NationStates Jolt Archive

www.rnc.org

watch the 12 minute video on John Kerry. Then tell me how you can possibly support this man.

www.rnc.org

watch the 12 minute video on John Kerry. Then tell me how you can possibly support this man.
how much can you support bush?

no honestly, the ONLY thing bush has on john kerry is he isnt john kerry, if you think thats bullshit think about, the only thing bush and cornies do is attack john kerry, if they have anything else to convince people to vote for them, why dont they try it? the GOP are children and anyone immature enough to support them that blindly is worse than a child

www.rnc.org

watch the 12 minute video on John Kerry. Then tell me how you can possibly support this man.

Because some people support him for the simple reason he's not Bush. They would vote for Charles Manson, because he's not Bush.

try and remember the last 4 years under george bush. then tell me how you can support that man.

.rm, .mov, or .wmv. My windows media player only likes mpegs!

edit: not that i particulary want to see it, it's just annoying that i can never see any videos posted on message boards.

www.rnc.org

watch the 12 minute video on John Kerry. Then tell me how you can possibly support this man.


Hmmmm the RNC site? Now that would be a "fair and balanced" presentation of the "facts."

Vote for me I dont have a party but im not Bush or Kerry and you cant find anything that incriminates me by the way I have never lied about anything I would have to be my own vice president though and my own rest of the posts but eh just vote me!

Because some people support him for the simple reason he's not Bush. They would vote for Charles Manson, because he's not Bush.

Yea and they would support a man who eats babies for breakfast, kittens for lunch, puppies for dinner because he is not Bush!

:rolleyes:

Because some people support him for the simple reason he's not Bush. They would vote for Charles Manson, because he's not Bush.

im sure many have seen this already, but for the sake of posting web sites, im a fan of www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com (http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com) .

I know its a Republican website. But just watch the video. They pulled comments from John Kerry staight off of CNN and MSNBC and etc. BEFORE he was even a Presidential canidate.

Kerry has proven to be two faced. At least Bush can face facts, and say whats really on his mind.

I know its a Republican website. But just watch the video. They pulled comments from John Kerry staight off of CNN and MSNBC and etc. BEFORE he was even a Presidential canidate.

Kerry has proven to be two faced. At least Bush can face facts, and say whats really on his mind.
rofl, good job, you admit they cut and pasted quotes out of context

and kerry is two faced? didnt bush oppose the idea of a 9/11 commission, now he is struttin around like it was the best idea he came up with and had to beg congress to put it together?


oh and what about gun control? i do believe when he was running he was gung-ho all for the assault weapons ban, now he thinks everyone and their mom should be carrying M4s


wow, what a two faced dumb son of a bitch

Bush has ALWAYS been pro-guns. Why do you think there was so many "Sportsmen For Bush" campaign stickers?

You are just ignorant to the fact the Kerry has flip-flopped his views. Just to please the people. He doesnt really believe in what he says.

I know its a Republican website. But just watch the video. They pulled comments from John Kerry staight off of CNN and MSNBC and etc. BEFORE he was even a Presidential canidate.

Kerry has proven to be two faced. At least Bush can face facts, and say whats really on his mind.

go to http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=25&p=stewart and click on "Bush vs. Bush" for an excellent example of Bush facing facts and saying whats really on his mind. :)

I just dislike both of them. Is that such a crime? That I don't want to "settle" for the leader of my nation? What's happened to our system that people who should go into office don't?

-R. S. of UC

Bush has ALWAYS been pro-guns. Why do you think there was so many "Sportsmen For Bush" campaign stickers?

You are just ignorant to the fact the Kerry has flip-flopped his views. Just to please the people. He doesnt really believe in what he says.

Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

This is one of Kerry's messages taken from the video.

While in congress he voted FOR the war in Iraq. And agreed on the fact that Hussein was a threat to the world and had weapons of mass destrcution. Then he votes against the funding for our troops! and then tries to say that he is now against the war. How much more two faced can you be?

Hmmm.... have you noticed that whenever Kerry is asked a question about what he intends to do while in office, he rarely ever gives a straight answer? And even if he does give a straight answer, a lot of times if he is asked the same question again he gives a completely different answer? He's completely indecisive and not very confident, he seems to be both for and against every possible side of every issue. At least Bush knows what he wants and will do whatever he can do to get it.

The only things I know about Kerry are he is going to raise taxes through the roof, halting the very delicate economic recovery in its tracks, and severely cut the budget and size of the military, which will allow us to be anally raped by terrorists. Do you really want this idiot as president?

Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]


the key word there is ASSAULT WEAPONS. as in AK's and any other type of automatic assualt guns. That is NOT a ban against guns in general. Bush is pro-guns. As in shotguns and rifles and pistols.

Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

Bush's has said that if it comes across his desk, he'd sign it....problem is, nobody, democrat or republican, want's to get tangled in assault weapons during the election year. That's why there is no real push from democrat congressmen either to get this onto Bush's desk.

Hmmm.... have you noticed that whenever Kerry is asked a question about what he intends to do while in office, he rarely ever gives a straight answer? And even if he does give a straight answer, a lot of times if he is asked the same question again he gives a completely different answer? He's completely indecisive and not very confident, he seems to be both for and against every possible side of every issue. At least Bush knows what he wants and will do whatever he can do to get it.

The only things I know about Kerry are he is going to raise taxes through the roof, halting the very delicate economic recovery in its tracks, and severely cut the budget and size of the military, which will allow us to be anally raped by terrorists. Do you really want this idiot as president?

Exactly! Good job!

Exactly! Good job!

Thankee

such close minded views on politics

why do you think you deserve to have a say in government when you can have a heated discussion about bush or kerrys military record

please grow up, it will do your country some good for once

This is one of Kerry's messages taken from the video.

While in congress he voted FOR the war in Iraq. And agreed on the fact that Hussein was a threat to the world and had weapons of mass destrcution. Then he votes against the funding for our troops! and then tries to say that he is now against the war. How much more two faced can you be?
good job, thats called "out of context" quote the bill in its ENTIRITY, every single thing included in the bill

the key word there is ASSAULT WEAPONS. as in AK's and any other type of automatic assualt guns. That is NOT a ban against guns in general. Bush is pro-guns. As in shotguns and rifles and pistols.
"The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals...In a statement [on February 24, 2004], the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. 'Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable,' the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures. 'For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one,' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate." [Washington Post, 2/26/04]



care to try again? you just got owned

Exactly! Good job!
1) the military does NOT deal with terrorism, internal security does, they stop terrorism, not the military
2) it cant stop the "delicate economic recovery" more than it already is which is 0

OK once again pay attention. The amendment was for ASSAULT WEAPONS! automatic, machine guns and guns of that type of nature. The ban is against assualt weapons NOT GUNS in general. Al Gore was the only one that was against ALL GUNS. Bush is for guns and against assualt weapons. Now show me how he is two faced!

OK once again pay attention. The amendment was for ASSAULT WEAPONS! automatic, machine guns and guns of that type of nature. The ban is against assualt weapons NOT GUNS in general. Al Gore was the only one that was against ALL GUNS. Bush is for guns and against assualt weapons. Now show me how he is two faced!
he SAYS he is againt assault weapons, he REFUSES to act on it, that is why there will soon be no more assault weapons ban

woo woo two faced

Because some people support him for the simple reason he's not Bush. They would vote for Charles Manson, because he's not Bush.

Oh come on, we wouldn't go THAT far. There are some people worse than Bush for President, just not many of them. But I'd vote for some random person off Last Comic Standing over Bush.

OK once again pay attention. The amendment was for ASSAULT WEAPONS! automatic, machine guns and guns of that type of nature. The ban is against assualt weapons NOT GUNS in general. Al Gore was the only one that was against ALL GUNS. Bush is for guns and against assualt weapons. Now show me how he is two faced!

He's against assault weapons? Then why did he not make sure the assault weapons ban would hold?

Rammstein, if you'll look, you'll find more waffles by Bush than in a House of Pancakes. But you want to go on about Kerry, have fun. Since you obviously refuse to debate in a positive and rational manner, then there is no point in showing you the facts about your own candidate. So instead, I'm just going to have fun:

http://www.bartcop.com/show_duty.jpg

He doesnt act on it because of some very obvious reasons.

1. The war in Iraq. I'm sure thats more important than a silly weapons ban.

2. Not eneough support. You cant pass anything without support.

3. Its re-election time. He needs to focus on getting re-elected first. Then he can act on what he says.

There is no way he is two faced. Kerry has proved it. And if you were a true "democratic" citizen. You would watch the video, even if it was on a Republican website. I would watch videos of Bush on Democrat websites. Just to find out any new info. Face the facts, Kerry is two faced and there is video to prove it.

You are just ignorant to the fact the Kerry has flip-flopped his views. Just to please the people. He doesnt really believe in what he says.

Compared to Bush who no one can understand what he says, right?

Kerry has flip-flopped his views huh? What would you say Bush has done on all these issues?

Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]


Even more here
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

Yeah, ok. so Bush has changed some views also. I'm not going to disagree with you there. But take a look at what he has changed his views on. Most if not all of those views have been flip-flopped by Kerry also. Most importantly the Iraq war. If you would just take 12 minutes of your time and watch the video at....

www.rnc.org

You too will see how Kerry is far more two faced then Bush. And how he is just changing his views to please the people. Do you really think he believes in what he says? The answer is NO!

Hmmmm the RNC site? Now that would be a "fair and balanced" presentation of the "facts."

hmmmm..... Left-wing nut Michael Moore's movie? Now that would be a "fair and balanced" presentation of the "facts."

hmmmm..... Left-wing nut Michael Moore's movie? Now that would be a "fair and balanced" presentation of the "facts."

Thanks for bringing that up. That is also very true. Moore is blind to all the facts. He will do ANYTHING to put down Bush.

Yeah, ok. so Bush has changed some views also. I'm not going to disagree with you there. But take a look at what he has changed his views on. Most if not all of those views have been flip-flopped by Kerry also. Most importantly the Iraq war. If you would just take 12 minutes of your time and watch the video at....

www.rnc.org

You too will see how Kerry is far more two faced then Bush. And how he is just changing his views to please the people. Do you really think he believes in what he says? The answer is NO!
if you would take 20 damned seconds to pay attentino and realise there are more than 1 issue to a bill and they get changed you wouldnt be a republican lackey idiot

also check out on that site. Kerry vs. Kerry. It will give you full in-depth details of all the issues he has flip-flopped on.

if you would take 20 damned seconds to pay attentino and realise there are more than 1 issue to a bill and they get changed you wouldnt be a republican lackey idiot

Thats very true and that issue does not bother or concern me. What does is where Kerry was 76% of the time when he was supposed to be at work on the intelligence committee proir to 9-11 and 100% of the time since. Imagine if we showed up for work that often. What would happen?

The guy just plain scares me. Bush does to, but not nearly as much as Kerry does.

I aboslutely agree that it is disgusting that John Kerry changes his opinion sometimes depending on what the facts are.

HOW DARE HE decide now that invading Iraq was not right just because we happened to find out that Iraq wasn't supporting terrorism or building WMD's. He wouldn't have to change his stance on that particular issue if the Bush Administration had not spun facts and public opinion as hard as possible to convince everyone that war was necessary.

So, who is worse? Bush, whose administration misled us into the war, or Kerry, who was misled with the rest of us, and has decided he doesn't like it?

Of course, if Kerry said he still supported the war, you would complain that he doesn't pay attention to the suffering of the troops and point out how the situation had changed, that it wasn't necessary anymore.

if you would take 20 damned seconds to pay attentino and realise there are more than 1 issue to a bill and they get changed you wouldnt be a republican lackey idiot


Now now flit boy, careful you are shouting.

You too will see how Kerry is far more two faced then Bush. And how he is just changing his views to please the people. Do you really think he believes in what he says? The answer is NO!

No, the movie shows some things that Kerry seems to have changed his mind on. This just shows that it has happened, it in no way shows he is "more two-faced than Bush." In order to do that, the video would have to show every single time Bush has changed his mind on important issues and every single time Kerry has changed his mind on important issues and tally them up and put them side by side.

It also doesn't show that he "is just changing his views to please the people," since the video does not reach into Kerry's mind and find out why his views seemed to have changed on the issues.

Do I believe that any politician believes everything he/she says? Hell No! But Bush had four years and screwed it up, time for some other liar to be in the Oval Office - and hopefully one with a little more respect for the Constitution, the American people, and America as a whole.

Face it, your source is extremely biased, it is mostly taking quotes out of context, and it ignores things that may have changed in the meantime.

also check out on that site. Kerry vs. Kerry. It will give you full in-depth details of all the issues he has flip-flopped on.

How many American soldiers has Kerry killed?

How many billion American dollars has Kerry spent without having it?

How many wars has Kerry led us into that, as it turns out, had false rationaling behind them?

Now compare to Bush...

"Flip-flopping" is not so bad as killing hundreds of troops for a nonexistant public reason and then forcing the following generations to pay for it, in my crazy liberal mind.

Why some people think it is better to be wrong, but damn well stand up by your wrongness and keep defending it forever, is better than admitting that you have made a mistake and am entitled to change your views, I will never understand.

Thats very true and that issue does not bother or concern me. What does is where Kerry was 76% of the time when he was supposed to be at work on the intelligence committee proir to 9-11 and 100% of the time since. Imagine if we showed up for work that often. What would happen?

The guy just plain scares me. Bush does to, but not nearly as much as Kerry does.
i dont recall kerry being on the intelligence commitee

well what was bush doing prior to 9-11? preparing to invade iraq and ignoring terrorist threats to our nation


and that was OPEN hearings

"It's unclear how many, if any, closed hearings Kerry missed while serving on the Intelligence Committee. Ross said most of the panel's hearings are closed, but "to release the records of the closed hearings is a difficult matter. "

Now now flit boy, careful you are shouting.
1) i neither added an exclamation point nor caps lock, either of which indicate i was shouting, clever attempt at deduction though


2) good job ignoring the point i made and at making a sad attack on god knows what in the post

Then he votes against the funding for our troops! and then tries to say that he is now against the war. How much more two faced can you be?

For the love of Pete - you're just spitting out right-wing talking points.

Kerry voted for a spending bill that paid for that part of the war by rolling back tax cuts. What kind of an idiot cuts taxes during wartime? If you remember - which I'm sure you don't - Bush threatened to veto that same spending package if the reconstruction money was a loan, and not a grant. That money - which we've spent only a couple percent of - was so critical that the Bush was willing to veto his own bill!

And yet Kerry gets blamed for it. Even though Bush sent insufficient troops without enough equipment and body armor.

Do you remember Bush saying that he'd call for a vote in the UN, no matter what the "whip count"?

Kerry is a far left, liberal democrat parading as a moderate. All you have to do is get a good look at the company he keeps to realize that (e.g. Carter, Kennedy). Bush is exactly what he seems to be....a neo-con religious right leader. You don't have to like Bush, but he isn't talking one game, and then is gonna change things up as soon as he gets elected. And one who thinks Kerry is gonna stay remotely moderate once he gets elected is kidding themselves. He's gonna hike taxes around the board, and hit small business that is just recovering from the recession with a whole lot of socialist spending and stunt the economies growth.

i dont recall kerry being on the intelligence commitee

well what was bush doing prior to 9-11? preparing to invade iraq and ignoring terrorist threats to our nation


and that was OPEN hearings

"It's unclear how many, if any, closed hearings Kerry missed while serving on the Intelligence Committee. Ross said most of the panel's hearings are closed, but "to release the records of the closed hearings is a difficult matter. "

He missed 38 of 49 PUBLIC hearings. Thats 76%.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39752

This I find striking...

During his tenure on the committee, which provides oversight of national intelligence agencies, Kerry was absent for 38 of 49 public hearings, according to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

"There's been a total avoidance of discussion of the voting record of John Kerry," said Chambliss last week, following Kerry's acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination. "But that's not surprising. There's one area that he claims to have a lot of expertise and that's in the area of national security and on the issue of terrorism."

Chambliss said Kerry's vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, is a current member of the committee, "And I'll just tell you that in the last year and a half we haven't seen a whole lot of his running mate. And I would hope that he would agree to release to you the record of his attendance at meetings and hearings of the Senate Intelligence Committee over the last year and a half, or his total service on that committee."

Chambliss also questioned some of the votes Kerry did cast.

"For example, in 1993 after the World Trade Center bombing Senator Kerry introduced a number of measures that were to reduce funding for the intelligence community by $7.5 billion, including a bill that he introduced in 1995 that called for the reduction in funding for the intelligence committees and intelligence communities by $300 million a year for five consecutive years," he said.

Chambliss points out those five years led up to Sept. 11. Kerry did not get any co-sponsors on that bill.

It is from....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183285/posts

Kerry is a far left, liberal democrat parading as a moderate. All you have to do is get a good look at the company he keeps to realize that (e.g. Carter, Kennedy). Bush is exactly what he seems to be....a neo-con religious right leader. You don't have to like Bush, but he isn't talking one game, and then is gonna change things up as soon as he gets elected. And one who thinks Kerry is gonna stay remotely moderate once he gets elected is kidding themselves. He's gonna hike taxes around the board, and hit small business that is just recovering from the recession with a whole lot of socialist spending and stunt the economies growth.
too bad thats exactly what he did, he said one thing tan either refuses to carry it out, or flips around on the ground like a fish pretending it never happened, and people believe it because the neo-cans take whatever he says as gospel

He missed 38 of 49 PUBLIC hearings. Thats 76%.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39752

This I find striking...

During his tenure on the committee, which provides oversight of national intelligence agencies, Kerry was absent for 38 of 49 public hearings, according to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

"There's been a total avoidance of discussion of the voting record of John Kerry," said Chambliss last week, following Kerry's acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination. "But that's not surprising. There's one area that he claims to have a lot of expertise and that's in the area of national security and on the issue of terrorism."

Chambliss said Kerry's vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, is a current member of the committee, "And I'll just tell you that in the last year and a half we haven't seen a whole lot of his running mate. And I would hope that he would agree to release to you the record of his attendance at meetings and hearings of the Senate Intelligence Committee over the last year and a half, or his total service on that committee."

Chambliss also questioned some of the votes Kerry did cast.

"For example, in 1993 after the World Trade Center bombing Senator Kerry introduced a number of measures that were to reduce funding for the intelligence community by $7.5 billion, including a bill that he introduced in 1995 that called for the reduction in funding for the intelligence committees and intelligence communities by $300 million a year for five consecutive years," he said.

Chambliss points out those five years led up to Sept. 11. Kerry did not get any co-sponsors on that bill.

It is from....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183285/posts


and as stated, MOST of the comittee's hearings are CLOSED hearings, and we have no idea of his attendance on those

and of course edwards hasnt been there, hes runnigfor vice president, apparently bush can stop doing his JOB AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to run a re-election campagin and throw mud at ekrry and edwards, but edwards cant miss a few intelligence committee meetings, bush is the incumbent, edwards isnt

too bad thats exactly what he did, he said one thing tan either refuses to carry it out, or flips around on the ground like a fish pretending it never happened, and people believe it because the neo-cans take whatever he says as gospel

Well, I will call Bush on everything too, but he is a known evil. Kerry on the other hand says one thing, but does another. THAT kind of person does NOT need to become the most powerful man on earth.

You don't have to like Bush, but he isn't talking one game, and then is gonna change things up as soon as he gets elected.

You're talking about someone who campaigned for state's rights and less federal interference, then ran to his daddy's friends on the Supreme Court to overrule a state supreme court.

You are right about one thing - Bush didn't wait until he got elected to start breaking his promises.

(For other examples of Bush's straight shooting, check out where he said his tax cut money was going to go.)

Well, I will call Bush on everything too, but he is a known evil.

Yeah, right. What exactly has Bush done that you've "called him on"?

(You do remember him taking credit for bills that he'd actually vetoed as texas governor, right?)

The only things I know about Kerry are he is going to raise taxes through the roof,
Repealing the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans is not raising "taxes through the roof"?

halting the very delicate economic recovery in its tracks,
What economic revovery?

and severely cut the budget and size of the military, which will allow us to be anally raped by terrorists.
Now you are just being silly?

Do you really want this idiot as president?
I think that if America was under attack, I don't think he would just sit there reading My Pet Goat?

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/08/edi04057.html#top

Bush has flip flopped all over the place, DURING his Presidency. Perhaps it is time to give someone else a chance.

and as stated, MOST of the comittee's hearings are CLOSED hearings, and we have no idea of his attendance on those

and of course edwards hasnt been there, hes runnigfor vice president, apparently bush can stop doing his JOB AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to run a re-election campagin and throw mud at ekrry and edwards, but edwards cant miss a few intelligence committee meetings, bush is the incumbent, edwards isnt

Well, if his attendance record for PUBLIC meetings is any indication, and I believe in trends, then there is no reason to believe that he was in the closed meetings any more than he is at the public meetings.

Since Bush is running for reelection, he has to work every day. Kerry and Edwards are not doing the job they are being paid for. Most Senators in the past resigned when they decided to run for president. Kerry and Edwards should to since they are getting a paycheck without having to work for it...they are wasting OUR money.

for me, it's not "just" george bush himself that i'm sick of - it's the entire administration. john ashcroft has shown a blatant disregard for the constitution in constructing his ridiculous USA PATRIOT ACT bills. donald rumsfeld is now being held at least partially responsible for the iraq prison abuse scandal. dick cheney is....well, dick cheney - a greedy businessman who, from what i can tell, has contributed nothing positive to the welfare of the nation during his term.

its just time for a change. period.

Well, I will call Bush on everything too, but he is a known evil. Kerry on the other hand says one thing, but does another. THAT kind of person does NOT need to become the most powerful man on earth.
really, like what? and try not to cite bills

Yeah, right. What exactly has Bush done that you've "called him on"?

(You do remember him taking credit for bills that he'd actually vetoed as texas governor, right?)

Not being from Texas, nor caring what he did as Governor there, no I don't remember that. Not that I doubt that he did it, he is a politician afterall.

for me, it's not "just" george bush himself that i'm sick of - it's the entire administration. john ashcroft has shown a blatant disregard for the constitution in constructing his ridiculous USA PATRIOT ACT bills. donald rumsfeld is now being held at least partially responsible for the iraq prison abuse scandal. dick cheney is....well, dick cheney - a greedy businessman who, from what i can tell, has contributed nothing positive to the welfare of the nation during his term.

its just time for a change. period.

Ok, I can respect that. However, the Patriot Act was passed and approved by Congress. How did that vote turn out?

Since Bush is running for reelection, he has to work every day.

What alternate reality do you live in? Bush has spent an amazing amount of time - including all of August 2001 - on vacation.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html

Bush is running around campaigning, and making just enough presidential noise that the US taxpayer is stuck with the bill. What's the last actual presidential thing Bush did, besides try to appoint a CIA director who advocated steep cuts in human intelligence, and doesn't care about covert agents getting outed?

Well, if his attendance record for PUBLIC meetings is any indication, and I believe in trends, then there is no reason to believe that he was in the closed meetings any more than he is at the public meetings.
logical fallacy senses...tingling

Since Bush is running for reelection, he has to work every day. Kerry and Edwards are not doing the job they are being paid for. Most Senators in the past resigned when they decided to run for president. Kerry and Edwards should to since they are getting a paycheck without having to work for it...they are wasting OUR money.
really? wasting our money? guess who pays for air force one and secret service agents? thats right. WE DO. and guess how bush gets around the united states accoimpanied by on his reelection campaign: air force one with secret service agents.

we dont pay for kerry and edwards to travel everywhere and campaign, oh, and the congress does NOT meet everyday

Not being from Texas, nor caring what he did as Governor there, no I don't remember that. Not that I doubt that he did it, he is a politician afterall.

It's good that you only care about Kerry's record; it shows how fair-minded you are. It seems to me that unless you live in Massachusetts, you should shut up about what Kerry's doing as a senator. Right?

It's also good that you only care about when you think Kerry says one thing and does another; it shows your intellectual honesty.

Not being from Texas, nor caring what he did as Governor there, no I don't remember that. Not that I doubt that he did it, he is a politician afterall.
i do believe in a post on the last page or 2 you said people should be held accountable for what they have done in the past and that should be counted for him running for office. does that ONLY count for the democrats?

good job not surprising me AT ALL

really, like what? and try not to cite bills

Well, the tax cut thing has been blown all out of proportion. I think it did a lot of good. I know I got more money back since for the first time in years I got a tax refund and i did not do well last year at all and am hardly rich.

However, the whole WMD thing does bother me, but seeing that other countries intelligence services were teling their leaders the same things I cannot hold him completely at fault.

I do wish he would dump Cheney, I don't like that guy.

Ok, I can respect that. However, the Patriot Act was passed and approved by Congress. How did that vote turn out?
in 2 weeks, it was pushed through by bush on an atmosphere of fear, its the same bullshit thing he got to allow him to do whatever he wanted to to Iraq

Repealing the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans is not raising "taxes through the roof"?

First off, anybody who really believes Kerry is gonna stop at the wealthiest percentile is kidding themselves. Secondly, hundreds of thousands of small business don't file corporate taxes. Companies such as LLCs file a form of personal taxation, and these companies are going to get slammed by Kerry's tax cut repeals. 76% of the people in this country work for small businesses. Who do you think is going to pay the price is wages and lost jobs? Working class Americans.

You are right about one thing - Bush didn't wait until he got elected to start breaking his promises.

Please list the major promises he broke, that are not a result of 9/11?

What alternate reality do you live in? Bush has spent an amazing amount of time - including all of August 2001 - on vacation.

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031001.html

Bush is running around campaigning, and making just enough presidential noise that the US taxpayer is stuck with the bill. What's the last actual presidential thing Bush did, besides try to appoint a CIA director who advocated steep cuts in human intelligence, and doesn't care about covert agents getting outed?

The President works every day....every president does so, even when running for reelection. A "vacation" for ANY president is not like yours or mine, they still work since their staffs are constantly with them.

I can tell you one thing: as a radical liberal, I'm really tired of Kerry being called one. I'd be really happy if he was one. But he's not. He's a moderate, boring, appeasing, politician. He's not "two-faced" as much as "a politician".

Do you know how many years Kerry's served as a U.S. Senator? Do you know how many Bush has? I'll give you a hint on the second question, and it starts with "z" and ends with "o". It's well and good to be a governor. You don't need to appease like these senators do. To be in the Senate as long as Kerry has, you have to vote on several sides of issues. It's not "flip-flopping" or "being two-faced", it's having this little thing we like to call nuance. Unfortunately, most of the reactionary right in this country believes in two colors, black and white. If it ain't one, it's the other. Nuance flies right over their respective heads.

I wish Kerry was this left-wing nutcase all you dittoheads believe him to be. Guess what? He's only slightly more liberal than H.W., about in the same range as Clinton (who, let's face it, isn't exactly Karl Marx. NAFTA, etc.).

He's not perfect, but he's not a reactionary and that's half the battle.

i do believe in a post on the last page or 2 you said people should be held accountable for what they have done in the past and that should be counted for him running for office. does that ONLY count for the democrats?

good job not surprising me AT ALL

I wish we COULD see Kerry run on his record. ALL he keeps going on about is his status as a "war hero." Something I don't consider him to be based on his actions upon returning home.

logical fallacy senses...tingling


really? wasting our money? guess who pays for air force one and secret service agents? thats right. WE DO. and guess how bush gets around the united states accoimpanied by on his reelection campaign: air force one with secret service agents.

we dont pay for kerry and edwards to travel everywhere and campaign, oh, and the congress does NOT meet everyday

Yes, they are both drawing a salary for a job they are not doing. THAT is a waste of taxpayers money. Air Force One and the Secret Service are bad examples because they will be there no matter what and are a constant cost.

I wish we COULD see Kerry run on his record. ALL he keeps going on about is his status as a "war hero." Something I don't consider him to be based on his actions upon returning home.
so taking the people's record into account only counts for democrats, good job you blind republican hypocrite

Yes, they are both drawing a salary for a job they are not doing. THAT is a waste of taxpayers money. Air Force One and the Secret Service are bad examples because they will be there no matter what and are a constant cost.
wrong, bush could and is SUPPOSED TO charater private flights for campaigns, hes not supposed to be flying air force one everywhere, thats violation of campaign rules. AND there are time wheren more SS are needed because of where he goes, so we are footing the bill for shit he sohuldnt be doing, also good job of ignoring the rest of my point

Air Force One and the Secret Service are bad examples because they will be there no matter what and are a constant cost.

That's not true; it's much cheaper to not fly air force one than it is to fly it. Also, the traffic disruptions caused by today's insane security have a real economic cost.

The DC secret service is a fixed cost, but local branches get called in when the President travels, and they have to stop what they're doing, which is a cost. Also, if you hadn't noticed, local police are called out.

A lot of cash-strapped small cities are paying for additional security for Bush fund-raisers. http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/170673

so taking the people's record into account only counts for democrats, good job you blind republican hypocrite

Nope, Bush's record as president is right there to see. Bringing up things from his distant past is a waste of time since the past 4 years are what he is going to be judged on.

to hell with bush and kerry. they're both criminals. don't make yourself guilty of their crimes by voting for them. vote for nader, or the Green candidate david cobb, or even the libertarian michael badnarik.

I'd like to interject something here... now, prevously, I recall someone saying that they didn't like Kerry because they were uncertain where he stood, and at least Bush was a known evil.

*blinkblink* Okay... so your admitting Bush is a known evil. That being said, your saying that, given the choice, you'd vote for a sure thing, even if its evil, then something else that could be good or evil?

Anyone understand that?

For those saying Kerry's gonna ruin some delicate economic recovery that I keep hearing about... tell that to someone without health-insurence, or... you know, a /job/.

Okay, final two points: 1) If you want factual data on a cadidate, its opposing party's website is not the place to get it. 2) Kerry may be a little uncertain on the issues, but Bush is... umm.... evil. If /simply/ for the fact that he doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept of religous freedom (Hes said somethings to the tune of, "The terrorists hate us because they hate that we can worship an almighty god any way we choose. If you don't understand how thats a huge error when defining religous freedom, feel free to ask and I'll enlighten you.). Taking it a step further, hes got fishey connections to the Saudi's and Big Oil, fishey connections to some election fraud in Florida, and is an all around idiot who somehow thinks the country is morally supiour because were a Christian Nation.

Thats how it seems, anyhow. But somethings, thats really what matters.

That's not true; it's much cheaper to not fly air force one than it is to fly it. Also, the traffic disruptions caused by today's insane security have a real economic cost.

The DC secret service is a fixed cost, but local branches get called in when the President travels, and they have to stop what they're doing, which is a cost. Also, if you hadn't noticed, local police are called out.

A lot of cash-strapped small cities are paying for additional security for Bush fund-raisers. http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/170673

Have you ever worked on aircraft? I have 20 years experience doing so. They cost a LOT more when not flying due to the fact that they were designed to be in the air, not on the ground. Don't believe me? Check out mission capable rates for ANY military aircraft on a Monday and again on a Friday. Weekends are hell on aircraft and they break a LOT while sitting on the ground.

Nope, Bush's record as president is right there to see. Bringing up things from his distant past is a waste of time since the past 4 years are what he is going to be judged on.

i dont see any problem with a candidate highlighting their own military service in a time of war, especially when their opponent has repeatedly covered up their service record (or lack thereof, as it is in this case).

Nope, Bush's record as president is right there to see. Bringing up things from his distant past is a waste of time since the past 4 years are what he is going to be judged on.
WOO WOO, double standard alert, double standard alert, danger will robinson!

i dont see any problem with a candidate highlighting their own military service in a time of war, especially when their opponent has repeatedly covered up their service record (or lack thereof, as it is in this case).

Well, a sitting president is different. He has already been elected to the office and thus vetted. Now it is his record AS president that will make or break him. See Carter and Bush 1 for references.

WOO WOO, double standard alert, double standard alert, danger will robinson!

Not at all....when Clinton was running for reelection, he was attacked on his record AS President...not as Governor of Arkansas.

Have you ever worked on aircraft? I have 20 years experience doing so. They cost a LOT more when not flying due to the fact that they were designed to be in the air, not on the ground. Don't believe me? Check out mission capable rates for ANY military aircraft on a Monday and again on a Friday. Weekends are hell on aircraft and they break a LOT while sitting on the ground.
cause you know, logic suggest stuff breaks more when people dont use it
:rolleyes:

Have you ever worked on aircraft? I have 20 years experience doing so. They cost a LOT more when not flying due to the fact that they were designed to be in the air, not on the ground. Don't believe me?

When you tell me that it costs more than $56,800 an hour to keep a plane on the ground, hell no I don't believe you.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-01-air-force-one_x.htm

cause you know, logic suggest stuff breaks more when people dont use it
:rolleyes:

True, but aircraft break much faster than say cars.....amazingly faster.

Not at all....when Clinton was running for reelection, he was attacked on his record AS President...not as Governor of Arkansas.
no, you have brought up kerry's past, but you refuse to regard ANYTHING besides bush's 4 years are president, you are a hypocrtical republican, you sicken me with your partisan double standards

Not at all....when Clinton was running for reelection, he was attacked on his record AS President...not as Governor of Arkansas.

Yeah, because nobody brought up Whitewater in 1995 and 1996. Not a single person, nope nope nope nope.

Bush has flip flopped all over the place, DURING his Presidency. Perhaps it is time to give someone else a chance.

Yeah, but at the rate Kerry is flip-flopping BEFORE his presidency, I don't even want to think about how much he'll flip-flop when he IS president.

When you tell me that it costs more than $56,800 an hour to keep a plane on the ground, hell no I don't believe you.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-06-01-air-force-one_x.htm

Well....the longer an aircraft sits on the ground, the more it costs to get it off the ground. Have you priced aircraft parts lately? We used to spend about 15 million a week getting our F-16's up to a 90% mission ready rate. Thats for 18 F-16's. Do the math and see how many hours of flight that would buy. 747's are even worse because of their size. the larger the aircraft, the more maintenance needed.

Yeah, because nobody brought up Whitewater in 1995 and 1996. Not a single person, nope nope nope nope.

That was something that came out during the Monica investigation wasn't it? It was discovered pretty much by chance, IN 1995. Clinton was good at hiding that stuff wasn't he?

no, you have brought up kerry's past, but you refuse to regard ANYTHING besides bush's 4 years are president, you are a hypocrtical republican, you sicken me with your partisan double standards

What is there to regard? he had MANY failed businesses and was an average Governor. he did nothing particularly special at all. However...he WAS at work.

That was something that came out during the Monica investigation wasn't it? It was discovered pretty much by chance, IN 1995. Clinton was good at hiding that stuff wasn't he?

Um, wow.

I mean, wow.

You live in a parallel universe. In the world I live in, an investigation was started by a Republican congress into a twenty-year old land deal in which the Clintons lost money. During this time, Ken Starr - a hardcore republican - abused his authority in order to look for dirt on the Clintons. After several non-scandals, faithfully reported by the lapdog media, he finally hit on Monica Lewinsky - with the help of an illegal recording and 'elves' paid for by Scaife.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

Of course, the Clintons had been completely cleared of wrongdoing before the congressional investigation started.

On the other hand, George W Bush blatantly violated insider trading rules at Harken (not filing paperwork about insider stock sales, not responding to SEC responses) and made a lot of money. His dad being the President at the time, the SEC gave him a slap on the wrist. And which story got more attention?

It seems you've somehow reversed things in your mind - that the point of the investigation was not Whitewater, but Monica. I really can't compete with your ability to distort history - and you wonder why we have a different take on these last four years than you do?

Sorry I had so suddenly left. I had to get off the computer for a little bit. I should be back on again alittle later.

Yeah. Kerry wasn't. Cause, you know, /all/ Senator's do is sit in committee.

What is there to regard? he had MANY failed businesses and was an average Governor. he did nothing particularly special at all. However...he WAS at work.

I think by "average" you mean "set the record for most executions". Including of some people who may have been provably innocent. Bush spent an average of 20 minutes reviewing each clemency partition.

And yes, he did show up - at ten, and left at four, exercised a lot, and played video games.

Um, wow.

I mean, wow.

You live in a parallel universe. In the world I live in, an investigation was started by a Republican congress into a twenty-year old land deal in which the Clintons lost money. During this time, Ken Starr - a hardcore republican - abused his authority in order to look for dirt on the Clintons. After several non-scandals, faithfully reported by the lapdog media, he finally hit on Monica Lewinsky - with the help of an illegal recording and 'elves' paid for by Scaife.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

Of course, the Clintons had been completely cleared of wrongdoing before the congressional investigation started.

On the other hand, George W Bush blatantly violated insider trading rules at Harken (not filing paperwork about insider stock sales, not responding to SEC responses) and made a lot of money. His dad being the President at the time, the SEC gave him a slap on the wrist. And which story got more attention?

It seems you've somehow reversed things in your mind - that the point of the investigation was not Whitewater, but Monica. I really can't compete with your ability to distort history - and you wonder why we have a different take on these last four years than you do?

You are correct, I had the two reversed. However, Clinton did neither himself nor the country any favors as President. I was glad to see him go and Kerry looks to be very much like Clinton in his policies.

What is there to regard? he had MANY failed businesses and was an average Governor. he did nothing particularly special at all. However...he WAS at work.
yeah so was kerry: i'd say years as a lawyer then lieutenant governor then a senator count as being at work

I think by "average" you mean "set the record for most executions". Including of some people who may have been provably innocent. Bush spent an average of 20 minutes reviewing each clemency partition.

And yes, he did show up - at ten, and left at four, exercised a lot, and played video games.

Well, I think the state of Texas had the death penalty long before Bush was elected. I don't think they go fast enough, but thats just my opinion.

The office of Governor in Texas, it has been pointed out, is largely ceremonial without a lot of power. Therefore it must be a very easy and non-demanding job.

Yeah, but at the rate Kerry is flip-flopping BEFORE his presidency, I don't even want to think about how much he'll flip-flop when he IS president.

Most likely the same amount that Bush has.

yeah so was kerry: i'd say years as a lawyer then lieutenant governor then a senator count as being at work

Yeah, but that whole 76% of the time being absent still nags at me for some reason....

You are correct, I had the two reversed. However, Clinton did neither himself nor the country any favors as President. I was glad to see him go and Kerry looks to be very much like Clinton in his policies.
1) for the last damned time, kerry isnt clinton. and hwat policies does he propose like clinton that every democrat hasnt proposed

2) really? i recall everything being pretty ok under clinton, we didnt high tail our asses into other countries cuz we felt like it, we didnt anounce ourselves king of hte world then do whatever we damned well pleased, unemployment was low and there wernt scandals running around everywhere, none that mattered at any rate

Yeah, but that whole 76% of the time being absent still nags at me for some reason....
you da,mned republican idiot

1) that was PUBLIC hearings for the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMITTEE, and would you go alot if your ideas were completely ignored, you stated in 93 he proposed something which everyone ignored,

you IGNORE the fact he was in the senate for NINETEEN YEARS, you are an ignorant republican lapdog playing little time and space games and throwing mud at kerry and ignoring any and all indiscretions of bush, completely, you will now be ignored, please dont vote, thanks

1) for the last damned time, kerry isnt clinton. and hwat policies does he propose like clinton that every democrat hasnt proposed

2) really? i recall everything being pretty ok under clinton, we didnt high tail our asses into other countries cuz we felt like it, we didnt anounce ourselves king of hte world then do whatever we damned well pleased, unemployment was low and there wernt scandals running around everywhere, none that mattered at any rate

Really? Haiti, Somolia (Ok, Clinton did not start it, but he allowed a lot of guys to die because he would not send in the requested support) Bosnia and Kosovo were ALL countries and places that Clinton got us into WITHOUT UN approval.

Clinton deployed the military more than ANY other president except FDR in WWII.

you da,mned republican idiot

1) that was PUBLIC hearings for the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMITTEE, and would you go alot if your ideas were completely ignored, you stated in 93 he proposed something which everyone ignored,

you IGNORE the fact he was in the senate for NINETEEN YEARS, you are an ignorant republican lapdog playing little time and space games and throwing mud at kerry and ignoring any and all indiscretions of bush, completely, you will now be ignored, please dont vote, thanks

But his JOB in the Senate was on the Intelligence Committee. Thats ALL he had to do and he did not go. Was it because noone liked his ideas? What will he do as president if noone likes his ideas?

Actually I am a registered Libertarian....

Really? Haiti, Somolia (Ok, Clinton did not start it, but he allowed a lot of guys to die because he would not send in the requested support) Bosnia and Kosovo were ALL countries and places that Clinton got us into WITHOUT UN approval.

Clinton deployed the military more than ANY other president except FDR in WWII.

Yet somehow, these deployments seem less contested? Could it be that the U.S. had some /real/ reasons? Not saying we didn't with Iraq, but they could have at least... you know, cited them there. And we didn't have U.N. Approval, but I do believe we did have NATO in Yugoslavia. And I think our forces in Somalia were there to protect U.N. Shipments, but I'm not /absolutly/ sure.

In anycase, Clinton's not the issue here.

And with the Kerry absense thing... okkkkkay, first, senator's do more then just sit in committee. Second, you'd think that if your part of an Intelligence committee, a /few/ of the things you do might be secret?

Just because hes absent doesn't mean hes not working.

Yet somehow, these deployments seem less contested? Could it be that the U.S. had some /real/ reasons? Not saying we didn't with Iraq, but they could have at least... you know, cited them there. And we didn't have U.N. Approval, but I do believe we did have NATO in Yugoslavia. And I think our forces in Somalia were there to protect U.N. Shipments, but I'm not /absolutly/ sure.

In anycase, Clinton's not the issue here.

And with the Kerry absense thing... okkkkkay, first, senator's do more then just sit in committee. Second, you'd think that if your part of an Intelligence committee, a /few/ of the things you do might be secret?

Just because hes absent doesn't mean hes not working.

Well, when your committee is in session and you are not there....how are you working?

No, kerry is not Clinton, but I was answering the post above....

You are correct, I had the two reversed.

I can understand brain skips, no worries. Your feelings on Clinton aside - do you now agree that Clinton was attacked during his 1996 re-election for things that had happened 20 years earlier?

I can understand brain skips, no worries. Your feelings on Clinton aside - do you now agree that Clinton was attacked during his 1996 re-election for things that had happened 20 years earlier?

He was....

Now...WOULD he have been had the issue not been discovered because of another investigation?

He brought a LOT of bad things onto himself. During an election EVERYTHING from the candidates past is looked at. The sitting president usually has the advantage because his past has already been looked into. The ANG thing for Bush was brought out in 2000 was it not? It is old news and not an issue now. Same with Bush's term as Texas Governor. Kerry has the disadvantage because he has not been looked at yet....and he has some real problems.

Really? Haiti, Somolia (Ok, Clinton did not start it, but he allowed a lot of guys to die because he would not send in the requested support) Bosnia and Kosovo were ALL countries and places that Clinton got us into WITHOUT UN approval.

Clinton deployed the military more than ANY other president except FDR in WWII.


I'm not letting you get by with that blatant lie. The president who has deployed the military more than any president since World War II is our current president. Not only that, but he's extending tours and requiring that those who are deployed are seeing more time in hot zones than any other military in the history of our country. That is a blatant and disgusting abuse of our military.

But I imagine you'll shrug this off much like Hannibal does when he talks about the wimps that are veterans who need VA assistance upon completion of their enlistment.

But you should retract your statement. Bush, and not Clinton, has deployed our military the most of any president since World War II. If you can't retract your blatant mistruth on this matter, then whatever credibility you have is completely shot.

He was....

Okay, progress, you're admitting that you're were wrong that Clinton was only attacked on things that happened while he was President...

Now...WOULD he have been had the issue not been discovered because of another investigation?

Okay, now you're just on crack again. Ever-shifting rationales... it's Clinton's fault! (For not controlling Congress. Can you imagine what a Democratic congress could do with the corruption in Iraq and the Plame Affair?).

And, finally, Whitewater was brought up in 1992, by Jerry Brown. The republicans didn't trumpet it as an issue then because of then-President Bush's banking scandals. http://www.fair.org/extra/9405/whitewater-missed.html

So whitewater got about as much play in 1992 as the ANG story did in 2000. Why is that one is a dead issue and the other became a $40 million investigation?

Oh, right, it's Clinton's fault.

All right, Kerry missed three-fourths of public hearings; in his twenty years as a senator, there were what did you say 40-odd of them?

Do you really think that those 40-odd public hearings represent the sum total of twenty years as a senator? If I turned around and said that, as an example, Bush had held the fewest news hearings of any modern president, which means that he is in dereliction of duty and obviously lazy and must be replaced, you would mention how ridiculous that was, because a president's job includes much more than giving press conferences (still, I think Bush is hanging at about 10% of Clinton's, which is pathetic; what doesn't he want us to know?). So kindly drop this "KERRY DIDN'T GO TO PUBLIC HEARING ERGO HE IS BAD SENATOR ERGO HE IS EVIL ERGO VOTE BUSH 11!!12!" stuff.

Now you want to run on Bush's presidential record alone? OK, we can do that...

Bush set the record for largest deficit ever run by any government, ever.
Bush presided over the largest stock market drop in history.
Bush presided over the highest number of Chapter 4/7 bankruptcies ever.
The economy lost 2 million jobs in two years, as federal unemployment benefits were cut (that'll keep them back on the job!)
Bush has appointed more condemned criminals to office than any other president
Bush cut veterans' health benefits.
Bush presided over the largest energy crisis, ever, was best buddies with some of the very people who rigged the scheme which caused that crisis, and has refused to do a damn thing about it, ever.
Bush has dissolved more international treaties than any other president.
Bush was the first president to order the occupation of a foreign nation, against the will of the UN and world in general.
Bush increased government size more than any president since LBJ.
Bush has recieved more corporate donations than any politician ever, in history (current leader: Kenneth Lay!).
Bush refuses to force corporations to make voting machines which give a paper record (which, for the record, VENEZ-FREAKING-UALA did have).

Oh, yeah. I'm taking four more years of that, because Kerry might be "bad," and if he is, he might be "worse."

Bush's ANG service was mentioned in 2000 but not examined throughly. The RNC were able to bully it out of the news. To be fair to Bush, however, it is not as if anyone would have cared at the time if he was really there or not. It is not as if his service actually affected anyone and so if he did not turn up or refused to take his medical it was not as if it mattered. How could he have known then that he would be president? Only in a coke-fueled hallucination I would imagine.

I'm not letting you get by with that blatant lie. The president who has deployed the military more than any president since World War II is our current president. Not only that, but he's extending tours and requiring that those who are deployed are seeing more time in hot zones than any other military in the history of our country. That is a blatant and disgusting abuse of our military.

But I imagine you'll shrug this off much like Hannibal does when he talks about the wimps that are veterans who need VA assistance upon completion of their enlistment.

But you should retract your statement. Bush, and not Clinton, has deployed our military the most of any president since World War II. If you can't retract your blatant mistruth on this matter, then whatever credibility you have is completely shot.

Lets see....Bush sent troops to two countries to fight a war. Afganistan and Iraq. Clinton to Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. Haiti for some dumbass humanitarian reason and Bosnia/Kosovo because the UN was helpless and or hopeless.

As for the extension of tours, that is due to the faltering enlistment rates. The same thing happened during Clintons time. In 1993 they opened the doors to allow anyone out who wanted out AND we had a 15 year retirement plan that I missed by just a few months or I would have retired 5 years earlier. So many people in the Services Squadron left at once they had to hire civilians to keep the chow halls open and feed us. LOL

No... Clinton DEPLOYED the military MORE. Bush has USED the military more, but that is in debate too since there were more troops in Desert Storm than there are in Iraq or Afganistan today.

All right, Kerry missed three-fourths of public hearings; in his twenty years as a senator, there were what did you say 40-odd of them?

Do you really think that those 40-odd public hearings represent the sum total of twenty years as a senator? If I turned around and said that, as an example, Bush had held the fewest news hearings of any modern president, which means that he is in dereliction of duty and obviously lazy and must be replaced, you would mention how ridiculous that was, because a president's job includes much more than giving press conferences (still, I think Bush is hanging at about 10% of Clinton's, which is pathetic; what doesn't he want us to know?). So kindly drop this "KERRY DIDN'T GO TO PUBLIC HEARING ERGO HE IS BAD SENATOR ERGO HE IS EVIL ERGO VOTE BUSH 11!!12!" stuff.

Now you want to run on Bush's presidential record alone? OK, we can do that...

Bush set the record for largest deficit ever run by any government, ever.
Bush presided over the largest stock market drop in history.
Bush presided over the highest number of Chapter 4/7 bankruptcies ever.
The economy lost 2 million jobs in two years, as federal unemployment benefits were cut (that'll keep them back on the job!)
Bush has appointed more condemned criminals to office than any other president
Bush cut veterans' health benefits.
Bush presided over the largest energy crisis, ever, was best buddies with some of the very people who rigged the scheme which caused that crisis, and has refused to do a damn thing about it, ever.
Bush has dissolved more international treaties than any other president.
Bush was the first president to order the occupation of a foreign nation, against the will of the UN and world in general.
Bush increased government size more than any president since LBJ.
Bush has recieved more corporate donations than any politician ever, in history (current leader: Kenneth Lay!).
Bush refuses to force corporations to make voting machines which give a paper record (which, for the record, VENEZ-FREAKING-UALA did have).

Oh, yeah. I'm taking four more years of that, because Kerry might be "bad," and if he is, he might be "worse."

NOW we are getting somewhere and you bring up valid points. THIS is where Bush will be attacked by the Democrats. ANG stuff? Fluff! You want to attack Bush, you hit him on his record in the office he is fighting to keep! You want to be president, you run on what QUALIFIES you for the job!

Think of it this way. We are the employers and Kerry and Bush are answering a job notice. We have to hire one of them. Their campaigns are their resumes.

Rule number one of resume writing....do NOT go back longer than 10 years!

Why is kerry putting things on his that have NOTHING to do with the job he is applying for? Vietnam? 36 years ago. Kerry has a problem with puctuality and attendance.

Bush has a lot of issues on his resume that he will have to answer for. However, he does have SOME experience in the job he is applying for.

Choices....choices.

i think kerry should run his campaign as was reported in The Onion a few weeks ago...

"WICHITA, KS—Delivering the central speech of his 10-day "Solution For America" bus campaign tour Monday, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry outlined his one-point plan for a better America: the removal of George W. Bush from the White House."

that would get my vote.

[QUOTE=Biff Pileon]

No... Clinton DEPLOYED the military MORE. Bush has USED the military more[QUOTE]

Could you explain what you mean by this and why it is significant? Clinton sent the soldiers to more places but picked more sensible fights?

Why is kerry putting things on his that have NOTHING to do with the job he is applying for? Vietnam? 36 years ago. Kerry has a problem with puctuality and attendance.

Seems to me that other people keep bringing up stuff from 36 years ago and Kerry is just answering what they bring up. This would be like going into a job interview and having the interviewer ask "Did you like school when you were in kindergarten? Did you ever chew gum in school?" and you have to answer those questions.

As for punctuality and attendence, those things only seem to have been a problem in the last year. It's more akin to someone being late to work because they went on the new job interview. Is the new job going to bash them for that?

Bush has a lot of issues on his resume that he will have to answer for. However, he does have SOME experience in the job he is applying for.

Experience is only a good thing if you did a good job. I don't know about you, but I'd hire somone with no experience over someone who had experience, but when I looked them up I found that they did a bad job.

[QUOTE=Biff Pileon]

No... Clinton DEPLOYED the military MORE. Bush has USED the military more[QUOTE]

Could you explain what you mean by this and why it is significant? Clinton sent the soldiers to more places but picked more sensible fights?

Deployments seldom result in actions that are seen on the evening news, but fighting goes on nonetheless.

Bush has used the military for what it is designed for. Clinton SHOULD have taken on Iraq many times for many reasons. He did not need UN approval since Iraq was in constant violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement. Yet he rotated USAF and ANG units throughout the middle east on 90 day deployments that drained the mission capable rate of every unit that participated despite the live firing they were doing on Iraqi anti-aircraft forces. Kosovo and Bosnia are exceptions to that rule, but our troops are STILL there because of Clintons actions. Same with Haiti.

Seems to me that other people keep bringing up stuff from 36 years ago and Kerry is just answering what they bring up. This would be like going into a job interview and having the interviewer ask "Did you like school when you were in kindergarten? Did you ever chew gum in school?" and you have to answer those questions.

As for punctuality and attendence, those things only seem to have been a problem in the last year. It's more akin to someone being late to work because they went on the new job interview. Is the new job going to bash them for that?



Experience is only a good thing if you did a good job. I don't know about you, but I'd hire somone with no experience over someone who had experience, but when I looked them up I found that they did a bad job.

Well, Kerry made his vietnam service the foundation of his "resume." He proclaims himself to be some sort of war hero, I don't happen to hold himin that high a regard.

Attendance....no. BEFORE 9-11 he was absent 76% of the time to his committee meetings. After 9-11....100% absent. Thats a problem.

Bush does have a lot of bad marks, but he has his image of the terrorist fighter going for him and that will carry a lot of people his way.

First, my computer can't watch that video, so I'll have to agree to diagree there.

And why do Right winger/republican people think that Kerry doesn't believe what he is saying, but how do you know did you ask him? I bet not, you rather listen to another republican tell you what Kerry thinks like they can read minds.


The only things I know about Kerry are he is going to raise taxes through the roof, halting the very delicate economic recovery in its tracks, and severely cut the budget and size of the military, which will allow us to be anally raped by terrorists. Do you really want this idiot as president?
First, Kerry is a intellectual so he wouldn't be a idiot. He won't raise taxes unless you are a top 1% rich, and if you are can I have a little?
What economic recovery are you citing? You see economist don't belive its a good recovery if its not over the natural business cycle, its not so Bush's policies failed.
And so Kerry cant hurt it. He may make it better though.
You do know that its Congress who cuts budgets and stuff nit exactly the President. The president may veto stuff but Congress (ie republicans who are majority) who will be making us "annally raped". But either way, no Kerry will be a strong President who would fight back if attacked unlike Bush.
Bush has ADHD, he was attacking Afganistan, but lost his interest and switched to Iraq when Afgan was only partially won.
I'd give Bush Ritilin but since he is a adult he was to agree.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=351838&page=3&pp=15
Dementate shows some Bush Flip-flops.

As Dempiblicants points out:

"No, the movie shows some things that Kerry seems to have changed his mind on. This just shows that it has happened, it in no way shows he is "more two-faced than Bush." In order to do that, the video would have to show every single time Bush has changed his mind on important issues and every single time Kerry has changed his mind on important issues and tally them up and put them side by side. "

Why do you believe Grebonia I'd ask"

Kerry is a far left, liberal democrat parading as a moderate. All you have to do is get a good look at the company he keeps to realize that (e.g. Carter, Kennedy). Bush is exactly what he seems to be....a neo-con religious right leader. You don't have to like Bush, but he isn't talking one game, and then is gonna change things up as soon as he gets elected. And one who thinks Kerry is gonna stay remotely moderate once he gets elected is kidding themselves. He's gonna hike taxes around the board, and hit small business that is just recovering from the recession with a whole lot of socialist spending and stunt the economies growth.

kerry is'nt that far left, infact he is moderately left at best. I can hang around republicans, most my freinds are, and yet I'm a democrat gee looks like company is abad example.
Bush is a puppet religious Right wing follower, Cheney is the Neo-con right leader. Close but no cigar in your example.
Bush did talk one game as noted by Dementate and do another: his flip flops are big. I'd rather have a man say one thing then say anther. Then say one say one thing then do another.
Bush wastes out money by his flip flops, what does Kerry waste?

Grebonia again:

First off, anybody who really believes Kerry is gonna stop at the wealthiest percentile is kidding themselves. Secondly, hundreds of thousands of small business don't file corporate taxes. Companies such as LLCs file a form of personal taxation, and these companies are going to get slammed by Kerry's tax cut repeals. 76% of the people in this country work for small businesses. Who do you think is going to pay the price is wages and lost jobs? Working class Americans.

Well, how do you know he won't? Why shouldn't he stop? GIve me some reasons for thingking he would go further...
Small businesses make the top 1% rich type of wealth? Are you these are small business?

Corennia says:

I'd like to interject something here... now, prevously, I recall someone saying that they didn't like Kerry because they were uncertain where he stood, and at least Bush was a known evil.

*blinkblink* Okay... so your admitting Bush is a known evil. That being said, your saying that, given the choice, you'd vote for a sure thing, even if its evil, then something else that could be good or evil?

Anyone understand that?

For those saying Kerry's gonna ruin some delicate economic recovery that I keep hearing about... tell that to someone without health-insurence, or... you know, a /job/.

Okay, final two points: 1) If you want factual data on a cadidate, its opposing party's website is not the place to get it. 2) Kerry may be a little uncertain on the issues, but Bush is... umm.... evil. If /simply/ for the fact that he doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept of religous freedom (Hes said somethings to the tune of, "The terrorists hate us because they hate that we can worship an almighty god any way we choose. If you don't understand how thats a huge error when defining religous freedom, feel free to ask and I'll enlighten you.). Taking it a step further, hes got fishey connections to the Saudi's and Big Oil, fishey connections to some election fraud in Florida, and is an all around idiot who somehow thinks the country is morally supiour because were a Christian Nation.


Yes, apparently standing by and doing nothing and letting evil flurish is better than picking a new guy and hoping he won't be bad.
Wait, isn't that what we did in Iraq? Saddam was a known evil but we got rid of him anyway? Republicans are either hyocrites or flip-flopping, which is it?

Skepticism:

Now you want to run on Bush's presidential record alone? OK, we can do that...

Bush set the record for largest deficit ever run by any government, ever.
Bush presided over the largest stock market drop in history.
Bush presided over the highest number of Chapter 4/7 bankruptcies ever.
The economy lost 2 million jobs in two years, as federal unemployment benefits were cut (that'll keep them back on the job!)
Bush has appointed more condemned criminals to office than any other president
Bush cut veterans' health benefits.
Bush presided over the largest energy crisis, ever, was best buddies with some of the very people who rigged the scheme which caused that crisis, and has refused to do a damn thing about it, ever.
Bush has dissolved more international treaties than any other president.
Bush was the first president to order the occupation of a foreign nation, against the will of the UN and world in general.
Bush increased government size more than any president since LBJ.
Bush has recieved more corporate donations than any politician ever, in history (current leader: Kenneth Lay!).
Bush refuses to force corporations to make voting machines which give a paper record (which, for the record, VENEZ-FREAKING-UALA did have).

Oh, yeah. I'm taking four more years of that, because Kerry might be "bad," and if he is, he might be "worse."
You forgot making companies not have to pay overtime because of Bush. Yes, you work overtime without the pay, now there is a incentive.
Bush also moved troops oit of Germany, making us less rich. Hermany was paying us for the troops being there, gee we have money problems and he makes us lose more?

Anajamin:

i think kerry should run his campaign as was reported in The Onion a few weeks ago...

"WICHITA, KS—Delivering the central speech of his 10-day "Solution For America" bus campaign tour Monday, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry outlined his one-point plan for a better America: the removal of George W. Bush from the White House."

that would get my vote.
Actually Kerry should use the ever popular: Are yu better off 4 years ago than you are now? And he'd win on just that!

Kerry has proven to be two faced. At least Bush can face facts, and say whats really on his mind.

Say what is on his mind?

I know many people make fun of Bush for being an idiot for the mistakes he makes... but what the mistakes really show is that he doesn't understand, or even think about, what he's saying. He doesn't say what's on his mind, he says what some very clever people tell him to say.

You forgot making companies not have to pay overtime because of Bush. Yes, you work overtime without the pay, now there is a incentive. Bush also moved troops oit of Germany, making us less rich. Hermany was paying us for the troops being there, gee we have money problems and he makes us lose more?

Actually Kerry should use the ever popular: Are yu better off 4 years ago than you are now? And he'd win on just that!

Germany SUBSIDIZED the troops being there. They did not pay the whole bill. That is offset by the US leasing the bases the troops are stationed at and the endless bills for damage caused by military exersizes. Kill a farmers chicken by accident and the US pays that farmer for THAT chicken and ANY chickens that chicken might have produced for the remainder of its lifetime. Most chiskens ended up costing the US $2,000!

Knock down a fence....gotta pay. Kill a milk cow....the bill would stagger you!

No, we will be far better off with our troops out of foreign countries.

Oh, and yes, I AM better off now than I was 4 years ago. ;)

No, we will be far better off with our troops out of foreign countries.

So I understand your opposition to Bosnia and Haiti (humanitarian concerns are not important) but since we are only left with that for Iraq surely you must then concede that Iraq was a mistake. I do not know about Haiti but at least in Bosnia the people actually wanted us there.



Oh, and yes, I AM better off now than I was 4 years ago. ;)

I am glad for you but I do not think you are in a majority.

Germany SUBSIDIZED the troops being there. They did not pay the whole bill. That is offset by the US leasing the bases the troops are stationed at and the endless bills for damage caused by military exersizes. Kill a farmers chicken by accident and the US pays that farmer for THAT chicken and ANY chickens that chicken might have produced for the remainder of its lifetime. Most chiskens ended up costing the US $2,000!

Knock down a fence....gotta pay. Kill a milk cow....the bill would stagger you!

No, we will be far better off with our troops out of foreign countries.

Oh, and yes, I AM better off now than I was 4 years ago. ;)
We shouldn't be killing chickens lol
No fence breaking or killing cows! We deserve that bill if we are not bad.

So I understand your opposition to Bosnia and Haiti (humanitarian concerns are not important) but since we are only left with that for Iraq surely you must then concede that Iraq was a mistake. I do not know about Haiti but at least in Bosnia the people actually wanted us there.

I am glad for you but I do not think you are in a majority.

I do not think Iraq was a mistake at all. It would have been done eventually anyway. Saddam would never have complied with the numerous UN resolutions and he was violating the 1991 cease fire agreement on a daily basis. There are rumors that he is very ill and one of his sons would be taking over. Those two were far worse than he ever would have been.

Bosnia/Kosovo? Why did/could not the Europeans take care of their own back yard? Why does the US ALWAYS have to clean up the worlds mess? Every time we do we get blamed for something or other.

As for my being in a minority for being better off? I think that the main problem is that people over extend themselves and fail to realize what that will cost them. The number of bancruptcies is indicative of that as the vast majority of those filing ARE employed. So i may not be IN the minority if the true numbers are known.

We shouldn't be killing chickens lol
No fence breaking or killing cows! We deserve that bill if we are not bad.

Well...whenever the military practices (exercises) they have to get their toys out and sometimes livestock gets in the way. Tanks are not delicate things that can easily avoid chickens who like to play hubcap tag. ;)

I do not think Iraq was a mistake at all. It would have been done eventually anyway. Saddam would never have complied with the numerous UN resolutions and he was violating the 1991 cease fire agreement on a daily basis. There are rumors that he is very ill and one of his sons would be taking over. Those two were far worse than he ever would have been.

You cannot start with the violating of UN resolutions without bringing Israel into the problem, then you just start appearing hipocritical. And as far as weapons inspection goes he was starting to comply when the threat of action was real against him. Since it appears he did not actually have WMD everybody would have been happy if the US had kept the pressure directly on. The humanitarian issuse in Iraq were compelling but hardly unique. Since you have already stated that you do not think we should have helped in Bosnia: is Iraqi suffering more potent than Bosnian? I cant help it but it seems to always to come back to oil, which then just feeds resentment against us.

Bosnia/Kosovo? Why did/could not the Europeans take care of their own back yard? Why does the US ALWAYS have to clean up the worlds mess? Every time we do we get blamed for something or other.

I dont think you have been 'blamed' in Bosnia. I think the US has a very good reputation there and the people are very grateful for the intervention (unlike Iraq). As to why Europe could not do it they simply do not have the military strength at present. Incidentally when they suggested making a European task force for dealing with things independent of the US, the US was dead against it.

As for my being in a minority for being better off? I think that the main problem is that people over extend themselves and fail to realize what that will cost them. The number of bancruptcies is indicative of that as the vast majority of those filing ARE employed. So i may not be IN the minority if the true numbers are known.

I agree that we live in a culture of overextension and that troubles me as I guess it does you. However the question is: is it easier or harder to overextend yourself now than it was 4 years ago. I think that the increase in bankrupcies indicates that it is easier.

I'm not letting you get by with that blatant lie. The president who has deployed the military more than any president since World War II is our current president. Not only that, but he's extending tours and requiring that those who are deployed are seeing more time in hot zones than any other military in the history of our country. That is a blatant and disgusting abuse of our military.

But I imagine you'll shrug this off much like Hannibal does when he talks about the wimps that are veterans who need VA assistance upon completion of their enlistment.

But you should retract your statement. Bush, and not Clinton, has deployed our military the most of any president since World War II. If you can't retract your blatant mistruth on this matter, then whatever credibility you have is completely shot.

Actually, Thunderland, I was IN Bosnia, and Hungary. I REMEMBER my tour being extend from 90 days...to 180 days...to 2 years...to 3 years....I spent 3 years there. The Dayton Peace Accord was signed in 1995. The US Military presence (as promised by then President Clinton) was stated to last not more than 12 months. I looked forward to at least 10 different redeployment dates that came and went.

And although I can't speak for the entire armed forces...the hundreds of troops that I have served with, from all services, have always shown unanimous dedication to duty. YOU are the ones abusing the military when you scream how useless their actions are, or how wrong. Morale in the military is enormously important...and the biggest threat to it is people not protesting policy, but insulting them, and their commander in chief.

So, as I understand the premise of this thread and the argument of the film, it is thus:

Kerry, using the information provided by the Bush administration, supported the war, but after the information proved faulty and the execusion of that war by the Bush administration was troubled to be generous, he said that the war was a mistake. And because, in the light of new information, Kerry changed his stance he is therefore less fit to be president than the guy who can't see a mistake when it's burning in front of him. Presumably this is supposed to sway people who would support Kerry based on his stance on the war by showing that he wasn't always against it.

First, there's this:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Yeah, don't care. You can show me all you want that he at one time supported the war, I want the guy who knows now that it's a mistake and will try and fix it, not stick his head in the sand and insist it's not broken and raise the threat level anytime the questions get to be too much.

Kerry said recently that he would have supported the war "knowing what we know now about WMDs".

Kerry said recently that he would have supported the war "knowing what we know now about WMDs".
i recall that being more along the lines of "supporting giving the president that power"

Actually, Thunderland, I was IN Bosnia, and Hungary. I REMEMBER my tour being extend from 90 days...to 180 days...to 2 years...to 3 years....I spent 3 years there. The Dayton Peace Accord was signed in 1995. The US Military presence (as promised by then President Clinton) was stated to last not more than 12 months. I looked forward to at least 10 different redeployment dates that came and went.

And although I can't speak for the entire armed forces...the hundreds of troops that I have served with, from all services, have always shown unanimous dedication to duty. YOU are the ones abusing the military when you scream how useless their actions are, or how wrong. Morale in the military is enormously important...and the biggest threat to it is people not protesting policy, but insulting them, and their commander in chief.

Just a bit of info: Thunderland is a decorated Gulf War Vet who is also a head doc that works with Vets.

So he does have some insight to the minds of soldiers.....

i recall that being more along the lines of "supporting giving the president that power"

What's the difference? It's the same thing, in essence.

Just a bit of info: Thunderland is a decorated Gulf War Vet who is also a head doc that works with Vets.

So he does have some insight to the minds of soldiers.....

I respect and appreciate his service. I am currently an active duty soldier, and was speaking to the point of deployment rates and extensions based on my on the ground experience in Bosnia/Herzegovina and Hungary. No disrespect to Mr. Land, just disagreement.

I respect and appreciate his service. I am currently an active duty soldier, and was speaking to the point of deployment rates and extensions based on my on the ground experience in Bosnia/Herzegovina and Hungary. No disrespect to Mr. Land, just disagreement.

No worries! :)

Just making sure you knew you were talking to a vet versus an all knowing civilian! ;)

What's the difference? It's the same thing, in essence.
no, its not
gving the president the power to do it is not saying he would vote for doing it

No worries! :)

Just making sure you knew you were talking to a vet versus an all knowing civilian! ;)

You know, it's an interesting point to make that talking to a vet indicates a clearer understanding of what I am thinking, but you're right. It does.

no, its not
gving the president the power to do it is not saying he would vote for doing it

Knowing that the president would continue on to war, he wouldn't vote against giving him the power?

Knowing that the president would continue on to war, he wouldn't vote against giving him the power?
wow, so he sticks to his beliefs and people start whining, doesnt everyone love bush for sticking to his guns, though he doesnt and he is actually wrong?

kerry said he would still vote for giving the president that power because , and quote, "that is a power the president should have"

just shutup, no really, get a real argument or shutup

Since Bush is running for reelection, he has to work every day. Kerry and Edwards are not doing the job they are being paid for. Most Senators in the past resigned when they decided to run for president. Kerry and Edwards should to since they are getting a paycheck without having to work for it...they are wasting OUR money.

So it's ok for Bush to run for reelection while being paid with OUR money, but Kerry and Edwards running for the same office while still senators is wrong? How you can accept such a blatant double standard is beyond my comprehension. And wasn't Bush still governor of Texas while running for president the first time?

wow, so he sticks to his beliefs and people start whining, doesnt everyone love bush for sticking to his guns, though he doesnt and he is actually wrong?

kerry said he would still vote for giving the president that power because , and quote, "that is a power the president should have"

just shutup, no really, get a real argument or shutup

Actually, Mr. Sensitive Insecurity, I wasn't arguing any point related to Kerry's steadfastness, nor Bush's inadequacies....I was only debating the SINGLE following stand alone question:

If you knew a President was definitely going to war, and you disagreed, would you vote against giving him the power.

Now, if you care to discuss issues, or even debate, than I'm all ears. If not, then hurl insults at yourself, not others.

Actually, Mr. Sensitive Insecurity, I wasn't arguing any point related to Kerry's steadfastness, nor Bush's inadequacies....I was only debating the SINGLE following stand alone question:

If you knew a President was definitely going to war, and you disagreed, would you vote against giving him the power.

Now, if you care to discuss issues, or even debate, than I'm all ears. If not, then hurl insults at yourself, not others.
i quoted kerry for you, im done

And incidentally, Chess:

If the power to go to war was, and quote, "a power the President should have"...then Congress wouldn't have to vote their approval, would they?

They vote TO give the power to the President if they agree with going to war.

They vote AGAINST giving the power if they disagree with going to war.

So it's ok for Bush to run for reelection while being paid with OUR money, but Kerry and Edwards running for the same office while still senators is wrong? How you can accept such a blatant double standard is beyond my comprehension. And wasn't Bush still governor of Texas while running for president the first time?

You make a good point.

For the US Patriot Act alone I would not support Bush but then again, he wasted billions on Iraq, has destroyed your public schools (just like when he was in Texas), has polluted your air even more, has said "to hell with the UN and America's allies", cost millions their jobs, he has made Christianity look like a violent, hateful religion (he must not read the New Testiment), he lied on why the US went to war, and this list goes on and on and on. The Republicans have produced some of the best presidents ever, from Linclon to Rosevelt to Reagan but Bush has trashed their image. He tarnished the image of John McCain, who is 100 times the leader he is, by getting veterans to call McCain "A deserter" during a speech when he was Governor of Texas and then during the 2000 Republican primaries didn't even offer an apology when McCain brought it up. Believe me, I have lost any respect I had for Bush a long time ago. I hope more of America is that way too!

This is one of Kerry's messages taken from the video.

While in congress he voted FOR the war in Iraq. And agreed on the fact that Hussein was a threat to the world and had weapons of mass destrcution. Then he votes against the funding for our troops! and then tries to say that he is now against the war. How much more two faced can you be?

You could be MUCH more two-faced if you told the world that you were invading Iraq to "look for WMD's" , and when you didnt find anything, tell them that "we are here to liberate the Iraqi people"...

BUT THE FIRST THING YOU DO THEM, IS TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW.

That would be MUCH more two faced.

Now, who do we know who would do that.......?

www.rnc.org

watch the 12 minute video on John Kerry. Then tell me how you can possibly support this man.

Well, you better check this out :p

http://www.bushflash.com/ihr.html

This is one of Kerry's messages taken from the video.

While in congress he voted FOR the war in Iraq. And agreed on the fact that Hussein was a threat to the world and had weapons of mass destrcution. Then he votes against the funding for our troops! and then tries to say that he is now against the war. How much more two faced can you be?

Try looking at the facts, not the propoganda. Kerry in fact supported the extra money for the troops. He supported a proposition that it be paid for by oil revenues from Iraq. The president insisted the taxpayers (well, except the rich taxpayers) pay for it. THIS is what Kerry opposed.

Bush wanted the oil revenues for his buddies. He wanted us to pay the extra money that could EASILY have been paid for by oil revenues.

Please get your facts straight, instead of listening top Fox news for your answers.

Hmmm.... have you noticed that whenever Kerry is asked a question about what he intends to do while in office, he rarely ever gives a straight answer? And even if he does give a straight answer, a lot of times if he is asked the same question again he gives a completely different answer? He's completely indecisive and not very confident, he seems to be both for and against every possible side of every issue. At least Bush knows what he wants and will do whatever he can do to get it.

The only things I know about Kerry are he is going to raise taxes through the roof, halting the very delicate economic recovery in its tracks, and severely cut the budget and size of the military, which will allow us to be anally raped by terrorists. Do you really want this idiot as president?

Kerry has not proposed raising taxes, unless you are one of the highest earners in the country. This is only right. The highest earners SHOULD pay more in taxes.

Kerry has, in fact, very clear policy stances, IF you read them, and dont listen to Fox news and RNC to get your information.

Keryy isn't gonna let us get "as-raped" by terrorists. He wants to focus on them, and has a clear policy on fighting terror. Bush's only anti-terror policy is to continue fighting in Iraq (which had nothing to do with it) and scare the population (victory-terrorists).

Bush has not yet laid out a plan to combat terrorism. Kerry has, including:
Addition of 40, 000 troops. Doubling the special forces (the front line against terror) and equipping them with the latest tech. Building alliances with other nations in order to increase our reach and intel.

Bush: Stay the course, keep fighting in Iraq.

That's not true; it's much cheaper to not fly air force one than it is to fly it. Also, the traffic disruptions caused by today's insane security have a real economic cost.

The DC secret service is a fixed cost, but local branches get called in when the President travels, and they have to stop what they're doing, which is a cost. Also, if you hadn't noticed, local police are called out.

A lot of cash-strapped small cities are paying for additional security for Bush fund-raisers. http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/170673
Just a side note: ANY plane the president flies on is designated AIR Force 1

Deployments seldom result in actions that are seen on the evening news, but fighting goes on nonetheless.

Bush has used the military for what it is designed for. Clinton SHOULD have taken on Iraq many times for many reasons. He did not need UN approval since Iraq was in constant violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement. Yet he rotated USAF and ANG units throughout the middle east on 90 day deployments that drained the mission capable rate of every unit that participated despite the live firing they were doing on Iraqi anti-aircraft forces. Kosovo and Bosnia are exceptions to that rule, but our troops are STILL there because of Clintons actions. Same with Haiti.
Actually if you read the UN charter the US violated several clauses with its invasion. No country shall invade another sovereign nation witthout the approval of the UN security council, or some such rubbish.

I know, I am on weaker ground here. There are several conflicting clauses, but I never remember one that authorizes the US to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN

Just a side note: ANY plane the president flies on is designated AIR Force 1
jsut a side note, we are referring to THE air-force 1(s) the 2 main officially designed presidential use only ones

jsut a side note, we are referring to THE air-force 1(s) the 2 main officially designed presidential use only ones
I know, I was just bein an ass. :)

Kerry and Edwards not doing their jobs? How about GW? GW took more days of vacation in his first YEAR than Clinton did in his whole presidency. How's that for not doing your job.

And Flip-flopping? Bush came into the white house wanting to focus on a second coming of spiritual revival. Less than one Year later "terroism is bad". Before 9/11 Bush refused to even deal with the terror threat that was foreseen months before 9/11 happened. Bush named the axis of evil as Iraq, Iran and N. Korea (three nations that have no affiliation). He has taken action in Iraq, done nothing in Iran and is negotiating with N. Korea (a nation that we know to have nuclear capibilities to strike the west coast). that sounds pretty flippy-floppy.

You know how everyone is saying we need more troops in Iraw now. This was invisioned by an Army General (cheif of staff I think, maybe not. He's a Japanese-American). The Bush administration said no and muscled him into retirement.

Where is Iraw? I can't find it on my maps...

Kerry and Edwards not doing their jobs? How about GW? GW took more days of vacation in his first YEAR than Clinton did in his whole presidency. How's that for not doing your job.
Vacation, especially for the President, isn't the same vacation for other people, most of the time. Bush has had plenty of foreign officials, working with them, at his Crawford ranch, for example.

When elected it is because the people want you to represent them and believe you will represent them. Supposing the "flip-flopping" isn't greatly exaggerated in the video, doesn't it make sense that our elected officials views change as the views of the people change? In March 2003 there wasn't nearly as much opposition to the war as there is now. Once you realize that you, as an elected official with the obligation of representing your people, change to what they want? If elections were won by steadfast, stubborn politicians who could not adapt we would need to shorten their terms. These past 4 years are an example to how quickly our world and our minds can change.

I watched it. It started good, and then turned into obvious propoganda. It furthered my belief that neither canidate is worth voting for.

Puffin for 2004

-R. S. of UC

Well this affrmes what I think


Bush = asshole Kerry = doushbag

www.rnc.org

watch the 12 minute video on John Kerry. Then tell me how you can possibly support this man.
how can anyone named after a bunch of gay german leatherboy spanking nazis be a bush fan. of course them boys aint got nothing on me.

You cannot start with the violating of UN resolutions without bringing Israel into the problem, then you just start appearing hipocritical. And as far as weapons inspection goes he was starting to comply when the threat of action was real against him. Since it appears he did not actually have WMD everybody would have been happy if the US had kept the pressure directly on. The humanitarian issuse in Iraq were compelling but hardly unique. Since you have already stated that you do not think we should have helped in Bosnia: is Iraqi suffering more potent than Bosnian? I cant help it but it seems to always to come back to oil, which then just feeds resentment against us.

Isreal is another matter. They are surrounded by enemies and the Europeans, having large Arab populations (France is 10% Arab now) they take a hard line with israel. Would they do so otherwise?

As for Bosnia, I said the Europeans should have taken care of that, but as usual they wanted to talk and talk. Hell, Dutch UN troops actualy HELPED the Serbs load Bosnians into trucks in Srebrenitsa to be taken out and shot!

We did not need the UN's permission to go into Iraq, nor did we need the WMD or the humanitarian argument. Saddam violated the 1991 cease fire agreement millions of times and that alone justified military action. However, in an attempt to appease the rest of the world, Bush tried the UN and France and Germany, who were doing illegal deals with Saddam worked directly against us. Hardly objective dissent.

I dont think you have been 'blamed' in Bosnia. I think the US has a very good reputation there and the people are very grateful for the intervention (unlike Iraq). As to why Europe could not do it they simply do not have the military strength at present. Incidentally when they suggested making a European task force for dealing with things independent of the US, the US was dead against it.

Thats true, the Europeans have relied on the US for far too long and allowed their militaries to wither. The reason the US was against the European Task Force is because it would compete with and possibly cause the dissolution of NATO.

I agree that we live in a culture of overextension and that troubles me as I guess it does you. However the question is: is it easier or harder to overextend yourself now than it was 4 years ago. I think that the increase in bankrupcies indicates that it is easier.

I think it is just as easy. Are there more items to buy that you do not need now? Or is credit easier to obtain now than it was 4 years ago. Have people changed so much in four years that they have forgotten how to live within their income? I don't know, but it all comes down to one thing....personal responsibility.

So it's ok for Bush to run for reelection while being paid with OUR money, but Kerry and Edwards running for the same office while still senators is wrong? How you can accept such a blatant double standard is beyond my comprehension. And wasn't Bush still governor of Texas while running for president the first time?

No, the difference is that Kerry/Edwards are being paid to be Senators at the same time, but have not shown up for work once to do their jobs while running and Bush, as President HAS to do his job every day. THATS the difference. One is being paid to do a job and isn't, the other is being paid to do a job and is.

Actually if you read the UN charter the US violated several clauses with its invasion. No country shall invade another sovereign nation witthout the approval of the UN security council, or some such rubbish.

I know, I am on weaker ground here. There are several conflicting clauses, but I never remember one that authorizes the US to take unilateral action on behalf of the UN

Well, the UN would vote against the US defending itself if invaded, so it's value is greatly diminished in many peoples eyes. The UN is tied up in the "oil for food" scandal and other dubious things like hiring Hamas to patrol the Israeli borders. The UN ceased being a credible organization years ago and should be disbanded forthwith.

www.truthuncovered.com

If you're going to accept the RNC's video for truth, then you may as well accept this one since at least it's not on the DNC's website. Bush is no better than Kerry on "flip-flopping." This video makes it pretty clear that Bush said one thing before the war, then took an entirely different approach to the war after all his lies were discovered. Clinton was impeached because of his private relation with a woman other than his wife. Bush gets away with misleading the world about a war in which a sovereign nation was invaded for no real good reason.

Speaking of flip-flopping, is a politician who changes his mind such a bad thing? God forbid that we have someone who's willing to reassess his position on important issues. I don't understand why America insists on having stubborn politicians who take a side and refuse to budge.

By the way, please don't bother replying unless you watch the video.

www.truthuncovered.com

If you're going to accept the RNC's video for truth, then you may as well accept this one since at least it's not on the DNC's website. Bush is no better than Kerry on "flip-flopping."

Speaking of flip-flopping, is a politician who changes his mind such a bad thing? God forbid that we have someone who's willing to reassess his position on important issues. I don't understand why America insists on having stubborn politicians who take a side and refuse to budge.

Changing ones mind is not the issue. It is the BLATANT tailoring of the message to the audiance that bothers me.

When Kerry was speaking to a group of automakers he proclaimed that he owned a couple of SUV's and thereby supported them with more than words.

When Kerry was speaking to an environmental group he decried those who drove SUV's and the amount of emissions they produce.

When asked about the SUV's he had stated that he owned, he denied owning any. When then asked about his statement to the automakers, he stated that it was his family and not he that owned them.

THAT is the flip-flopping and sleezy doublespeak that gets to me. Can the man not make one honest statement?

Kerry has proven to be two faced. At least Bush can face facts, and say whats really on his mind.

Better someone who changes his own mind, than someone whose mind is being influenced by foreign ties.

Because some people support him for the simple reason he's not Bush. They would vote for Charles Manson, because he's not Bush.

Manson is prohibited from serving, silly. :rolleyes:

No, the difference is that Kerry/Edwards are being paid to be Senators at the same time, but have not shown up for work once to do their jobs while running and Bush, as President HAS to do his job every day. THATS the difference. One is being paid to do a job and isn't, the other is being paid to do a job and is.

How was Bush's job attendence as governor when he was first running for president? No really, I am interested... as the top oval office holder in all of histories for taking vacation time, I wonder if he was just as casual about his job as governor.

How was Bush's job attendence as governor when he was first running for president? No really, I am interested... as the top oval office holder in all of histories for taking vacation time, I wonder if he was just as casual about his job as governor.

Honestly I do not know. However, it has been noted that the office of Governor in Texas is largely ceremonial with very little power. That argument has been used against Bush in the past noting that he was not a "real" Governor.

The differnece here though in my mind is Kerry's attendance record overall. Before 9-11 he was absent 76% of the time from his committee meetings and 100% of the time after 9-11. The Senate is only in session a few months of the year and he could not be bothered to even show up then?

I will have to do some research on Bush's attendance record as Governor because I too want to know.

such close minded views on politics

why do you think you deserve to have a say in government when you can have a heated discussion about bush or kerrys military record

please grow up, it will do your country some good for once

I am acutally suprised that there is little or no comment on th e vietwar records. Most of it has been off topic or about actual policy or lack there of.

Kerry and Edwards not doing their jobs? How about GW? GW took more days of vacation in his first YEAR than Clinton did in his whole presidency. How's that for not doing your job.




That's because Bush has the decency to leave the white house when he needs a little action.

Thus, he must take more vacation time then Billy Bob Clinton.

Kerry has not proposed raising taxes, unless you are one of the highest earners in the country. This is only right. The highest earners SHOULD pay more in taxes.



Just remember, that the top 2 percent wage earners digs down to the 70 or 80K a year range.

Or what your average skilled IT worker makes after 5 years in the industry.
You have push .8 or .9 percent before you get just the millionares and above.

Just remember, that the top 2 percent wage earners digs down to the 70 or 80K a year range.

Or what your average skilled IT worker makes after 5 years in the industry.
You have push .8 or .9 percent before you get just the millionares and above.

Source to back that please?