chirac, by giving gifts to a spokesman, two of his aides and two French businessmen, the report said.
One Iraqi intelligence report stated that a French politician assured Saddam in a letter that France would use its veto in the U.N. Security Council against any U.S. effort to attack Iraq.
Iraqi intelligence documents recovered in Iraq showed that the French citizens linked to the influence operation were "ministers and politicians, journalists and business people."
"These influential individuals often had little prior connection to the oil industry and generally engaged European oil companies to lift the oil, but were still in a position to extract a substantial profit for themselves," the report said.
Former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told the Survey Group that he personally awarded several Frenchmen "substantial" oil allotments.
"According to Aziz, both parties understood that resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift U.N. sanctions or through opposition to American initiatives within the Security Council," the report said.
The report named former French Interior Minister Charles Pascua as getting a voucher for 11 million barrels of oil, and Patrick Maugein, who received a voucher for 13 million barrels of oil. The report said Mr. Maugein, the chief executive officer of the SOCO oil company, was a "conduit" to Mr. Chirac.
Michel Grimard, the founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club, received a voucher for 5.5 million barrels, and the Iraqi-French Friendship Society received vouchers for more than 10 million barrels.
French oil companies Total and SOCAP were granted vouchers for 105 million and 93 million barrels of oil, respectively.
The report stated that Iraq covertly purchased missiles and other military goods from Russia, Belarus, China, North Korea and South Korea.
According to the report, illegal goods used in making weapons of mass destruction were sold to Iraq by companies in Jordan, India, France, Italy, Romania and Turkey.
Conventional arms also were sold to Iraq by China, Jordan, India, South Korea, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Georgia, France, Poland, Syria, Belarus, North Korea, Yugoslavia, Yemen, Russia, Romania and the Republic of China (Taiwan).
The report said Saddam's regime obtained $1.5 billion from U.N. humanitarian contract kickbacks and $228.5 million in surcharges on U.N.-approved oil sales.
Other oil smuggling provided the regime with $8 billion in cash outside of U.N.-approved oil sales, the CIA report reveals.
Charles Duelfer, the director of the CIA survey group, told a congressional hearing yesterday that a "sizable portion" of Saddam's cash obtained from the oil-for-food program were diverted to the military, specifically the government-run Military Industrial Commission.
"The funding for this organization, which had responsibility for many of the past [weapons of mass destruction] programs, went from approximately $7.8 million in 1998 to $350 million in 2001," Mr. Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Duelfer said that during the period from 1998 to 2001, "many military programs were carried out — including many involving the willing export to Iraq of military items prohibited by the Security Council."

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

Absolutely right!We should raise taxes so that people living in near poverty will now be unable to provide for their families and end up on the streets.But hey,that defecit'll clear up.Screw the little people.The ends justify the means,hurrah!

Is Dick Cheney near street-poverty? Because he's the only one *I* saw benefitting from the tax cuts. My best friend isn't well-off... like, welfare not well off. Her mom shared with me what the Bush tax cuts did to help the family financial situation.

JACK SHIT!!!!

The Bush tax cuts only helped those in the upper-tax brackets.


Battery: It has been proven that Saddam had no intentions towards building up arms agains the United States- he was going after Iran and Israel. Iran and Israel. Come on, you read my post, absorb.[/u][/i]

[Disfunction]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

Absolutely right!We should raise taxes so that people living in near poverty will now be unable to provide for their families and end up on the streets.But hey,that defecit'll clear up.Screw the little people.The ends justify the means,hurrah!

Actually... the idea has nothing at all to do with raising taxes for people near the poverty line, and reinstating such taxes as the "capital gains tax" which would allow for all of the people taking part in such scandals as Enron and the like to at least have some of the money the made by screwing over investors go into the tax pool, rather than them getting away with a much larger amount.

And perhaps it would be worth noting that as the rich are the ones who received the most benefit from Bush's tax cuts, it's easily imagined that you could maintain those tax cuts for the poorer groups, while increasing it for those way way way above...

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by Disfunction

Actually... the idea has nothing at all to do with raising taxes for people near the poverty line, and reinstating such taxes as the "capital gains tax" which would allow for all of the people taking part in such scandals as Enron and the like to at least have some of the money the made by screwing over investors go into the tax pool, rather than them getting away with a much larger amount.

And perhaps it would be worth noting that as the rich are the ones who received the most benefit from Bush's tax cuts, it's easily imagined that you could maintain those tax cuts for the poorer groups, while increasing it for those way way way above...

Thank god, finally, someone who thinks the way I do... *ahem*sensible*ahem*... I've been very lonely in this thread, Dis... come 'round more often, k?

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

Is Dick Cheney near street-poverty? Because he's the only one *I* saw benefitting from the tax cuts. My best friend isn't well-off... like, welfare not well off. Her mom shared with me what the Bush tax cuts did to help the family financial situation.

JACK SHIT!!!!

The Bush tax cuts only helped those in the upper-tax brackets.


Battery: It has been proven that Saddam had no intentions towards building up arms agains the United States- he was going after Iran and Israel. Iran and Israel. Come on, you read my post, absorb.[/u][/i]

Well actually I have to disagree.

I recived a separate check for $400.00 last year because of the Bush tax cuts. I am a single mom and I am also on Welfare. $400 goes a long friggin way towards paying my bills and helping to support my son. The additional money on my Earned Income Credit also helped IMMENSELY.



As far as it being "PROVEN" that Sadaam had NO intentions towrds EVER launching an offensive against the U.S. I would love to see what you base that assertion on. Unless your a mind reader there is no way ANYONE could ever say " Nah, Sadaam wasn't ever coming after us."

There is simply no way to know.

And guys like Sadaam don't come after us DIRECTLY, that would be stupid. No, guys like Sadaam just fork over large chunks of cash to OTHER guys who for example might decide to hijack a major airliner and fly it into a national landmark full of our countrymen.

These guys don't make a habit of attacking a country that can spank them in a military conflict overtly. Sneakily and quietly is their favorite way to do things.

My personal theory on the war in Iraq is this. And I am sure someone on here will disagree, but I do believe this to be true in my own perception.

After 911, the terrorist networks of the world saw FIRSTHAND that we were in fact vulnerable and an easier target then anyone ever thought possible.

When Sadaam REFUSED repeatedly to allow our inspectors into Iraq, and REPEATEDLY refused to comply with the requests for entry to their various scientific and military facilities, George Bush was faced with a choice.

Either we look like complete pussies to the rest of the world, and RE-AFFIRM that we had NO BALLS as a nation after 911, OR we show the world and the millions of terrorists in it, that you better think twice before you start fucking with the U.S.

Plain and simple..

Look at a pack of stray dogs. The biggest, meanest and toughest dog gets the respect and the choice cuts of scraps..

I am not saying we should not ever "play nice", but I AM saying that when "playing nice" fails over and over and over we have a responsiblity to show the world and our ENEMIES that we won't take any shit, and there is going to be flaming hell to pay if you threaten us.

911 changed EVERYTHING.

I firmly believe that the offensive in Iraq is going to give our enemies some sort of "pause" before they decide to hijack another plane and try and bite off another big piece of " US ASS".

If you are the wimpy little guy on the playground that cries everytime you get your lunch money stolen by the bigger guys, then you are going to continue to be a victim day after day after day. Until you stand up, take a fucking stand and say :

" NO MORE!! "


George Bush stood up and said, " NO MORE " and while I may not completely agree with the way it was presented to us as a nation, I also don't wanna be the little bitch on the playground getting my ass stomped for my lunch money either.

/ end rant

On the issues…a thing which has been steaming me for more than a year is all this talk about health care reform, and the award cap on malpractice suits.

My mind just can’t wrap around the idea of how penalizing the very people who are hurt, and awarding the people who are doing the hurting, is better for us.

This is going to get us cheaper drugs, it’s going to get us a better rate on insurance, and it’s going to improve the existing health providers level of performance?

Just how in the hell is it going to do all that?

And, correct me if I am wrong, but these cases that go to court and are awarded monies…are they not presided over by a group of peers? Does a judge not sit in attendance? Don’t both sides make their case, and a group of 12 people ultimately decides who was wrong, who was right, and by what degree damages are paid?

If all that is correct, if all that happens in a medical malpractice case, then aren’t we, by placing a cap on the amount a jury can award, taking power away from the people and putting it in the hands of…dare I say it?

Big business?

And 250,000 dollars? That’s it? Nothing more? So, if you are twenty five, make 50 (just an average) thousand a year, and die as the direct result of medical negligence or malpractice, your family can expect a prompt payment of 250 large. That’s all your worth, just that and nothing more. Doesn’t matter that over the course of your life (had you not received any raises or made any investments, which is common for most people to do) you would have made 1,750,000 dollars, which the medical industry is directly responsible for the family not receiving, but are only obligated to pay them 1/7th of any potential life’s earnings.

And before anyone goes making a case about the lawsuits where people sue McDonald’s because they are fat, or because they were served hot coffee, and how absurd juries are for awarding those people monies…shut the fuck up and stay on topic.

That’s a discussion for Tort reform, which yes does over lap the medical awards cap, but is not directly related to the purposed 250,000 dollar cap.

Anyone else who has ideas or reasons why this is a good thing, please speak up.

Because I really want to know.


Now, on to other matters.

I think it was the sophist Protagoras who put forth the idea that knowledge is perception, which was what he was alluding to in, “Man is the measure of all things” opus. Now, it seems to me that perception is only the begening of knowledge, and not the final destination or the definition of knowledge. Perception leads you down the path to knowledge, where once you knew not a thing, now you perceive it, and then you can go out and understand it.

This election, and so many others, hinge upon the precept of Protagoras, and they want perception to equal knowledge. If they say a thing is true, then that thing must be true, which I think is what Secretboy was talking about when he made mention of the opposition saying a thing often enough, loud enough, and with enough vehemence until it becomes our perception, which becomes our knowledge.

But that’s not real knowledge. Knowledge is something one earns in thought and with study, which does not occur if someone takes knowledge from another with out thinking about it, researching it, and putting it to test.

When that happens you do nothing but pass lies.

Reductio ad absurdum people. Go beyond the perceptions people, go beyond.

Later, a rant on welfare reform may ensue; it all depends on how ER turns out.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Tea,
Like I said. Weigh the evidence we had. Saddam was decieving weapons inspectors and we believed he was in pursuit of a WMD program, which he was. We were wrong in knowing what stage he was at.

Iraqi Intellegence officals have met with Al-Quaeda operatives. Al-Quaeda's two major targets are Saudi Arabia and the United States. Saddam has a reputation of being highly anti-American.

It's no secret that Saddam funded and supported terrorists in the past. He has also used biological warfare against his enemies.

If he had the capability of producing a WMD, he could have very well sold it to a terrorist organization such as Al-Quaeda, who has been linked with his regime. If they got their hands on it, it's very likely they would have planned to detonate it inside the U.S.

That's the risk everyone here saw in 2003. It's also why we acted immediately.

[HerGhostInTheFog]

i've watched the presidential debut and the vice presidential debut....
I think Kerry did a better job then Bush did..... not only because he maid better statements, but because Bush seems a little dumb.... or at least horribly bad at public announcements, I think it was really funny when Kerry said that 9/11 had nothing to do with Sadam, and Bush quickly. and perhaps nervously, said "well, i know that" Bush would let the "flip flopping" thing go. :roll:
personally, i think they are both acting like little children....
i could criticize Kerry, but im lazy... i also like Kerry more..... yup, that's a dumb reason, but thats how it is.
Although Dick is the devil, i think he beat Edwards, unfortunately. Edwards needs Kerry, or perhaps he, like Bush, is bad at public speaking.
Edwards couldnt stop saying somthing like "we know how to do the job better" or "we c ould've done better" or somthing like that.... he hardly had any explanation of how other than to criticize Bush... :roll:

I STILL SAY KERRY! pro abortion, pro gays.... wonderful!
if there's a god, he sent kerry..... i wonder if that makes any sense

[TeapotScar]

Bat:

I see the argument to go to war, but you have to see that there is an argument against.

God, I'm tempted to just say "We went to war, fuck it," but I want to make you see where I'm coming from.

We didn't have enough global support to launch a war. Too many of the European super-powers were against our involvement in Iraq. Also, information on the weapons program was still in the process of being gathered when the U.S. just jumped right into war.

We did *not* exhaust the method of diplomacy, and we could have tried a little harder.

Al Quaeda is *not* linked to Iraq. http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunhera...ws/6176302.htm

The U.N. terrorism committee has found no evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaida and did not investigate Bush administration claims of such ties

I would have supported a war against Saddam that was supported by the people of the world. This war was not.

It was not a good idea to show off how Bush makes hot-headed decisions. We didn't need France and Germany and, God, so many other countries to look at us and say "I hate Americans." Isn't there already enough anti-American sentiment in the middle east? We don't need it spread to Europe.

Since the war on Iraq, there has been *way* more anti-American sentiment, globally. In the wake of the 9/11 events, I don't think that's something we need to encourage, as a country.

Also, America was not prepared to solely deal with the responsibility that comes with re-building a country. We are in deficit, we don't have enough troops, and things are going *crazy* in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I supported the war on Afghanistan, but we needed to finish rebuilding it before we took on another country-reconstruction. Did you know that more people registered to vote that are eligible to vote? Voter turn-out in Afghanistan's going to be great this year...that'll be a real fair election (just like the one in 2000 *cough*).

The thing is, we aren't doing a good job of reconstruction. American troops are dying, Iraqi civilians are dying, and it's just a mess. If we had waited for the UN's support, Iraq would have more reconstruction resources availible, and maybe the country wouldn't be as fucked up as it is now.

Not to mention there's no way we're funding this re-construction... *deficit* *deficit* *deficit*

[.BatteryPoison.]

Woh, woh, woh!
Kerry is not pro-gay. Edwards is not pro-gay. Cheney is pro-gay. Bush isn't.

As far as Kerry goes, I wouldn't feel so uncomfortable with him running as long as he had a running mate of substance. I just can NOT entertain the idea of Edwards taking over the Presidency if need be. The idea that Edwards may have to one day take his counrt-room "tough talk" to Tehran or North Korea makes me question just how seriously other courntries are going to take us. Iran is already turning their nose up at Kerry's proposed policy towards supplying nuclear fuel to them now. I can't imagine these senior government officals sitting down and seriously listening to Edwards' bullshit.

[HerGhostInTheFog]

Originally Posted by .BatteryPoison.

Woh, woh, woh!
Kerry is not pro-gay. Edwards is not pro-gay. Cheney is pro-gay. Bush isn't.

As far as Kerry goes, I wouldn't feel so uncomfortable with him running as long as he had a running mate of substance. I just can NOT entertain the idea of Edwards taking over the Presidency if need be. The idea that Edwards may have to one day take his counrt-room "tough talk" to Tehran or North Korea makes me question just how seriously other courntries are going to take us. Iran is already turning their nose up at Kerry's proposed policy towards supplying nuclear fuel to them now. I can't imagine these senior government officals sitting down and seriously listening to Edwards' bullshit.

sorry.... i was washing the dishes while listening... i thoughts it was edwards who said he was pro-gay.....
oops...
cheney? REALLY? pro-gay? are you sure?
i sure as hell thought i saw Edwards (no, not Kerry) say he thought it was thier own choice to marry, especially if they were a couple for a long time.....
if i really am wrong, sorry...

[TearsOfHatred]

Kerry, i may not be on base with everything going on in poltics but i sure as hell dont want the war to continue cuz im anti war, and i want a president who isnt a dumass, and who doesnt think the middle initial in his name is spelt DubbYa

[.BatteryPoison.]

What they're talking about is that no one has produced evidence to show a "collaborative operational relationship" between Al-Quaeda and Iraq. That still doesn't nullify the fact that Bin Laden, himself, met with Iraqi Intellegence and that one intellegence offical was arrested on the Afghan border while pursuing an effort to contact members of Al-Quaeda. Powell also made it clear that communications were active between Iraqi Intellegence and Al-Quaeda via the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan. Not to mention also Abbas al-Janabi's testimony to the U.S. that Iraq and Al-Quaeda had a working relationship.

There are links connecting the two all over the place. Which is all I'm saying. Links between the two. Proving they actually operated together is a whole nother story.

Originally Posted by HerGhostInTheFog

sorry.... i was washing the dishes while listening... i thoughts it was edwards who said he was pro-gay.....
oops...
cheney? REALLY? pro-gay? are you sure?
i sure as hell thought i saw Edwards (no, not Kerry) say he thought it was thier own choice to marry, especially if they were a couple for a long time.....
if i really am wrong, sorry...

Yeah. Cheney's daughter is actually a lesbian and he publicly supports her. "Freedom means freedom for everyone," Is his line. I thought it was very cool that Cheney didn't counter-argue Edwards on the issue at all. He just said "Thank you for complimenting me and my family," and that was the end of his counterstatement. Shows that the man puts his family before politics.

Edwards doesn't support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but he still says that Kerry and himself both believe that marriage is defined as a relationship between only a man and a woman.

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by TearsOfHatred

Kerry, i may not be on base with everything going on in poltics but i sure as hell dont want the war to continue cuz im anti war, and i want a president who isnt a dumass, and who doesnt think the middle initial in his name is spelt DubbYa

If you're going to contribute to the conversation, don't contribute the competely obvious, contribute something *intelligent*. Also, read the above posts and say something in reference to them.

To sum it up, have common sense. Fucking newb.

[HerGhostInTheFog]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

If you're going to contribute to the conversation, don't contribute the competely obvious, contribute something *intelligent*. Also, read the above posts and say something in reference to them.

To sum it up, have common sense. Fucking newb.

i dont make fun of newbies because they're new..... it's cause they dont know whats going on

by the way no matter who wins, the war will continue correct?
i've researced this shit, besides, i dont think we can go into a country, fuck it up, and leave without at least re-building some things and giving free food or whatever we need to pay back, especially since we claim to be "helping" them
i dont really care if we help with democracy over there, as long as we un do some of our fuck-ups.
we cant just leave, unfortunately, even i know this....
we're in too deep :cry:

correct me if i am wrong, batterpoison

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

Bat:

I see the argument to go to war, but you have to see that there is an argument against.

We didn't have enough global support to launch a war. Too many of the European super-powers were against our involvement in Iraq. Also, information on the weapons program was still in the process of being gathered when the U.S. just jumped right into war.

And this is where the true Machiavellian concept comes into play. Iraq has been on the radar for long and long, Clinton wasn’t able to get us in there even after the Trade Center bombing, but we had enough momentum behind 9/11 (and this is one of the few links you can connect together between that and our invasion) to lock American support into an armed response.

Most people need a banner to go to war, and not just any banner, but a damn spiffy one with gold trim, yards of silk, and an eagle truk atop.

The banner of all banners.

Now, I don’t have a problem with machivavellian as long as it meets my own agenda, I think I’ve said this before, and I don’t think Kerry had a problem with it, I know Bush didn’t have a problem with it, but it does make for fine campaign fodder.

The bottom line is it wouldn’t have mattered if there were WMD’s or weren’t WMD’s, we wanted him, we got him, and now we have to work on repairing the damage of what we did. Bush is a fine scapegoat for that end, Kerry is likeable enough and capitulates enough to achieve what we need in the global community, and so it’s time for a changing of the guard.

The above only deals with the international agenda, on the home front (again I said this before) Bush is too close to too much power. Too close to effecting permanent change, in especially in favor of the fanatic Christian front, Corporate America front, and of course there is that pesky Patriot Act thingy floating around the floor still.

So don’t concentrate too much on whether WMD’s were there or weren’t, wasn’t really an issue (except to those who morally oppose war) until the campaign trail, and then it’s only so much smoke and mirrors.

It’s a positive spin on the Gulf of Tonkin, and it looks like we’ve learned a bit since then. Yay, go us.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by HerGhostInTheFog

by the way no matter who wins, the war will continue correct?
i've researced this shit, besides, i dont think we can go into a country, fuck it up, and leave without at least re-building some things and giving free food or whatever we need to pay back, especially since we claim to be "helping" them
i dont really care if we help with democracy over there, as long as we un do some of our fuck-ups.
we cant just leave, unfortunately, even i know this....
we're in too deep :cry:

correct me if i am wrong, batterpoison

Yep. That's about the jist of it. Kerry and Bush have the same stance on following through with stabalizing Iraq. The only difference is that Kerry has said things like "I'll start withdrawing troops within 6 months of my taking office," which durring the Debates we learned had an asterisk on the end of it. Kerry clarified on his remarks by saying what he really meant is that he would withdraw troops within that time-frame, provided things go his way. Other than that, his plan mirrors the Bush plan, except he seems to think he can speed up the process.

Both approach the withdraw from Iraq as training Iraqis to fight the terrorist and insurgency themselves so they can stabalize their own country without our military needing to be there. Although I have a good feeling our military, like in Afghanistan, are going to be there until some of the top terrorists in those countries have been brought to justice.