NationStates Jolt Archive

Credit where credit is due. Bush made an eerily prescient statement. I'm sure he didn't intend it, since it makes him look bad, but hey, he spoke truth, and I want to give him credit.
A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief.
That's George W. Bush's stock in trade, and it's something that certainly cannot be said of John Kerry. Kerry examines every issue minutely, sometimes painfully so, but you can bet on one thing with him--he won't jump to a conclusion without knowing as much of the situation as he can. Considering that our very lives might be at stake, that's important. Vote John Kerry for President.

See: Bush is a flip-flopper thread.

See: Bush is a flip-flopper thread.
Just saw it. My bad.

Exactly. Kerry doesn't ever jump to conclusions about anything. Sometimes he examines things in extreme detail at the expense of making a decision, but jumping the gun is something he'll never be accused of.

So i guess...BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE OUT TO GET YOUR AGAIN!!11shiftone!1 WATCH OUTttt!1

So i guess...BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE OUT TO GET YOUR AGAIN!!11shiftone!1 WATCH OUTttt!1

Such a witty repartee

Indeed, Once again we are trendsetters in raising the intelluctual level of debate.

I have a feeling that General Wesley Clark is about as moderate as moderate can get. I sure hope he gets a good cabinet seat. Seriously, much more important than the Bush/Kerry comparison is the comparison between the cabinets each will have. I have a feeling Kerry will choose a far superior cabinet and set of advisors.

I have a feeling that General Wesley Clark is about as moderate as moderate can get. I sure hope he gets a good cabinet seat. Seriously, much more important than the Bush/Kerry comparison is the comparison between the cabinets each will have. I have a feeling Kerry will choose a far superior cabinet and set of advisors.
The current cabinet, however, is no where near bad. Each of the advisors are extremely educated, and have a purpose. I know you'll hate the idealism part about them, but I admire idealism in policy. Even one that contradicts my beliefs is, as I see it, better than total realism.

I have a feeling Kerry will choose a far superior cabinet and set of advisors.
I don't have much faith in politicians, but it would be near impossible for Kerry not to improve on Bush's cabinet. I mean, between Ashcroft and Rumsfeld you already have two of the worst political appointments in recent history. It would be difficult not to do better.

Yeah, the people in the Bush cabinet are too ideologically driven. I think a Kerry cabinet will have more moderate, pragmatic people.

The current cabinet, however, is no where near bad. Each of the advisors are extremely educated, and have a purpose. I know you'll hate the idealism part about them, but I admire idealism in policy. Even one that contradicts my beliefs is, as I see it, better than total realism.

You don't see Rumesfeld as a total psyhcopathic hawk?

The current cabinet, however, is no where near bad. Each of the advisors are extremely educated, and have a purpose. I know you'll hate the idealism part about them, but I admire idealism in policy. Even one that contradicts my beliefs is, as I see it, better than total realism.

I couldn't disagree more. Bad things happen when you follow ideology rather than actual results. It's the ultimate in style over substance.

Exactly. Kerry doesn't ever jump to conclusions about anything. Sometimes he examines things in extreme detail at the expense of making a decision, but jumping the gun is something he'll never be accused of.

Uh huh. Is that why he's about to get hung out to dry for jumping on the NY Times and CBS bandwagon on the missing explosives? Unconfirmed reports are coming in that satellite photos are showing heavy truck traffic BEFORE the war started. It's also come to light that the IAEA notified the US of the explosives in May 2003. I just saw an interview with Bremmer and he said that about the only traffic around Al-Qaqaa was US and British military and that at least 36 large trucks required to haul that much stuff off would have been noticed.

Kerry...coming down firmly on both sides of every issue!

Bush also stated at a rally...

"We will NOT have a volunteer army!"

*pause while being corrected by audience*

"Whassat?"

"WE WILL HAVE A VOLUNTEER ARMY!"

*smacks head into wall*

I couldn't disagree more. Bad things happen when you follow ideology rather than actual results. It's the ultimate in style over substance.
Realism is simply a battle to maintain the status quo, and achieves nothing. Thousands of people across the globe could be starving and naked under a decadent regime, and if it doesn't serve the status quo, nothing will be done (not alluding to a particular example, btw). Without an idealistic foreign policy, the Soviet Union would still exist. And as you are clearly a Democrat, btw, I'm a bit surprised you don't agree with me. Republicans in the past have tended to be the realists, whereas Democrats have an idealogical foreign policy, with a major example being one of my heros, Woodrow Wilson.

Bush also stated at a rally...

"We will NOT have a volunteer army!"

*pause while being corrected by audience*

"Whassat?"

"WE WILL HAVE A VOLUNTEER ARMY!"

*smacks head into wall*

Source please

Realism is simply a battle to maintain the status quo, and achieves nothing. Thousands of people across the globe could be starving and naked under a decadent regime, and if it doesn't serve the status quo, nothing will be done (not alluding to a particular example, btw). Without an idealistic foreign policy, the Soviet Union would still exist. And as you are clearly a Democrat, btw, I'm a bit surprised you don't agree with me. Republicans in the past have tended to be the realists, whereas Democrats have an idealogical foreign policy, with a major example being one of my heros, Woodrow Wilson.

You don't need to be a slave to ideologies to be able to identify problems and fix them. What you're trying to do is paint Kerry as an unhuman person without a set of beliefs. It simply won't wash. It is far easier to believe that someone (Bush) can get carried away by their ideologies than to think someone (Kerry) is completely devoid of them.

Source please

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushismdraft.htm

Watch it with your very own eyes.

Source please

You didn't catch that speech? It was pretty amusing.

or here if that link doesn't work:

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/allvolunteerarmy.html

You don't need to be a slave to ideologies to be able to identify problems and fix them. What you're trying to do is paint Kerry as an unhuman person without a set of beliefs. It simply won't wash. It is far easier to believe that someone (Bush) can get carried away by their ideologies than to think someone (Kerry) is completely devoid of them.
I'm not suggesting that. In fact, it's great to be objective. It's also great to have an ideaology. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but both candidates lack one. Kerry is not idealogical enough, and Bush is too emotional. But Kerry will have no choice but to build on Bush's foreign policy. It seems to be the next viable step after the Cold War, and besides, our security depends on it. Unless Kerry is really stupid, he won't change the White House much. Doing so would be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and no reasonable person would ever do that.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushismdraft.htm

Watch it with your very own eyes.

(CHUCKLE) Even though I'm a Bush supporter, I have to admit that he missed out on Speech 101. He seems to do OK in 1 on 1 interviews, but gets rattled when speaking to a crowd. As far as the draft is concerned, I think all of the Vietnam vets are going to have to be long dead before anyone will even consider the draft again. Involuntary armies are less effective.