NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday, Bush said he'd stop attacking Kerry. He lied, in his acceptance speech he dd it again. Doesn't he know saying negative things about the other person is attacking them?

I found the speech at GeorgeWBush.Com
http://georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3422
Here is a paragraph: This is but one big attack.
These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.


So why does he have to be negative to get his point across? Kerry wasn't. The other speakers were yes, but noit Kerry. Kerry only spoke positively.

Am I wrong that Conventions should try to be positive?

Funny, Bush went from "Iraq has WMD" back in 03, to "Iraq was a gathering threat" just 20 seconds ago...

he talked of undermining the three branches of govt...I will continue appointing judges who think my way to paraphrase....what an ass.

and again with kerry supporting the war...HE WAS LIED TO BY YOU...YOU TOLD HIM AND THE REST OF THE NATION THAT SADAMM HAD WMD

and were is this peace u speak of in the middle east???

Well, one thing is certain about Bush, he and his followers have no right to call Kerry a flip-flopper after all of Bush's little flip-flops, many we've seen in just this past week.

he talked of undermining the three branches of govt...I will continue appointing judges who think my way to paraphrase....what an ass.

Breaking news alert the media a president who thinks he should appoint judges who think the same way he does. Well this will set a precedent this means people who become president will do the same thing damn that Jefferson! Oh wait are we talking about Bush? I think this has been going on for a while.

and again with kerry supporting the war...HE WAS LIED TO BY YOU...YOU TOLD HIM AND THE REST OF THE NATION THAT SADAMM HAD WMD

You have absolute proof that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and went forward anyway? Quick alter the authorities the best and brightest in the US haven’t been able to find what you know! Really if you can prove without a doubt that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and went ahead anyway go if not don’t say lie it kind of makes you look like an idiot.

It is true that it's general practice for a president to appoint likeminded judges.


God help us if Bush does that :eek:

Breaking news alert the media a president who thinks he should appoint judges who think the same way he does. Well this will set a precedent this means people who become president will do the same thing damn that Jefferson! Oh wait are we talking about Bush? I think this has been going on for a while.



You have absolute proof that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and went forward anyway? Quick alter the authorities the best and brightest in the US haven’t been able to find what you know! Really if you can prove without a doubt that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and went ahead anyway go if not don’t say lie it kind of makes you look like an idiot.
Maybe he doesn't want the attention so he isn't reporting the authorities.
Plus wouldn't the President try to have him killed so it dangerous. Bush doesn't want to give up the Presidency, its fun.

by the way: Kerry said, "For three days in New York, instead of talking about jobs and the economy, we heard anger and insults from the Republicans. And I'll tell you why. It's because they can't talk about the real issues facing Americans. They can't talk about their record because it's a record of failure. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America.” - John Kerry, September 3, 2004"

You have absolute proof that Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and went forward anyway?Operation Desert Fox. It involved the destruction of Iraq's remaining WMD sites and a hospital. The Republicans opposed it, saying it was just a distraction from Monica Lewinsky.

UN weapon inspections in Iraq in 2003. They were in the process of confirming that the WMDs had been destroyed. Bush kicked them out a tthe start of the war and never let them back in

Maybe he doesn't want the attention so he isn't reporting the authorities.
Plus wouldn't the President try to have him killed so it dangerous. Bush doesn't want to give up the Presidency, its fun.

Please use sarcasm green the next time you say something like this.

by the way: Kerry said, "For three days in New York, instead of talking about jobs and the economy, we heard anger and insults from the Republicans. And I'll tell you why. It's because they can't talk about the real issues facing Americans. They can't talk about their record because it's a record of failure. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America.” - John Kerry, September 3, 2004"

The economy is doing just fine, and I find this comment funny since it is coming from the man who is running on I went to Vietnam instead of look at what I did in the Senate.

Operation Desert Fox. It involved the destruction of Iraq's remaining WMD sites and a hospital. The Republicans opposed it, saying it was just a distraction from Monica Lewinsky.

You mean when Clinton just lobbed some missiles into Iraq? We never knew if it took out all if any of the WMDs that Iraq had left.

UN weapon inspections in Iraq in 2003. They were in the process of confirming that the WMDs had been destroyed. Bush kicked them out a tthe start of the war and never let them back in

All they were saying was Saddam is being more cooperative this time, and we haven’t found any yet. If this means absolute proof than Bush would have been impeach long before now.

he talked of undermining the three branches of govt...I will continue appointing judges who think my way to paraphrase....what an ass.

Thats something every President does. You don't think Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were appointed by Republicans, do you?

After four years one would think there truly could not be any undecided voters out there. I mean as he said you know what you get with Bush. If you are undecided you most likely will vote for Kerry or just not vote. And, that is where I am. That said I must say the man gave the best speech of his presidency last night. I left impressed and a general feeling of "it's about time" when he expressed his sorrow about having to send nearly 1000 US troops to their death. I most likely will just vote for someone else, but in the long run I think it is fair to say he accomplished what he set out to do and gave us a glimpse of his humility.

Just my thoughts. Take it or leave it, just respect my opinion as I respect yours.

everytime i see the president speak, i think "did all the intellictual people in america die?"

then i see what people say about his speaches and wonder if there were any in the first place

:)

The problem with this war is not what we are NOW doing it for. It's what we WERE doing it for. I will make this clear, Saddam had no connection to 9/11 (43% of America thinks he does). Saddam is only a terrorist to his own people (mostly Kurds). Saddam in no way-shape-or-form was an immenant threat to the US. We are fighting a war on terror and we get distracted by this? Rather than gaining huge support from countries, he takes their wimpy amounts of troops and calls it a coalition of the willing. Maybe if he played the Saddam is commiting crimes against humanity card in the UN he would've gained support. Instead he picked the card that the UN had been working on so long, WOMD. Now we are pulling the brunt of 90% of the war while having to fight a "war" on terrorism.

BTW, where the hell is Osama?

The biggest thing that got me with his speech was all his talk about all of the things he WILL do to help the economy, the people, health care etc.


Well George, why can't you talk about the things you HAVE done to help that out? You've had the house, the senate, and the oval office for four years.... why didn't you do them already? You remember - all the things you promised you WOULD do the last time you asked people to vote for you!


You WILL increase aid for community colleges to help people retrain for jobs? That's nice. The recession has been going for three years now. What the hell took you so long to notice?

You WILL make the tax codes simpler? OK. Again - what took you so damn long to notice?

And more and more of that. You WILL do something? Really? Since you know it matters to the people - why haven't you done it already? Where is your record of doing these things you promise?

You talked about your only two accomplishments in the areas of education and health care. No Child Left Behind got some nice aplause. You forgot to note how you reneged on funding it though..... And the prescription drug plan for seniors? Bravo! Nice job. It was so important to you that you made it so it would not kick in for two years. Important... but not important enough to help seniors NOW.

Ths speech tried to make people feel all hopeful that GW would swoop in and fix all of these problems. The hope that people would forget that GW has had the helm for four years and hasn't dealt with these problems yet.

He also forgot to mention where the money was going to come from to fund ANY of these initiatives at the same time as he derided KErry as a "tax and spend liberal".

Frankly, the spending is equally obscene on both sides. It's a wash. The diference seems to be that the Democrats want to keep the government solvent while spending, but the Republicans seem to believe that an expnse delayed is an expense not incurred.


But GW promises that THIS time he will actually DO some of the things he should have been doing for the past four years.


That's nice.


It's up to you to decide if he WILL do it, or - if just like last time - he won't.

my only comment can be to say that high lighting the record of john kerry is not attacking him...

"These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps."

Those are all things that John Kerry has, in the past as well as present, stood for. If you view that as talking negatively then you obviously think that kerry's position on those issues is a bad one. If that's the case then i should hope you wouldn't support him.

Also, I'd like to point out that Kerry served on the senate intelligence committee, which means that he got exactly the same intelligence as the president. The only way that John Kerry might have been duped into support for the war in Iraq is to have missed 76% of the intelligence committee's meetings...

While i'm more conservative than bush in many respects, notably he expands gov't way more than i can say i'm comfortable with, he has sound ideas on funding that don't increase taxes. Welfare and medicare reform are the most obvious ones. Also, to say that he hasn't done anything he promised to do is both incorrect and misleading. He passed the largest tax refund in decades and brought the military to it's pre-clinton height and beyond. It's misleading, however, because you seem to forget the dynamics of his term. There are more important and pressing issues abroad than there are currently at home, and while he tries to rectify every issue faced by this nation, he can't possibly do it.

By the way, just for the record, having "control" of the senate doesn't mean anything when we have so-called "conservatives" like John McCain on our side... he's a nice guy, a patriotic American, but he is no conservative.

Ahh, election years - that time when I unplug the TV, turn off the radio, and avoid all newspapers so I can go at least 5 minutes without listenting to the political parties take cheap shots at each other at every opportunity. :rolleyes:

Politics sucks. I'd say that come election year, we should just stick them all in a big house wired with TV cameras and we get to vote one of them of every week. It's a win-win situation. We'd only have to hear them bitch at each other in a single half-hour timeslot each day, and the polititians would have to actually live with each other for once, rather than safely take potshots at each other from behind a camera. :D

Kerry? Bush? Who cares. I believe everything happens for a reason, and unfortunately great changes in the world have to first begin with great upheaval (WW2 being a prime example). I beleive Bush will win the next election, not because he's a good leader, but because paradoxically, he's what the world needs at the moment.

By the way, just for the record, having "control" of the senate doesn't mean anything when we have so-called "conservatives" like John McCain on our side... he's a nice guy, a patriotic American, but he is no conservative.
McCain is pretty conservative, actually. If you want to pick on Republican senators who aren't conservative, look at ones from the general area of Pennsylvania upwards : Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, both of Maine's senators - they're much more liberal than McCain is...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_manipulation_accomplished.jpg

:D

Bush only had to say one word in his acceptance speech (and the convention would still have cheered him to the echo)

SUCKERS!

well, if that is your attitude ok, but let me tell you , this convention will give it's candidate a poll bounce......unlike some others.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_manipulation_accomplished.jpg


Oh my god, that is soo funny. :D

Every time the crowd starts cheering and waving flags and signs I can't help but think about crowds in the middle east waving pictures of "martyrs" and yelling anti american slogans. Why do Republicans insist on fighting fanaticism with more fanaticism?

Every time the crowd starts cheering and waving flags and signs I can't help but think about crowds in the middle east waving pictures of "martyrs" and yelling anti american slogans. Why do Republicans insist on fighting fanaticism with more fanaticism?


Because people need to understand that God really is on the side of THEIR fanaticism.... silly!

Ah - the DNC was no better for that. Everyone pulled out the right sign to wave at the right moment. It is so horribly un-spontaeous they might as well get rid of real delegates and bring in Hollywood extras to fill the stadiums.



I just want to see the year that some practical joker sneaks in a crate or two of self-igniting flags to hand out to the crowd to wave..... but I have a warped sense of humour.