quote:"Peace and freedom depend upon this election. Prosperity for the people depend upon this election," Bush said while wrapping up a campaign stop with about 1,200 supporters in Niles, in the southwest corner of Michigan.
I resent the implication that *any* of our currently elected officials -- Democrat or Republican -- would do anything to knowingly endanger the freedom of the American people. I also resent the implication that there is only one road to peace and to prosperity.
Bush sure doesn't have a monopoly on peace (hmm...he DID start a war), freedom (Patriot Act, anyone?), or prosperity (job losses, recessions...we'll see about the job reports coming up, but it hasn't been great thus far). *Honestly* now.
I've had it up to *here* with this guy misleading people.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think he's talking about unintentionally endangering freedom - as in having mistaken policies.
And for what it's worth, I think he's right on this one. Peace and freedom DOES depend on the outcome of this election - just not in the way I suspect he thinks. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you, Kasie H... From what I've read of about Bush... I don't think having a second year of him would be a good idea.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see how what he said is misleading. Many people on both sides agree with that quote.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also love it when people lay all the blame of the war on Bush. I don't like the man personally, but Congress voted to go to war as well. The entire government was behind it. I just think it's funny that people keep using him as a scapegoat.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad I'm not the only one who shudders at the thought of 4 more years of Republican rule (both in the Executive and Legislative branches). This isn't just partisan bashing (though I'll admit that I don't agree with their vies), but I don't think that there should be the same party in both branches (and definitely not in all 3).
quote: "I'm the kind of fellow that when I say something I mean it."
Heh, I like that line, especially when he start using his own words. I may have to start taking up that saying of his.
Personally, I kinda wish Colin Powell would have run for Pres. I'd have voted for him (well, except for his remarks made in India that "they" (I'm assuming the administration) would try to keep jobs coming to them).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many positions in the government change with the new President? All the secretaries of everything are new with each administration, is that right?
Posts: 377 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slacker, Powell won't run. His wife said she would leave him for fear of him being assasinated by some white supremacist wacko. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my understanding (it may be flawed), but basically anyone with an important title of the opposite party is tossed out on their ear.
I don't agree with a lot of things Bush has said, although I dislike him less than I used to. I think he's a genuinely good person, but, for the most part, the people surrounding him are machiavellian (which isn't always a bad thing, in this case it is).
I personally like republicans. I just hate the national republican party. I don't like the way the party leadership has taken the party, but the only politicians I like are in the republican party (or were, namely Jim Jeffords, my senior senator). The other two I'm thinking of specifically are John McCain (why didn't he beat Bush in 2000? Was the GOP on crack?) who's the coolest politician on the planet, and Jim Douglas, our state governor.
posted
Kasie-- in addition to the war in Iraq, you may also thank your Congressman for the Patriot Act.
Couldn't have gone through without fervent backing by the Dems. . .
As far as Bush's responsability for the recession-- you do realize that the recession was short lived, and not terrible, and that we're coming out of it? That's why interest rates are going up-- because the recession is over.
As has been pointed out before, the president, generally, can do very little to strong arm the economy into health or depression. I agree that some of his fiscal policies (I'm extremely wary of his tax cuts, and the extra child tax credit) have been irresponsible-- especially with the war in Iraq-- but if you're going to lay the blame for the short, relatively harmless recession that was coming anyway due to overvaluation on Bush II, then you'd need to lay the recovery at his feet as well.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also love it when people lay all the blame of the war on Bush. I don't like the man personally, but Congress voted to go to war as well. The entire government was behind it.
Bush is an idiot who started a war that will not end. The Democrats are spineless morons who were afraid to stand up to him. I hate them all.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
VW-- "Bush started the war that will not end. . ."
Wait-- are we talking about the war in Iraq, or the war on terror?
It's barely been a year since the start of the war in Iraq. One year. Can you see how blind the assertion that this war is going to continue forever is, in light of that fact?
Now, if you're talking about the war on terror, I don't recall Bush STARTING that one at all. If this is what you mean to say, can you explain yourself?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Trying to eliminate Saddam would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. There was no viable exit strategy we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that one hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in the bitterly hostile land.
What is our exit strategy? What is Bush's plan for keeping the various ethnic and religious factions in check?
Yes, it has only been a year since the war started. Perhaps if the President had any credibility left, you could make the argument that we should give him more time to prove himself. But after the WMD debacle the burden of proof is firmly on the Bush administration and not on his detractors.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I love to play the blame game as much as the next guy, I'm fairly certain that proving culpability in the WMD affair will NOT matter the least in how long the war in Iraq lasts.
Will Bush's indictment and imprisonment and even execution for waging an illegal war against Iraq make our troops there unnecessary? Or international military presence unnecessary? Not hardly. Not even if it was shown that Bush rented a three story condo inside Haliburton's pockets.
And so, villify Bush all you want for the war in Iraq-- it may even be merited. But Iraq merits our attention and military presence more today than it did at the start of this war.
[ May 04, 2004, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be silly Scott. Haliburton can afford much better than three-story condos.
Let's recap our short conversation here.
quote:Me: Bush started a war that will not end.
You: It has only been one year. Do not blindly asserted that the war will not end.
Me: Bush has yet to articulate a viable exit strategy. I cannot go on faith based on the man's lack of credibility.
You: Iraq needs our military attention today more than ever.
Your first and last post are somewhat contradictory. First you argue I am wrong to assume this will be another Vietnam. Then you argue Iraq needs our supervision more than ever. Well, doesn't Iraq's need of supervision support my argument that it will be extremely difficult to extricate ourselves from Iraq?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually agree with your argument that we need to stay as long as it takes to make Iraq a viable democracy. Just because Bush mislead Americans into starting a war does not mean Americans are not responsible for Iraq.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Planning for the aftermath of the invasion should have had more depth, and garnering international support should have been a higher priority for the Bush camp. The first offense, not adequately preparing for post-invasion, is inexcusable.
That said, I don't think the war is interminable. I don't have enough evidence or history to make that sort of judgement. I know that I don't like hearing about roadside bombings-- but from what I hear from personal reports from the front lines, America is kept in the dark about the vast majority of military victories we're accruing in Iraq.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kinda sticks in MY craw about his tour yesterday (I think this was yesterday) is that WE.... the TAX PAYERS, got billed for his stumping because this was billed as a White House event. He should take his OWN damn money to stump and campaign. Not our money thats supposed to go towards RUNNING the Gov't.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bush is an idiot who started a war that will not end. The Democrats are spineless morons who were afraid to stand up to him. I hate them all.
Are you democrat? You must also be a spineless moron then.
Seriously, abandon your stupid party loyalty and vote for who you think will do the most good for this country.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an Onion article when Bush took office that had him giving a speech "Finally! The long nightmare of peace and prosperity is over!" In it he talked about how the economy would be trashed and he guaranteed before the year was out we would "mix it up with somebody". I wonder if that article is still extant, or if anyone saved a copy, and just how prescient it was? <laughs> I remember when I read it laughing at how true it rang. Does anyone else remember that?
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, I don't think the war is interminable. I don't have enough evidence or history to make that sort of judgement.
That is a perfectly acceptable answer Scott, and on this point we just have to agree to disagree. As you pointed out, Bush did not do a good job of planning the Iraq occupation or garnering international support. Given his fumbles on these two fronts, you must excuse my lack of faith that he would be able to safely pull us out of Iraq in the foreseeable future.
Nick, I am an independnet, in case you missed the fact that my post criticized both Bush and the Democrats.
In my opinion, I don't know how Republicans can continue to support Bush. His defecit spending and inept military planning seems to negate two of the main principles of Republican doctrine.
posted
We in Missouri are getting a lot of T.V. ads for the election.
The Majority of the President Bush ads have been attacking John Kerry, saying "He voted this way on this bill so he must be soft on the Military."
The Majority of the John Kerry ads have been promoting John Kerry, saying "John Kerry did this and that and he plans on doing this and that."
I find the attack ads of President Bush to be low and slimy, while John Kerry's ads are more factual.
Although this tactic may be because there are already plenty of people attacking President Bush, I must say I approve of Kerry's ads.
A similar situation happened in Missouri last week.
Vice President Cheney asked to come to Westminster College to give a "Foriegn Policy Statement." Ever since Winston Churchill coined the phrase "Iron Curtain" at a speech in Westminster College, the school has been a top place from which major foriegn policy announcements are made. The president of the University readilly agreed.
Instead of announcing some major foriegn policy initiative, Vice President Cheney used the forum to attack Mr. Kerry .
This purly political attack so upset the school administration that they asked Mr. Kerry to give a speech.
Did Mr. Kerry come in and attack President Bush? Only secondly. His first priority was to calmly put forward his own views on Iraq . He made the foriegn policy speech that Mr. Cheney had promised to make.
Basically, Mr. Kerry's campaign is coming off looking classier and more polite than President Bush's.
I'm not sure if this is a winning strategy, but it is getting my approval.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity endorse Bush and think all is well--well, it least all would be well of those darn dems would move over. He must be a good guy who we should vote for. Debate over.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grrrrr.... Scott, now people think I'm a weirdo HP fan randomly inserting Hogwarts references!
I respect your choice to vote for Bush based on his social policies. I do not agree with them, but at least Bush's social platform is consistent with traditional Republican ideals.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the point of voting purely on the basis of whether or not a politician is pro-life or pro-choice?
What a monumental waste.
If Bush was for homosexual equality I still would not vote for the man BASED ON HIS FIRST FOUR YEARS IN OFFICE.
Sheesh. If you WANT the world to change increasingly in the directions that it has been changing since President Bush took office, then you should vote for him. If you think foreign policy and/or domestic policy are in shambles and you are greatly disturbed by the thought of four more years of the same political philosophy holding the most power in the world, then you should vote against him.
I will never cease to be amazed at conservatives who use the pragmatic act of voting to express their social views, whether or not those views are relevant to the office being contested.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
JK- it's naive to promote the idea that the office of the president doesn't legislate.
In any case-- Kerry represents a worldview that supports murders of convenience. Would YOU support someone who had all the economic qualifications, all the military qualifications, was genuine, personable, and had international support BUT also supported pederasty?
There are some things in my philosophy that are deal breakers-- support of abortion is one of them. If Roe vs. Wade ever comes up to be removed, I want someone in office who won't veto its removal.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing, Bush is a terrible canidate to support on the basis that he's bought back, or at least has emphasised this attitude that we DON'T need. This us vs them mentality. He's alienated most of Europe, his tactics towards Iraq have angered a great deal of the middle east. His economic policies are ridiculous, views towards homosexuals, do we really need a marriage amendment? I cannot stress how much Bush's policies frustrate me. I do not want that man representing me, plain and simple... But it's hard to sound articulate and express this correctly... *frustrated*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What kinda sticks in MY craw about his tour yesterday (I think this was yesterday) is that WE.... the TAX PAYERS, got billed for his stumping because this was billed as a White House event. He should take his OWN damn money to stump and campaign. Not our money thats supposed to go towards RUNNING the Gov't.
Bookwyrm -- this (using taxpayer money during campaigning) is as old as the history of the office itself. I could have complained of exactly the same thing back when Clinton was running, seeing as how I was no friend of Clintons' camp. Are you just now getting old enough to realize that every (current) administration does political stumps at some taxpayer expense?
Kasie -- You know I am conservative and historically a Bush supporter (actually, I'm more of a loyalist who believes in supporting whoever the people put in office, and not dissing my own government). I will have to agree that Bush has disappointed me on several fronts, and although I will vote for him in November, it is not with hearty enthusiasm.
As for what he said, I really doubt it matters WHO is in office, with the direction this nation is taking.
quote: There are some things in my philosophy that are deal breakers-- support of abortion is one of them. If Roe vs. Wade ever comes up to be removed, I want someone in office who won't veto its removal.
And in all truth, abortion is not REALLY an issue. I mean, if we were to ever truly get a president in office who was really, truly, deeply against abortion, he could outlaw it with the swipe of a pen on an executive order. But none of them have the guts to do it, so it really is a non-issue in a presidential race. Because it will always be left up to the supreme court and lawmakers other than the administrative branch.
posted
"Basically, Mr. Kerry's campaign is coming off looking classier and more polite than President Bush's."
Not from my perspective. And I live the DC area. How can you say this taking into account all of the snide comments and cheap shots that the Kerry campaign, and more specifically Sen. Kerry himself, have been heaping on the president and adinistration for the last few months? Have you honestly forgot John Kerry "accidently" being overheard personally insulting the President at a news conference? Or Kerry being quoted calling he current administration crooked and liars? Not very classy.
My major complaint about the Kerry campaign has been the fact that I have yet to hear much from except "Bush is dumb. We hate 'em too so vote for Kerry." Maybe this is just because I live in commonwealth that is not considered a battle ground state and therefore I don't get much in the way of campaign adds on the television? I am looking forward to the debates when hopefully there will more than just hot air coming from both of the candidates.
quote:In any case-- Kerry represents a worldview that supports murders of convenience. Would YOU support someone who had all the economic qualifications, all the military qualifications, was genuine, personable, and had international support BUT also supported pederasty?
Would you vote for someone who would destroy the economy, ruin the military, was a liar, complete jerk, and was hated internationally, but was the only alternative option to a highly qualified person who supported pederasty?
A President is called upon to represent you on MANY issues. To overlook all but one when voting is just not normally smart, especially when it's something (like abortion) where the President's opinion on the issue has little to no chance of changing things in any significant way. After all, Bush has been office for four years now - are we any closer to getting abortions banned? Nope. If you voted for Bush on those grounds alone in 2000, you essentially wasted your vote.
posted
*Agrees with Xaposert.* I wouldn't vote for him even if, as in OSC's essay he used Powel or Rice as a running mate...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case-- Kerry represents a worldview that supports murders of convenience. Would YOU support someone who had all the economic qualifications, all the military qualifications, was genuine, personable, and had international support BUT also supported pederasty?
Tresopax also responded well to this, Scott, but I want to add that you are being intentionally vindictive in your partisan labelling in order to further justify your position on single-issue voting. You basically just took the well-thought-out convictions of a man (granted, convictions with which you disagree) and equated them with murderous intent and lack-of-conscience, as well as comparing him to a sex offender.
You might do well to remember that Senator Kerry's worldview on abortion is currently the LAW, and it's a worldview with which at LEAST 49% of Americans agree. In the rest of first-world Earth, that percentage is even higher.
Not that I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong by strength in numbers; I just think you ought to be a little more responsible with your metaphors, especially when they can also apply to other people in this thread. Namely, myself.
When you go into the ballot box, please ask yourself who you think would really do the most good (or least harm) and check that box. That might sound all wussy and "relative" to you, but unless you *honestly* believe that John Kerry is going to personally see that every woman wanting an abortion can get one at the local kwiki-mart, voting to reelect Bush solely on the basis of his pro-life position--which has gained you what, exactly, in the last four years?--is bordering on party-line fanaticism.
posted
You think it's funny that conservatives have buyer's remorse over the Bush administration because... let me get this straight... because we elected Clinton twice?
quote:After all, Bush has been office for four years now - are we any closer to getting abortions banned?
Yes, according to NARAL, the March for Women's Lives, etc.
The literature/propaganda from pro-abortion advocates is that Bush is a threat to their programme.
quote:I want to add that you are being intentionally vindictive in your partisan labelling in order to further justify your position on single-issue voting.
Vindictive?
I don't think this is the proper word choice, Keats. Zealous, fanatic, hurtful, insulting. . . maybe. But vindictive just doesn't fit the bill, here. Can you explain how my post was vindictive?
I was being clear and honest about my feelings on abortion. I believe that it is murder. Therefore, those who support abortion, support murder, in my opinion. John Kerry supports a woman's right to choose whether or not to kill her own unborn child. Therefore, because I am consistent in my internal philosophy, I believe John Kerry supports murder.
It would be intellectual dishonesty of the worst sort for me to vote for Kerry, given my point of view.
Like a black man voting for David Duke for instance.
quote:Would you vote for someone who would destroy the economy, ruin the military, was a liar, complete jerk, and was hated internationally, but was the only alternative option to a highly qualified person who supported pederasty?
No-- I don't think I'd vote at all.
Which sums up my current frustration. I can't support the Dems, I don't really want to support the Republicans. I'm disillusioned with the political offerings-- or offal, as it were.
posted
I am unsure about the Kerry being "For murder for convience."
I am unsure about this for all of the "Pro Choice" candidates.
I think there is a differnce between being Pro-Abortion and being Pro-Choice. Kerry has stated that he personally and religiously would not support abortion. This is his religious view, however he does not feel compelled to foster this view on other people.
In other words, while he doesn't like abortions, he doesn't feel that it is his place to legislate what beliefs other people should have, or legislate what women can and cannot do to their bodies.
He isn't proposing that everyone should get an abortion for fun or profit.
What you have against Kerry is not that he is "Pro-Abortion" but that hi is not "Anti-Abortion enough."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of your internal philosophy considers it consistent to equate pro-choice support to acceptance of pedastry?
I'll take any of your words in substitution for vindictive if you like.
You only increase your appearance of blind partisanship by insisting that the pro-choice position is a tacit approval of "convenience murder". You know damned well that people fighting to protect a woman's right to choose are not doing so out of a desire to indiscriminately kill for convenience, even if that is what you interpret as the end result of their beliefs.
The fact that you include pedophilia as a comparable example of something that would keep you from voting for a candidate illustrates that you view this difference in opinion not as a matter of personal convictions but as an actual character flaw. That's just assinine if you ask me.
Kerry is not a murdering pedophile and his governance would have absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
And his pro-choice position (which, by the way, is his civil position and not necessarily reflective of his personal values--he is Catholic, after all) does not make him unfit to serve American interests from the Executive branch. You know, the kind of national interests that really ARE at stake in a Presidential election.
If your top political priority is to ban abortion that's fine. But maybe we can get back to some semblance of balance-of-powers if you would focus those energies on Senate and House seats rather than the Commander in Chief, who, frankly, having to manage not one but THREE separate war efforts in the midst of the worst anti-American sentiment the world has likely ever seen, has more important things to do than pander to either side of the abortion issue.
In other words, while he doesn't like abortions, he doesn't feel that it is his place to legislate what beliefs other people should have, or legislate what women can and cannot do to their bodies.
He isn't proposing that everyone should get an abortion for fun or profit."
quote:
like saying, "John Kerry doesnt like stealing but, he is going to let you steal because he does not feel that it is appropriate to regulate your actions?"
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The literature/propaganda from pro-abortion advocates is that Bush is a threat to their programme.
Yes, but that's because they're the sort that would think or at least try to convince people that people should vote against Bush solely on the grounds that he opposes abortion. They are wrong too.
quote:No-- I don't think I'd vote at all.
Which sums up my current frustration. I can't support the Dems, I don't really want to support the Republicans. I'm disillusioned with the political offerings-- or offal, as it were.
What to do?
Third party?
quote:What part of your internal philosophy considers it consistent to equate pro-choice support to acceptance of pedastry?
I think it's a fair comparison in regards to how conservatives feel about abortion. There is one important difference, though: Many many people support abortion, while only a few support pedastry.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:like saying, "John Kerry doesnt like stealing but, he is going to let you steal because he does not feel that it is appropriate to regulate your actions?"
No, it isn't "like" that.
To be like that, you'd have to show that John Kerry respects your right to steal other people's property, and that is not the case. Once again this is a case of differing political beliefs, not a case of a morally reprehensible candidate.
quote: The fact that you include pedophilia as a comparable example of something that would keep you from voting for a candidate illustrates that you view this difference in opinion not as a matter of personal convictions but as an actual character flaw. That's just assinine if you ask me.
Am I understanding that you don't think whether a candidate is a pedophile or not should NOT influence a persons reason to support/not-support that candidate? You do not view pedophilia as a character flaw?
I think it is wrong to equate abortion with pedophilia, but I would never vote for a pedophile. Of course that is a character issue that should influence a candidacy. Why is that asinine?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's a fair comparison in regards to how conservatives feel about abortion.
It's a fair comparison in regards to how conservatives feel about abortion, insofar as you are comparing the act of abortion to the act of pedastry, but Scott is assigning the moral repugnance of pedophilia to the Democratic platform on the basis of its pro-choice position, despite the fact that there are legitimate reasons to be pro-choice and there are no legitimate reasons to rape little boys.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott is assigning the moral repugnance of pedophilia to the Democratic platform on the basis of its pro-choice position, despite the fact that there are legitimate reasons to be pro-choice and there are no legitimate reasons to rape little boys.
An anti-abortion person might say there's equally few reasons to "kill" fetuses. Similarly, a pro-pedophilia person would likely claim there's plenty of legitimate reasons to have intercourse with little boys.
Scott is talking about what you would do if you (like he apparently does) felt supporting abortion was just as repugnant and unjustified as supporting pedophilia.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Tresopax. Now try presenting an argument on Scott's behalf, if you will, explaining the moral equivalency of accepting legal abortions with sensible restrictions and supporting the rape of little boys.
I sure hope I'm not the only one around here who finds unnecessarily extreme metaphors to be not only useless, but atypically uncivil.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
