Presidental Election 2004

Re: Presidental Election 2004

It would be nice if we could come to a point (note I didn't say "return to a time," because I'm not sure that time ever existed) where it's common practice to disagree with someone without saying that he's "evil." Neither candidate is "evil." Neither party is "evil." They both want to do the right thing from their own points of view.

Respectful disagreement . . . where has it gone? Was it ever here?
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

Bush seems to be neither really dumb nor really smart...his SATs were around 1250--good, but not "presidential" and his gpa at Yale was something around a 2.3. Interestingly, people think his public speaking ability is getting worse and that he may have some sort of degenerative problem but I think that's not true. Also, Bush apparently wasn't terribly motivated to work either so his low GPA is likely attributed to that as well, but I think Kerry is almost definitely much smarter than Bush. All the same, I think some of Bush's assistants are BRILLIANT (though I disagree with their politics completely). There's a lot of intelligence in the Bush administration, though not a lot of it is to be found in Mr. Bush.

I also don't think it's true that a lot of young people say not to vote for Bush because he's dumb. Bush is messing with social security pretty badly, and (as I'm pretty young), that's really going to screw me over in the future. Tapping oil reserves in Alaska? They won't be there when my generation needs them... Not doing anything about the environment or alternative sources of energy? That's going to hurt us pretty badly in the future, too. I'm not convinced either candidate could mend our relationship with the middle-east, but Bush seems to be making it worse, and that could potentially have very serious implications down the road.

I'm from MA and Kerry seems like a good guy and he's done a good job as a Senator. I don't think either candidate is being totally honest since both want to appeal to the center of the political spectrum, so it's hard to say exactly what each will be like in office. (Though Bush would probably be like he is now, but more conservative since he wouldn't have to worry about re-election.)

There are those who would benefit from Bush being elected president, and there are those who would benifit from Kerry being elected. I'd benefit from Kerry being elected (so far as I can tell), and I believe the majority of middle class Americans would as well. That's just my opinion, of course, but the reason I'm voting for Kerry isn't because Bush is "dumb" but because I trust my future--and the country's future--more in Kerry's hands.
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

Regarding the two parties, it's a shame that we limit ourselves to two different peas from the same pod, no? And by different, I mean on issues, not in character.

And I must say that I am enthralled that by putting up this poll, we've gotten much more tame (or are the non-tame people just on vacation?) since the Michael Moore board from a few months back. We need informed, honest, and civil debate, and I'm looking at you Bush and Kerry.
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

A SENIOR CITIZEN AGAINST BUSH!!

I am a senior citizen.

During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good
and well paying job.

I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes.

Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire
life change for the worse.

I lost my job.

I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.

I lost my homes.

I lost my health insurance.

As a matter of fact I lost virtually everything and became homeless.

Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me.

I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that
a Democrat is back in the White House come next year.

Bush has to go.

Sincerely,

Saddam Hussein
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

Though I disagree with the message of that post 100%, it's pretty clever.

Still, was Saddam Hussein worth so many lives and so many billions of dollars?

No.

The oil might have been, though....
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

WTF i made this EXACT same post here last week and everybody was giving me Sh*t about it...
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

david iwas being ironic with the Evil statement.... i was refering to the people who take a VERY strong stance against bush.

ok maybe im too subtle.....
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

"I also don't think it's true that a lot of young people say not to vote for Bush because he's dumb. Bush is messing with social security pretty badly, and (as I'm pretty young), that's really going to screw me over in the future." -policar


well ithink thats what they mean, just in a nutshell. like not neccesarily dumb interms of intelligence, but interms of poor choices. I should have been more clear.
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

[quote author=Policar link=board=Offtopic;num=1095617363;start=15#24 date=09/19/04 at 21:15:58]

Still, was Saddam Hussein worth so many lives and so many billions of dollars?

No.

The oil might have been, though....[/quote]

The tortured people of Iraq are worth money, blood, sweat and tears...and far more. The lost lives of 3,000 innocent Americans very much is as well. Don't see an Iraqi-Al-Queda connection? I've said it before, I'll say it again: If not, why are Al-Queda operatives taking American and Allied force hostages, demanding we exit Iraq? Terrorists want an America/Allied-free Iraq for a reason!

As Americans (many, simple as a birthright), living is the most prosperous country in the world, we have a responsibility to the rest of the world as human beings. I believe ignoring tyranny is selfish and ignorant.
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

If you just watch ads on TV you'll really getting a distorted view. Go to www.factcheck.org to get a non-partisan view of the political ads. "Dey calls em' likes dey sees 'em."

I'm thinking Kerry because I'm disappointed in Bush. He had me with his handling of the Afganistan War, but I don't think the Iraq War was a good move for a number of reasons. Also, the deficit is starting to worry me and Bush has yet to wield the "Veto" pen. I thought conservatives were supposed to be fiscal conservatives. I like Kerry's plan to lose the tax cuts for the wealthy and ditch incentives to move jobs overseas. I'm a realist about the world economy, but I think outsourcing needs to be moderated so it doesn't trash the middle class. (And if I were president, I'd go after companies who form offshore shell companies just to avoid paying taxes. Hey, I can't do that, so why should they?)

Do I think Bush is "dumb"? No, I think he's got some animal cunning and is a clever politcial operator. I think he lacks intellectual curiosity which hurts him in seeing new ways of handling issues.

Take care all and get out there and vote.

Scott
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

Natob2,

I wasn't going to get into specifics, but I have to address your comments.

The tortured people of Iraq are worth money, blood, sweat and tears...and far more.
Click to expand...

There's injustice around the world (take a look in the Sudan) and that may well be a good reason, but those were not the reason the war was sold to the US public.

The lost lives of 3,000 innocent Americans very much is as well. Don't see an Iraqi-Al-Queda connection? I've said it before, I'll say it again: If not, why are Al-Queda operatives taking American and Allied force hostages, demanding we exit Iraq? Terrorists want an America/Allied-free Iraq for a reason!
Click to expand...

I've read the 9/11 Commission Report and other sources and there is NO link between Saddam and Al Qaeda in relation to the 9/11 attacks. (see page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report.)

Now, I won't say there are no terrorist in Iraq now, but that's after the war had made the borders pourous. That's a result of the war, not a cause. Of course there's a reason there are terrorist in Iraq now, they don't have to cross an ocean to kill Americans and they have some truely preverted religous reasons.

As Americans (many, simple as a birthright), living is the most prosperous country in the world, we have a responsibility to the rest of the world as human beings. I believe ignoring tyranny is selfish and ignorant.
Click to expand...

Again, I'll say why aren't we in the Sudan? How about North Korea? They have nukes and have threatened to use them. Oh, and the government is straving the people by the tens of thousands.

I might have had more support for the Iraq War had there been no 9/11, but after that we already had a war, the war on terrorism. Iraq had no WMDs. There was no link to 9/11. The post war was badly handled. Osama Bin Laden is still running around and Bush says it doesn't matter anymore that the mastermind of the killing those 3000 americans is still free.

I'm sorry. I hope I haven't opened the flood gates, but I had to voice my opinion to these comments.

Take care,

Scott
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

I have a funny feeling bin laden will be "caught" right before the election........ not to say its a conspiracy or anything...... but i did notice a sudden interest in him again, ex. A special on him on Discovery channel a few nights ago, and on CNN MSNBC etc. we seem to keep catching his 2nd in command, or right hand man and he gives us vital information to binladens whereabouts. idunno, he became a symbol of what we fight against.

And when did bush say binladen wasn't imortant anymore? I heard that somewhere, but i never saw the actual speech or statement. What context was it in?
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

[quote author=Scott_Spears link=board=Offtopic;num=1095617363;start=30#30 date=09/19/04 at 22:07:59]

I've read the 9/11 Commission Report and other sources and there is NO link between Saddam and Al Qaeda in relation to the 9/11 attacks.  (see page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report.)

Now, I won't say there are no terrorist in Iraq now, but that's after the war had made the borders pourous.  That's a result of the war, not a cause.  Of course there's a reason there are terrorist in Iraq now, they don't have to cross an ocean to kill Americans and they have some truely preverted religous reasons.

[/quote]

At this point there is no resolve in arguing over causation. The point is that there are terrorist now. I'm terrified by a potential candidate saying we need to be more sensitive to terrorists.


This is still a friendly conversation/argument!!!!
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

[quote author=Dan_Lahav link=board=Offtopic;num=1095617363;start=15#25 date=09/19/04 at 21:27:42]WTF i made this EXACT same post here last week and everybody was giving me Sh*t about it... [/quote]

But Dan, you ASKED that your thread be locked . . .
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

Natob2,

First, this is a friendly discussion. We can agree to disgree and not want to kill each other. I don't think either Bush or Kerry are bad or power mad, but they have different plans for the US and we will vote for who we think has the best plan. Hey, that's why our democracy, ugly as it is, is still better than most other forms of government.

Ok, on to your comments. Yes there are terrorist in Iraq now. No doubt about it, but you have to ask what caused them to be there, natural progression or because the instablity caused by the war? Natural progress means you think that Saddam would have formed a pack with Al Qeada, but there's no evidence that was in the works, so you have to say the war and the now open borders have allowed terrorist to pour into Iraq. I think that Bush, by going to war in Iraq, has taken his eyes off the ball in the war on terrorism and has made the world less safe. Our standing in the world has plummeted. You may say we're the big dog on the block, so who cares, but we live in an world economy and are connected through laws and pacts. If the other countries don't like or trust us, it hurts our ability to get things done on the world scene. Things like form agreements to hunt down terrorist.

I have to address this "sensitive" comment. That's straight from Dick Cheney. I don't debate that Kerry made the statement that we need to run a more sensitive war on terrorism which may have sounded dumb when you're running for president, but it's a naunced stance. What Kerry was saying is that we have to be careful not to piss off the entire world of Islam by blowing up their sacred sites. (I think at that time we were dealing with the Najaf standoff and the Temple there.) In the same day that he dinged Kerry for saying "sensitive", Cheney said the same thing in another speach. He said we need to be sensitive to the Islam religion in fighting this war.

If you want to pick on Bush talking and not thinking, he told Matt Lauer on the Today show that we could not win the war on terrorism. I saw it repeated over and over again. I believe that Bush was being candid and honest because there's no way to win or totally eliminate people who will want to hurt the US using terrorism unless we want to kill every Muslim (over 1 billion). Bush was being truthful and naunced, but it seems that society doesn't want to think. Just want one liners.

What I'm saying, is dig deeper and see the big picture and not just politcial digs through one liners. National and world politics are more complex than one line.

Take care,

Scott
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

I have to point something out, though, Scott, on the subject of "digging deeper."

The 9/11 Commission did not say there was no evidence of any contacts/relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda; they limited that statement to the events of 9/11 only and specifically declined, when asked, to extend it further.

And, one way or the other, I'd rather have terrorists attacking our Bradley fighting vehicles in Iraq than blowing up rides at Disney World. If Iraq is a "distraction" for us, so, too, is it for them.
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

David,

You are somewhat correct. Here's the direct quote from page 66 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaberative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

We know there were contacts, but nothing came of them. The US government probably had more contact with Al Qaeda or future members than Saddam through the USSR vs. Afganistan War. The US was a big supporter of Saddam in his war against Iran. We most likely supplied Saddam with the gas he used on his own people.

Regarding attacks on Bradly Fight vehicles, I'd rather see them not there at all. With no WMDs or links to 9/11 we don't have a good reason to be there. Some will say regieme change, but now's not the time. We were attacked by terrorist, not Iraq so I'd rather see us focusing like a laser beam on nailing Al Qaeda and other terrorist around the world and not wasting lives, money and time in Iraq.

Take care,

Scott
 
Re: Presidental Election 2004

[quote author=natob2 link=board=Offtopic;num=1095617363;start=30#33 date=09/20/04 at 06:15:09] I'm terrified by a potential candidate saying we need to be more sensitive to terrorists.  
[/quote]

I'm thinking that did not mean taking them them out for a drink and rubbing their shoulders. That sound bite was meant to approach the matter of terrorist's delicatley and not SHOCK AND AWE and HELL BE DAMNED what happens. The fact is, these so called TERRORIST mean business and we need to treat them as such and not underestimate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top