Is anybody else disgusted to the core with the juvenile mud slinging of Kerry and Bush? It's not even "mature" insults and mud slinging. Both parties are doggedly clinging to this sillyness from the Vietnam war, as if it really matters a damn anyway now. Whether Kerry had his limbs blown off, or cut himself shaving to get a purple heart, why are they making such a big deal out of this? To me it shows that neither leader has anything better to go on. I suppose that to them - and sadly to much of the public, since this nonsense is perpetuated by the media, and clearly the public likes it - the particulars of a three decade old medal are more important than the economy and national security.

All this does is reinforce my earlier belief that no matter who wins the election come November, the country will lose.

...no matter who wins the election come November, the country will lose.
http://tim.movementarian.com/archives/alien-vs-predator.jpg http://tim.movementarian.com/archives/kerry-versus-bush.jpg

... and sadly to much of the public, since this nonsense is perpetuated by the media, and clearly the public likes it - the particulars of a three decade old medal are more important than the economy and national security...

All this does is reinforce my earlier belief that no matter who wins the election come November, the country will lose.

I don't know that the public enjoys it - it's the staunch Rep vs. Dem mentality-types that are sporting wood over Kerry's war record. I don't know a single average Joe/Jane who will opine positively on the Bush/Kerry mud-slinging, not that anyone with a modicum of decency would despite party affiliation. Bush more so; his camp is shameless in its childish campaigning. He doesn't do it in his "I'm GWB and I approved this message" - he leaves it to other Republican factions to pursue the mud-slinging. But he's not stopping it, either. What does that tell you? This has all the finesse of two rednecks having a Ford versus Chevy debate. And I think the rednecks are more civil about it.

I'm a screaming liberal anyway, but I could vote Republican would that they had a worthy candidate. Bush Jr. is not worthy, if'n you ask me.

I'd like to see a Democrat in office simply because I believe it'll slow down this world-policing kick the Republicans seem to have a hard-on for. We have enough problems at home; why we're spending billions to try to quell unrest in an area that has been at war for 2000+ years is beyond my comprehension. Isn't it arrogant to think we can show up and put the kaibosh on that kind of timeless hatred?

I'm ashamed to be an American at a time like this. I'll be abstaining from this election as I find both candidates are putrid and a third-party vote isn't my idea of "sending a message". The issues are moot. Our brothers and sisters are dying while they bicker over childish issues. I wish them both a screaming case of blistering hemmorhoids. And I hope the presidential limo has rough seats.

-R

lmao, i dig that picture.

im voting for Kerry, only becaue hes the best chance to get Bush out. Nader doesnt have a chance in hell. If anything he'll win the election for Bush.

Without getting into a huge debate, Bush had his shot, effed up and EFFED UP BAD. Not only does he obliterate the line between church and state but actually lets the right wing form his policies for him.Not to mention the Patriot Act, Iraq, stem cell research, his affiliations with Enron, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group. Bush is no genius, he's a puppet, its the guys behind the scenes pulling his stings that will steal the election if they can.

hopefully Kerry will be less of a screw up.But I doubt it.

It makes me wonder - when you see the opinion polls, you see who Americans prefer, but is it really just who they despise less? I think the onion had an article a few weeks back that went something like "Americans deciding who not to vote for this election." It may be more so than ever the case of voting in the least sh*ty candidate.

It makes me wonder - when you see the opinion polls, you see who Americans prefer, but is it really just who they despise less? I think the onion had an article a few weeks back that went something like "Americans deciding who not to vote for this election." It may be more so than ever the case of voting in the least sh*ty candidate.

i definetly see that, hell i think the majority of Kerry supporters are the independent swing voters (such as myself) that are so disgusted with Bush i'll back the horse with best chance. Then in 2008 get the Kerry the hell out of there. There are the zealots out there who are passionate about one or the other, but those people just don't see the big picture.

AND GOD FORBID you say a negative word against King BUsh..at least in my town. It's like they enjoy the thought of striking down anyone who has a difference of opinion..whether they know it or not they are proving my point every single time they do it. If i wore a pro Bush tshirt, everythings cool, i wouldnt even get a second glance from Kerry supporters, BUT if i wear my anti Bush shirt, i havethis one (http://www.internationalterrorist.com) , then i get death threats. Some guy threatened to set me on fire while i'm still wearing it.

i definetly see that, hell i think the majority of Kerry supporters are the independent swing voters (such as myself) that are so disgusted with Bush i'll back the horse with best chance. Then in 2008 get the Kerry the hell out of there. There are the zealots out there who are passionate about one or the other, but those people just don't see the big picture.

AND GOD FORBID you say a negative word against King BUsh..at least in my town. It's like they enjoy the thought of striking down anyone who has a difference of opinion..whether they know it or not they are proving my point every single time they do it. If i wore a pro Bush tshirt, everythings cool, i wouldnt even get a second glance from Kerry supporters, BUT if i wear my anti Bush shirt, i havethis one (http://www.internationalterrorist.com) , then i get death threats. Some guy threatened to set me on fire while i'm still wearing it.Dems and Repubs both have their share of blind zealots. In fact I think a great portion of the country pics a political party in the same fashion as a sports team. They just pick one, and from there on root for it, regardless of what happens. These people are irresponsible voting, because their vote is automatic and without any thought behind it.

im voting for Kerry, only becaue hes the best chance to get Bush out. Nader doesnt have a chance in hell. If anything he'll win the election for Bush.

Boy, theres a good reason to vote for someone. :d_rolleye I am tired of the whole "I'm voting for anyone but Bush" sentiment I hear. That sounds like a serious cop-out and lends me to believe they cannot think for themselves and are just following along with the crowd.

Take a point by point comparison between Bush and Kerry to determine your platform first. Despite being a registered Dem. I don't see Kerry being a qualified candidate for being President. His proposed policies don't mesh with his rhetoric and I seriously doubt his abilities to get a whole lot done inside the beltway. Perhaps the biggest benefit to Kerry wining would be the French and Germans would be a bit friendlier but does that fix any of the problems currently facing us? Nope.

Have you guys seen the story about how Tony Blair is refussing to accept a congressional medal of honor?

You can read it here: LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040823/wl_uk_afp/britain_us_iraq_040823154529)

It's all about how Bush is basically bullying Blair to come to the United States to accept this medal. He's doing this, coincedentaly, right around election time so he can look good. I don't like the way that Bush opperates. I simply just don't trust the man.

Boy, theres a good reason to vote for someone. :d_rolleye I am tired of the whole "I'm voting for anyone but Bush" sentiment I hear. That sounds like a serious cop-out and lends me to believe they cannot think for themselves and are just following along with the crowd.


sorry man that doesnt wash with me. Its just a means to an end, i had my mind made up to vote the way I do BECAUSE i'm thinking for myself.

I follow noone, just so happens other people think as I do. I consider Bush to be a SERIOUS threat and detriment to this country, and i think like this BECAUSE i've done my research on his policies.

IMO a vote for Nader is a vote thrown away. I want Bush OUT OF OFFICE and i'll back the guy thats most likely to unseat him. Could Kerry end up being worse than him? Maybe, but you take that chance with any of these putzs that run for office.

My vote is a tactical one. I could give a sh!t what anyone else does.

I have asked all of my friends this and no one has an answer.

I understand why you would vote against Bush (whether or not I agree with it) but give me one good reason that you think Kerry would make a good president?

I for one respect Bush for taking the actions that he feels is right Despite public opinion. Just because it is not popular does not make it wrong. I fear that Kerry will "lead" with a majority rules approach. IF That is what happens we are all in trouble ...

I am not saying that Bush is a terrific president, what I am saying is that with Bush you know what you are getting, he doesn't hide his opinion and that is exactly why half of America will vote for him, half will vote against him and very few are voting FOR Kerry.

Just my opinion
sorry man that doesnt wash with me. Its just a means to an end, i had my mind made up to vote the way I do BECAUSE i'm thinking for myself.

I follow noone, just so happens other people think as I do. I consider Bush to be a SERIOUS threat and detriment to this country, and i think like this BECAUSE i've done my research on his policies.

IMO a vote for Nader is a vote thrown away. I want Bush OUT OF OFFICE and i'll back the guy thats most likely to unseat him. Could Kerry end up being worse than him? Maybe, but you take that chance with any of these putzs that run for office.

My vote is a tactical one. I could give a sh!t what anyone else does.

anybody but kerry

I have asked all of my friends this and no one has an answer.

I understand why you would vote against Bush (whether or not I agree with it) but give me one good reason that you think Kerry would make a good president?



fair question man... :D
and i cant give you an answer..because i dont know that he will make a good president. I like that he was Vietnam, shows me he's got some balls, i dont care if you were just a cook kickin it on KP duty the whole time it took balls to survive that mess. I dont buy into the smear campaigns against his service record, at least he HAS one. But who knows that whole thing could be a smoke screen.

I know Bush had his shot, in my eyes he blew it (and his deceit referring to the war in Iraq costing the lives of our brothers and sisters is something that should not be forgiven)

Again i dont endorse Kerry, I endorse Bush thrown out of office.
and again, this is just the way I see things.

I think Majority should rule man. When you have a lone wolf off the reservation like ol' Dubbya, that gets mighty close to a dictatorship...well actually wait...a minority ruling over a majority...i think thats EXACTLY what a dicatatorship is. :d_rolleye

Bush works FOR ME, i dont work for him. Maybe i should rephrase that because i dont see him doing any real work at all.

I for one respect Bush for taking the actions that he feels is right Despite public opinion. Just because it is not popular does not make it wrong. I fear that Kerry will "lead" with a majority rules approach. IF That is what happens we are all in trouble ...

You fear that Kerry will lead with a "majority rules approach"? Um, do you mean democracy?

You fear that Kerry will lead with a "majority rules approach"? Um, do you mean democracy?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :tu:

Give me one good reason why Ronald McDonald would be a good write-in candidate.

People are missing the forest for the trees here. Men the caliber of John Kerry or George W. Bush don't achieve their positions through deception, smoke and mirrors. They're educated, respected businessmen, community leaders, and posess many other respectable and upstanding qualities. You can't see these qualities in them right now - they're too busy fending off accusation after accusation. The Presidency has become a shadow of its former self, sadly due to the public's tabloidal need for smut (a.ka., GWB's campaign again Kerry's war record) and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the President of the United States is little more than a figure head to be swayed in the direction his advisors care to take him. The advisors achieve their goals leaving the President, for the most part, to bear the brunt of the decision. Therefore, who is really in control, and who's really the scapegoat?

The greatest problem is that politics and politicians have become so stereotypically entrenched in playing the games required to achieve office that the office itself can be lost to the battle as well as my concerns as to just how much power any one president actually wields.

If people were to actually use their heads - and I have ZERO faith in the public's ability to process anything more than a Simpsons episode - my belief is that they'd see these facts. They're too entrenched in party affiliation. All party affiliation represents anymore is whether you're associated with a fat-assed pachyderm or a jackass. Politicians cross party lines to accomplish their agendas more than I use the john during the day. The only person seemingly held fully accountable for party affiliation is the prez himself.

Moral of the story? The choices suck as-is, and I can't in good conscience cast a vote for either.

good one, shogun ;)

like a lot of people I'm not so much voting for Kerry as voting against Bush. everything his administration has touched has turned into a great steaming pile. I'm not blaming him personally for a lot of it as he's surrounded by zealots of a number of stripes and he seems to be easily-influenced, but I do blame him for rushing into war particularly and for a number of other things he seemed to latch onto because it looked good at the time.

he's pulling the same crap with Kerry that he did with McCain in 2000. lies and smears. the so-called Liberal Media has been giving him a pass for the past four years and they're still doing it.

I'll admit I'm pretty liberal but I've voted for Republicans before and I'd do it again if I thought s/he were the better candidate. that's clearly (to me) not the case here.

You fear that Kerry will lead with a "majority rules approach"? Um, do you mean democracy?


There is a HUGE difference between a democracy and a "majority rules approach"

The majority of people did not support us going into europe in WWII was that a bad idea

The majority of people would vote for no taxes (doing away with education and millions of other federal programs)

Not the best examples but the point is People are too emotionally charged, group think takes place and nothing gets done. A democracy involves voting in a "leader" who will make the difficult decisions. If we were governed by popularity we would soon be taken over. The fact is many hard decisions are not popular but have to be made, I have not seen any evidence that Kerry is willing to make a hard decision.

I like that he was Vietnam, shows me he's got some balls,


I agree what Kerry did in Vietnam is admirable but I personally do not think it should be an issue at all in this election. I am sure all of us made a lot of decisions when we were younger that do not accurately reflect who we are twenty years latter. He was a hero I personally do not care if he exaggerated his record or not. He fought to protect our country and for that reason should be admired

My point about why a democracy ishould not be a "majority rules approach" only better said:


and I have ZERO faith in the public's ability to process anything more than a Simpsons episode .

Unfortunately, most of the information people have on Kerry has been provided by the Republicans, either through the Bush campaign or through outlets like Fox. We've had 3 1/2 years of direct evidence of what Bush will do with another term. Kerry's a better choice, but you have to put out some effort, do some homework, turn off Fox and look for information about him through more balanced sources. Pick up a copy of "Foreign Affairs" magazine and spend two hours.

Not the best examples but the point is People are too emotionally charged, group think takes place and nothing gets done. A democracy involves voting in a "leader" who will make the difficult decisions. If we were governed by popularity we would soon be taken over. The fact is many hard decisions are not popular but have to be made, I have not seen any evidence that Kerry is willing to make a hard decision.
Yep, because selfishness and pervasive ignorance is such a strong force and so entrenched in the masses, that they can't actually govern themselves. The best they can hope for is that they have a moment of clarity in which they elect a leader more intelligent, and with better foresight than they. This works a lot of the time, and allows awful dictatorial leaders in sometimes, but there isn't much of an alternative.

And, here's a thought about voting... I think that by not voting, you give the people who do vote power over you, in principle. Abstaining from voting just gives more voting power to whoever you might not agree with. I think it's always a good idea to vote, even if you don't particularly like all the candidates, and especially if you're an informed person. Often, voting is only about picking the one you like more, even when you only like them a tiny, tiny fraction more than the other candidate. You don't have to love them or anything, you only need the slightest preference to have a good reason to pick and then vote.

Unfortunately, most of the information people have on Kerry has been provided by the Republicans, either through the Bush campaign or through outlets like Fox. We've had 3 1/2 years of direct evidence of what Bush will do with another term. Kerry's a better choice, but you have to put out some effort, do some homework, turn off Fox and look for information about him through more balanced sources. Pick up a copy of "Foreign Affairs" magazine and spend two hours.

Believe Me, I have researched Bush, Kerry, Edwards, and even Nader and some of the lesser candidates. Obviously the republicans have skewed a lot of information but so have the democrats.

I happen to have many of the same opinions as Bush so I am leaning towards him. The problem with Kerry is that I really don't know what he believes and if he believes in anything strong enough to stand against it. When he was in the south he gave really great speeches (note: I saw both speeches in entirity not edited by fox or others) about how he is pro-life and opposes gay marriage. About a week later he gave speeches with the opposite view in the new england states. Are these two issues the main issue in the election? ... absolutely not but it is disturbing that he will not either pick a side or take a stand and say these are moral issues and thus should not matter in an election.

I have not made up my mind completely yet, I am wating to see what the candidates say their plans are and will then evaluate them from there. I probably will vote for a third party candidate because

1. I would like to see a third party in american politics
2. My Vote won't really change anything because my state is so republican

give me one good reason that you think Kerry would make a good president?

He has strong convictions and the real-life experience to back them up, but he isn't illogical, unreasonable, or hostile to his friends.

He's very experienced and respected in Washington. He has good friends and allies on both sides in the aisle (including John McCain, the most respected Republican in the country) and would be much more of a "uniter" than Bush ever was.

Most importantly, he's an experienced and knowledgeable lawmaker. Bush's social policies have been so aggressive that, because he controls the congress, he's created a huge domestic mess. Are gay marriages legal? Are they illegal? Is using public money to fund private schools legal or illegal? What is the government's actual position on the separation of church and state? Is abortion going to be illegalized? We don't know.

Bush's biggest problem is that he doesn't know how to work through the established channels and doesn't know how to do things himself, so he trusts executive advisors to run the country. Because they have very shaky official roles in the government, they don't work together well and cause all sorts of confusion that leads to strife and unhappiness. For a guy who prides himself on being a "strong leader," he doesn't really lead very much.

Congress is suposed to do things like oversee the CIA, which they don't appear to be doing for some reason. For the last twenty years, all government agencies appear to be working actively against each other. Every week, there's another suggestion out to radically reform the entire bureaucracy of the government . . . by adding more bureaucracy.

The tax system is shot and no longer comes close to covering the government's budget, which is in turn based on figures based on projected income from risky ventures (like war).

The thing that makes Kerry great for this job is that he's a career legislator. Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan were all the same kind of President - they used their public influence to force people to get things done without really having a plan for how it was all going to be structured. This is great when you need somebody to force through some sort of essential program, but it's obvious at this point that we've been doing this for too long, the structure of government has been pushed too far by the Presidency, and somebody has to clean up if we're going to move forward.

Kerry's a Senator (a very successful senator, not nearly as leftist as everybody, dem and rep, wants you to think, and well-liked and well-respected by his colleagues and constituents), and it is the Senate's job to clean up the country's messes. The Senate is supposed to decide whether or not treaties are good, wars are correct, laws and budgets are proper and prudent, and new departments and appointees will work well with each other. If you've read the 9/11 commission report, you know that the country needs a big dose of that right now.

We don't need another four years of a governor as President. Governors aren't good at building systems, they're good at running them. Right now, America needs to do some rebuilding (rebuilding its economy, rebuilding its reputation, rebuilding its bridges, rebuilding its level of civil discourse, and, most importantly, rebuilding its ruinous bureaucracy), and Kerry is good at that sort of thing. He's been doing that for years, especially in foreign relations.

He's also one of the government's foremost authorities on East Asian and Pacific relations. He has a much better chance of avoiding a major screw up in North Korea or Taiwan than Bush does, because he himself is very knowledgable about the area and wouldn't have to depend on squabbling advisors with different personal agendas to make decisions about it.

Kerry is intelligent, decent, and a seasoned veteran on the Hill. Bush is great at drumming up public support for his ideas, but doesn't know enough about how the federal government works, and is therefore totally dependent on his advisors. Even if Bush means well, he really can't control his advisors, and every week it seems that they do something else shady without his knowledge or approval.

I'm of the opinion that bad things tend to happen when the President and Congress are controlled by the same political party. The government is built to check and balance itself, that is the only real protection any of our liberties have in the age of professional high-tech warfare, when mass rebellion is really no longer a threat. If one political party dependent on one set of extremists controls all three branches of government, bad things will happen.

If the country has decided it wants a more Republican, conservative Congress, it would be really smart to install a moderate Democratic Presidental administration to watch them, especially a moderate and mature Democrat like Kerry with a Vice President like Edwards, who is right of the median Democrat, who is friends with a lot of Republicans and isn't going to shut down the government out of spite like Newt Gingrich and Clinton did back in the early 90's and George Pataki and the NY State legislature have been doing for the last year.

Another reason - Kerry is not beholden to extremists. He was nominated by a more conservative and old-guard cross-section of the Democrats than would have nominated Dean or Edwards for President, or Gephardt, Sharpton, or Kucinich. Because his support doesn't mostly come from radicals, that means he will not feel obligated to appoint radical judges.

That will probably be the most important thing the next President does; because a big branch the GOP has gone socially extreme, they haven't been successful in getting a lot of judges confirmed in the last fifteen years. Their own party members can't unanimously back up most of their choices. We need somebody appointing judges who won't lose his essential support base if he nominates a moderate judge, because the legal system needs judges and the right-wing of the GOP obviously isn't willing to make the compromises necessary to push them through. This wouldn't be a problem if Kerry was President, unless the Republican senate did something really stupid, like require total opposition to any form of gay marriage as a litmus test for all judges, which they still might very well do.

Wow, I typed too much. Okay, back to work.

Bush's biggest problem is that he doesn't know how to work through the established channels


I would agree with That


1. The thing that makes Kerry great for this job is that he's a career legislator.
2. I'm of the opinion that bad things tend to happen when the President and Congress are controlled by the same political party.

Wow, two good points you should work for the DNC


The tax system is shot and no longer comes close to covering the government's budget, which is in turn based on figures based on projected income from risky ventures (like war).
I think a lot of us would vote for anyone that could get some type of flat tax installed.

A democracy involves voting in a "leader" who will make the difficult decisions.

Or having your judicial branch choose one for you...

---

With all the terror warnings, I just hope we get to vote this time.


:whistle:

Is anybody else disgusted to the core with the juvenile mud slinging of Kerry and Bush? It's not even "mature" insults and mud slinging. Both parties are doggedly clinging to this sillyness from the Vietnam war, as if it really matters a damn anyway now. Whether Kerry had his limbs blown off, or cut himself shaving to get a purple heart, why are they making such a big deal out of this? To me it shows that neither leader has anything better to go on. I suppose that to them - and sadly to much of the public, since this nonsense is perpetuated by the media, and clearly the public likes it - the particulars of a three decade old medal are more important than the economy and national security.

All this does is reinforce my earlier belief that no matter who wins the election come November, the country will lose.

The only people that seem "disgusted" are the people that pay attention. Throw a few years worth of election experience in, and the "mud-slinging" means nothing. This is especially true when the candidates are not even funding the ads creating so called problems. the candidates are not making a big deal out of anything. I would say that you seem pretty worked up about it though... :p

I find it interesting that because of the "mud-slinging", to you it means that neither candidate has anything "better going on". Presidents and candidates always have a lot going on. An ad on the TV doesn't change that. I really don't understand your logic there.

The media just puts the information out. It is up to you and me as to how we want to react to it. If we act emotionally and include knee-jerk reactions to the information provided, you better believe that the media will put more crap out there. MoveOn.org WANTS reaction to their ads as well as the Swift Boat vets wanting reaction to theirs.

The media is built around people's reactions to what is presented. If the discourse about a subject is reasonable, then the subject ends. This is what happens to issues that get handled... they dissappear.

On the other hand, when the ignorant discuss issues, they never go away.. i.e they are never solved. The banter builds and the subjects change on an endless, emotional wet wave.

Research an issue, make sense of it, and/or dispose of it. You speak about the media and the mud-slinging, and it immediately moves to entirely different subjects like who sucks as a President or who would suck as a President or why it is OK to vote for one guy just to get another guy out... It doesn't make much sense.

The bottom line is: If you don't like or agree with what is said or how it is presented, it is up to you to dispense of it in a rational way. If the "mud slinging" makes you sick, then realize that it is disgusting drivel and distance yourself from it. Afterall, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency and who is a qualified candidate.

:gl:

four

I for one respect Bush for taking the actions that he feels is right Despite public opinion. Just because it is not popular does not make it wrong.

Actually, in a democracy, it does.

The reason that you like him is same reason that I don't. He respects no one's opinion but his own and his closest advisors. To not listen to the american people is to turn your back on them. To not listen to the United Nations is to turn your back on the world.

Just my 2 cents.

I couldn't even think of the possibility of voting for bush if I was a us citizen, but seeing how aznar would've won in spain if it weren't for the 11-M terrorist attack in Madrid...I know anything might happen.

I like it better in the US though, because at least it seems that there ppl who vote for Bush are not ashamed to say so. Anyway, hope Kerry wins and the USA come closer to the second most hated country in the world...they seem to have too much advantadge right now.

The only people that seem "disgusted" are the people that pay attention. Throw a few years worth of election experience in, and the "mud-slinging" means nothing. This is especially true when the candidates are not even funding the ads creating so called problems. the candidates are not making a big deal out of anything. I would say that you seem pretty worked up about it though... :p

I find it interesting that because of the "mud-slinging", to you it means that neither candidate has anything "better going on". Presidents and candidates always have a lot going on. An ad on the TV doesn't change that. I really don't understand your logic there.

The media just puts the information out. It is up to you and me as to how we want to react to it. If we act emotionally and include knee-jerk reactions to the information provided, you better believe that the media will put more crap out there. MoveOn.org WANTS reaction to their ads as well as the Swift Boat vets wanting reaction to theirs.

The media is built around people's reactions to what is presented. If the discourse about a subject is reasonable, then the subject ends. This is what happens to issues that get handled... they dissappear.

On the other hand, when the ignorant discuss issues, they never go away.. i.e they are never solved. The banter builds and the subjects change on an endless, emotional wet wave.

Research an issue, make sense of it, and/or dispose of it. You speak about the media and the mud-slinging, and it immediately moves to entirely different subjects like who sucks as a President or who would suck as a President or why it is OK to vote for one guy just to get another guy out... It doesn't make much sense.

The bottom line is: If you don't like or agree with what is said or how it is presented, it is up to you to dispense of it in a rational way. If the "mud slinging" makes you sick, then realize that it is disgusting drivel and distance yourself from it. Afterall, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency and who is a qualified candidate.

:gl:

fourYour post could have relevance to somebody with my point of view, but it doesn't apply to me :P I am disgusted with it, merely because it occupies space on the front of CNN.com and I can't even flip to any news channel without at least a few seconds of nonsense thrown down my throat, before I'm able to turn it over. Believe me when I say I know as little about it as a person possibly could, given how often I visit news sites.

I am not voting in November because I'm not a citizen.

Bush and Kerry both have been encouraging this sillyness. I did catch Kerry saying something like "I respond to him: Bring it on!". Maybe not those exact words, but equally embarassing nonetheless.

Moveon.org and the swift boat vets want a knee-jerk reaction like you said, against whomever they are attacking. My knee-jerk is grow up to them; I couldn't give less of a damn (again, if I was voting), the details of a purple heart. It's a total nonissue. It's sad that people consider it otherwise.

In regards to your last paragraph, that's exactly what I've done. I'm condemning it; not taking part in it. I have yet to enter a thread on any internet forum about swift boats or medals, or any other kerry vs. bush issues that center around something so trivial.

BTW, Bush today denounced all this silliness. Good job :) (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.kerry/index.html)

BTW, Bush today denounced all this silliness. Good job :)[/URL]

Bush did the same kind of attacks against McCain's military service and his adopted child in 2000. He was asked to condemn them weeks ago and he refused. He doesn't really denounce the attacks on Kerry; it's political posturing.

If you value your constitutional rights, you will NOT vote for Bush this year. "Why?" you ask - two words: John Ashcroft.

BTW, Bush today denounced all this silliness. Good job :) (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.kerry/index.html)

well, not so much a denunciation of the lies as much as a denunciation of 527s which he approved when he signed the McCain-Feingold bill. I guess he didn't read the fine print.

I think 527s have a place, but I also think Bush is actually right when he complains about the ads though I think he should clearly and unequivocally denounce the Swift Boat Liars as he's done with the MoveOn.org ads.

Boy, theres a good reason to vote for someone. :d_rolleye I am tired of the whole "I'm voting for anyone but Bush" sentiment I hear. That sounds like a serious cop-out and lends me to believe they cannot think for themselves and are just following along with the crowd.


B I N G O

B I N G O

and Bingo was his name O

B I N G O

B I N G O

and Bingo was his name O
/agree

And threads like this are why I don't even come to this forum anymore.

I don't even come to this forum anymore.

Paradox :p

As an outsider to the us and viewing it from europe, i would definetaly say that Americans arent on everyones birthday list. There was even talk of booing the American athletes as they came into the stadium and you have your current goverment to thank for that. Plus what about all the poor soldiers that died unecesseraly in Iraq. Poor guys dont know where they are going to get hit next. I dont think that Bush is responsible I think its the people behind bush with vested interests in arms and other corporations. At the end of the day whats done is done just please guys dont let it happen again.

As an outsider to the us and viewing it from europe, i would definetaly say that Americans arent on everyones birthday list. There was even talk of booing the American athletes as they came into the stadium and you have your current goverment to thank for that. Plus what about all the poor soldiers that died unecesseraly in Iraq. Poor guys dont know where they are going to get hit next. I dont think that Bush is responsible I think its the people behind bush with vested interests in arms and other corporations. At the end of the day whats done is done just please guys dont let it happen again.

I agree that many (mostly European) countries are more vocal about there dislike of the US because of the Iraq war, but most of these people have never like the US and I like to remind my European friends that they also did not want us to get involved (i.e. go to war) in WWI and II until they had no choice.

The bottom line as the leader of the free world we have to do what will make us and the world safer regardless of popular opinion. We have and will defend even those not willing to defend themselves (not an attack of any specific country or people)

The Iraqi people will be better off thanks to GW is it worth 1,000 US lives for this I don't know. Additionally, if you read the 9/11 commission and other official reports Sadam was supporting terrorist just not Al Qada directly so the WORLD is safer thanks to this war. It is amazing to me that countries (spain/russia and others) get attacked and shrink back into defense mode instead of fighting the terrorist head on (Afghanistan not Iraq). This is precisely what our last administration did (Clinton shooting warning shots at terrorist) and is likely why the terrorist where brazen enough to try and succeed at September 11.

The problem is we know how many soldiers die, we know how many people died on September 11, what we don't know is how many have been saved from our offenses (and the knowledge gained from them), unfortunately we will never know this.

I know we went to war on what turned out to be false pretenses (or Sadam is good at Hide and Seek) but the WORLD (including German and French intelligence) agreed that the country was dangerous and force should be used if necessary but when it came time to do it a lot backed out. Let me ask you something, if we had found a nucleur war program with plans to attack your country would you then agree with the war? The fact is no one knew because he wouldn't let us inspect, all that we knew was that he was a dangerous dictator.

Ok, I am done writing....Flame Away

Joecrabman is absolutely correct.

As an outsider to the us and viewing it from europe, i would definetaly say that Americans arent on everyones birthday list.Have they ever been? Historically those "at the top" always will have their detractors.There was even talk of booing the American athletes as they came into the stadium and you have your current goverment to thank for that.They have YOUR governments to thank for that (BTW, though I live in the US, I'm actually a British and Canadian citizen). That's so terribly unsporting and totally irrelevant to the US's foreign policy. It's bitter and petty. Sour grapes comes to mind. It's a national pastime to bash the US in places like Canada & Britain, and it is even moreso in nations like France. This fosters a poor view on the US. When put in perspective, the US spends more money on helping out other poor countries than any other nation. The US is more willing to jump in to help out the little guy than any other nation. Are they perfect? No, but it seems to me that a lot of governments actively distract their populous from its own problems by turning the populous's energies on something external, like the US.Plus what about all the poor soldiers that died unecesseraly in Iraq. Poor guys dont know where they are going to get hit next. I dont think that Bush is responsible I think its the people behind bush with vested interests in arms and other corporations. At the end of the day whats done is done just please guys dont let it happen again. Most of the country still supports the war and realizes that these are casualties of it. Whether history determines that it was the right course of action or not, history will always note that the US & Britain were the only real countries who were willing to put things on the line and oust a dictator with a proven and well documented track record of nastiness, and one who'd broken and continued to break UN resolutions. Those resolutions are meaningless anyway, because the UN is paralyzed by the inevitable incompatibility of mixing different nations and different interests. This is why the UN gets nothing done. Case in point: The sudan now, where thousands of people continue to get massacred, and the UN sits in its comfy seats and fondles itself.

The US's sense of nationalism, pride, and adventure can get it into trouble, but I would say it's also the reason why in a mere two hundred years it has risen to become, by far, the most powerful country.

My vote will most certainly go for Bush this November. It is really easy to pick apart the faults of someone who has been in office for almost four years. If Kerry makes it into office (hope not) then 2-4 years from now I am sure people will be critiizing him...even people who voted for him. I most certainly have my criticisms of Bush, but that doesnt mean I regret my vote. I also take into consideration that many situations may be much more serious or different at the level that men like him operate. Therefore, many decisions he makes are a result of information we will never come by. We are vastly fed our information by the media who has a tendency to slant it unfortunately. The info they use at the levels that political decision makers are at is completely different. Ya know, familiarity breeds contempt as they say...we are familiar with Bush so it is human nature to fault him, but I believe he has done a lot of good things (I DO NOT agree with him 100% btw).

Someone mentioned that Kerry is a man of conviction. I agree with that, but the only conviction I have seen in him is that he believes he belongs in the White House, and will say he believes in about anything and everything to sway voters to get him there. He is one of the biggest vascillating Wafflers I have seen. He has over-inflated his military record, stating that he sustained significant injuries, that according to his own personal journal from while he was in Vietnam never happened. These are a few of many indicators to me that he would not make a good Commander in Chief. However, they are not proof. If he make it to office the proof will come then when he actually has some power. Who knows, I am not thick-headed enough to think he could not prove me wrong. At least once Bush gave the go ahead in Afganhistan and Iraq he has not wavered back and forth amidst some of the grief he has caught over it. I do not know for sure, but I have a feeling Kerry would not hold so strongly. Bush certainly has his faults as well, I am not saying that he is perfect, none of us are.

I like Bush as well because he wants to protect America and keep it strong. Kerry's view on war and the like worries me to think that if something else like September 11th happens again while he may be in office that we may be left much more vulnerable than we have with Bush. Yes things are not perfect with National Security, the CIA and Homeland Defense, but cripes, this is a totally unprecedented time for our country and its leadership. Kerry is the type who will come in and cut military (like Clinton did) and leave us in the lurch when the need is there to have a large and well equipped military. I have several family members in Iraq and none of them are complaining about their work there. Some of them are not even on the same page politically as I am, yet they are proud to be there and they are sucking it up and toughing it out, even though their tours are being extended. I have heard people say Iraq could be another Vietnam...I pray to God that we do not treat our soldiers as we treated the Nam Vets when they came home. Whether or not it is another Vietnam is largely up to us. Our men and women are over there carrying out orders given by authorities of our country. I believe they deserve ALL of out support and respect while they are there and when they come home. I do not have a problem questioning authority at the presidential level, but I do firmly believe that once a decision is made in the best interest of your country, you support that decision moving forward from that point. Yes that might be tough, but that is part of life.

End of rant... :eek:

So how are all of your workouts/transformations coming along?? :lol:

Wow!
I wont comment further but all I can say as an educated individual is that dont believe everything cnn or any channel puts at you be it American or foreign. Learn another language and view other channels of information, unfortunately all countries are prone to propaganda and in order to get the truth you have to watch and listen to a vast majority of views and draw a line down the middle and that will most likely be the truth. I dont hate America or Americans I want to work in America my brother lives in Palo Alto. I am not bigoted I am just expressing what i know on the subject. I apologise for affending anyone and I will stop here.

There was even talk of booing the American athletes as they came into the stadium

So what classless country do you come from?

I like Bush as well because he wants to protect America and keep it strong.

Bush likes to sell it that way, but in reality, he (and his administration) want to protect America's ECONOMIC and POLITICAL interests here and abroad.

Here are some things to think about:

- After an entire year and a half since the invasion, there have been ZERO weapons of mass destruction found in IRAQ.

- There has been ZERO evidence of any links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

- Since the US has invaded Iraq, the floodgates have been opened for terrorists from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other neighboring countries, thus placing EVEN GREATER danger on US citizens and troops both in Iraq and in the US.

- The Iraqi people are now EVEN WORSE OFF then they were before the war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi workers have been fired from their state jobs only to be replaced by foreign contractors. Many of them have no electricity or running water. Their drinking water is being contaminated ever since the state-run sewage systems have been shut down since the beginning of the war.

- Paul Bremmer, neo-conservative and head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, has set in motion economic and political policies that essentially rape Iraq of whatever wealth is remaining in that country. We're talking virtually pure, unchecked, laissez-fair capitalism. Foreign companies are allowed to take 100% of their profits out of Iraq and are NOT required to re-invest in the country...thus screwing millions of Iraqi people.

- The Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) is a complete joke. It has cost travelers millions of dollars in delays while making air travel no safer than it was before 9/11.

- The Patriot Act is basically a blank check for the federal government hoard power and to tread on your constituional rights in the name of "national security".

- Bush likes to cite his "strong leadership" during the days surrounding 9/11. Great leaders like Rudy Guliani demonstrated strong leadership during 9/11. By comparison, it is well documented that Bush was a "deer in the headlights" during the initial hours of the attacks.

Someone mentioned that Kerry is a man of conviction. I agree with that, but the only conviction I have seen in him is that he believes he belongs in the White House, and will say he believes in about anything and everything to sway voters to get him there.

That's because you don't know much about what he actually did when he came back from Vietnam. It took a lot of courage to go over there, fight, be decorated, and come back and speak out against the very war he had fought bravely in only years before. This requires courage and conviction - a dedication to the very specific ideas he was supporting and to his country. He kept to a very fine line and held true to what he believed when much of America was overwhelmed by vague alarmism.

It isn't hypocritical to serve when you're drafted and then come home and speak against it as a civilian. That's called being devoted to duty, not waffling. If you love America, and you're drafted, you should go. Period. And if you're against a war, you should speak out. Period.

He is one of the biggest vascillating Wafflers I have seen.

I will bet good money that you really only believe this because it is what you were told. Even though Kerry's Senate voting record is no more or less consistent than any other career legislator's voting record, the TV commericals say Kerry is a "waffler," and since there's really no contrary message out there, people think it's true.

How much do you know about the Senate and its operations? How much do you know about the specific mechanics and politics of getting bills passed? There are a lot of reasons a person would vote for or against a huge spending bill with thousands of appropriations in it, and whoever put the word "waffler" in the mind of America isn't interested in explaining it to you.

And politicans in Presidential elections are going to say different things to different people. Kerry is no less guilty of this than Bush. Bush's entire platform has completely reversed since his 2000 election (Bush 2000 was very critical of American operations in Yugoslavia, for example, and felt Americans shouldn't "police the world."). How come nobody calls him a "waffler?" Simple - because Bush's PR guys came up with the term and are responsible for spreading it.

He has over-inflated his military record, stating that he sustained significant injuries, that according to his own personal journal from while he was in Vietnam never happened.

This angle on the anti-Kerry campaign is false, and Bush has distanced himself from it as quickly as he can. People who impune Kerry's military record are, by and large, lying, and the courts will probably shut them up before the election for slander and libel (especially "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth").

At least once Bush gave the go ahead in Afganhistan and Iraq he has not wavered back and forth amidst some of the grief he has caught over it.

Sure he has. You just haven't been paying attention to the rapidly declining troop deployments in Afghanistan, or the fact that Bush hasn't publicly talked about Osama Bin Laden in a very long time.

By the way, I want every American's promise that if Osama Bin Laden is caught right before the election, they won't vote for Bush. Letting that guy stay at large for three years just to win an election is a crime against the American people and the people of the world, and that's one thing I just couldn't tolerate.

I do not know for sure, but I have a feeling Kerry would not hold so strongly.

Kerry hasn't done a very good job of making his own case, and he's hardly the strongest possible candidate. But, judging from how many GOP talking points there were in your post, your feelings are the result of clever marketing, and you should consider exactly why it is you don't know the very things it would be very useful to know.

I have heard people say Iraq could be another Vietnam...I pray to God that we do not treat our soldiers as we treated the Nam Vets when they came home.

It's a sad fact that Bush has decimated veteran's benefits. Actually, this is probably another case where Bush's advisors are out of control, and he doesn't have enough knowledge or control to stop them. I don't think Bush is actually out to get veterans, but somebody has to stop his advisors!!!

They have massively, massively cut veterans benefits - larger cuts than ever before. They have taken money out of their pockets, because they can't get spending under control or balance his budget. If you care about veterans, you can't possibly think Bush is the better candidate, because of the people he brings with him, and how little they care for average americans and America's veterans. The Bush administration is totally leaving them out to dry.

His administration has also privatized a ton of the occupation and security of Iraq, which means those people who are in the line of fire will not receive military benefits or military pensions. Many of them de facto veterans, the current administration has screwed them, too.

Couldnt have said it better myself, Pete. And for the record, by no means am I a hardcore democrat. I just want the Bush administration to be accountable for their actions and I believe a regime change is in order.

Replies to PeteBDawg and seeDerekNow's Posts


- There has been ZERO evidence of any links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda....
Just to be nit picky there has been no evidence of a 9/11 and Iraq link there is plenty of links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and other terrorist -- look at the 9/11 report for evidence
I will also repeat from an earlier post: I know we went to war on what turned out to be false pretenses (or Sadam is good at Hide and Seek) but the WORLD (including German and French intelligence) agreed that the country was dangerous and force should be used if necessary but when it came time to do it a lot backed out.

Since the US has invaded Iraq, the floodgates have been opened for terrorists from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other neighboring countries, thus placing EVEN GREATER danger on US citizens and troops both in Iraq and in the US.
...
So we should turn and run when we are attacked and our people are in danger

The Iraqi people are now EVEN WORSE OFF then they were before the war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi workers have been fired from their state jobs only to be replaced by foreign contractors. Many of them have no electricity or running water. Their drinking water is being contaminated ever since the state-run sewage systems have been shut down since the beginning of the war...

Michael Moore has led many people to believe this. Find REAL journalist video of what Iraq was like befor the war. Iraqi's used to fear the government would slaughter their entire town. Before the chosen few (that moore chooses to show) had it made now the average can improve their lives.

- Paul Bremmer, neo-conservative and head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, has set in motion economic and political policies that essentially rape Iraq of whatever wealth is remaining in that country...

So you do not think that they should pay for rebuilding their own country?

- The Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) is a complete joke. It has cost travelers millions of dollars in delays while making air travel no safer than it was before 9/11..
Really I used to be able to bring a knife on a plain, The cockpit doors of planes used to be easy to break down now they are not. That is change. I personally willing to spend an extra hour at the airport if it saves one life


Bush likes to cite his "strong leadership" during the days surrounding 9/11. Great leaders like Rudy Guliani demonstrated strong leadership during 9/11. By comparison, it is well documented that Bush was a "deer in the headlights" during the initial hours of the attacks.

If you belive Michael Moore, What would you have done that he did not?

I will bet good money that you really only believe this because it is what you were told. Even though Kerry's Senate voting record is no more or less consistent than any other career legislator's voting record, the TV commericals say Kerry is a "waffler," and since there's really no contrary message out there, people think it's true.
The main reason most people feel he is a "waffler" is because he says different things to different groups. One example is on abortion, look up different speeches he has given in the deep south compared to the north and you will see vastly different views. The problem is before 24 hour news politicians could get away with it now they can't

By the way, I want every American's promise that if Osama Bin Laden is caught right before the election, they won't vote for Bush. Letting that guy stay at large for three years just to win an election is a crime against the American people and the people of the world, and that's one thing I just couldn't tolerate..

If they had him for three years do you really think they could keep it quiet. They have not shown they can keep anything quiet for more than a day or two.

This angle on the anti-Kerry campaign is false, and Bush has distanced himself from it as quickly as he can. People who impune Kerry's military record are, by and large, lying, and the courts will probably shut them up before the election for slander and libel (especially "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth").
..

He has admitted that he may have "exaggerated" some things in the original reports but again this was so long ago in such a strange part of american culture it just shouldn't be an issue

Joecrabman12, you certainly raise legitimate arguments here and I'll try to address them the best I can.


So we should turn and run when we are attacked and our people are in danger
No, but we put ourselves in this position. WE put our troops in danger for the wrong reasons. We are being attacked because many arabs do not like what we are doing in Iraq. They know that our reasons for invading & rebuilding Iraq are based on false pretenses.


Michael Moore has led many people to believe this. Find REAL journalist video of what Iraq was like befor the war. Iraqi's used to fear the government would slaughter their entire town. Before the chosen few (that moore chooses to show) had it made now the average can improve their lives.

Its not just Michael Moore. It is now widely reported in the media that Iraq's infrastructure is deteriorating into a condition worse than before the war. CNN, of all media, did a piece on this last night. Yes, Saddam was a cruel tyrant who brutalized his own people and it is actually a good thing that he is removed from power, but that doesnt make the Iraqi people any better off because they now live under a puppet government called that is influenced by US interests that do not look out for them.



So you do not think that they should pay for rebuilding their own country?

Rebuilding for who? For the multinationals that want to come in and exploit Iraq's assets and people? Allowing unrestricted, un-taxed imports, attempting to liquidate 200 state-owned companies, laying off 500,000 Iraqi workers, allowing foreign companies to own 100% of Iraqi assets outside of the natural resource center, allowing contracts to last up to 40 years, etc... none of this "rebuilding" benefits the country of Iraq or its people. It only benefits the American investing world.


Really I used to be able to bring a knife on a plain, The cockpit doors of planes used to be easy to break down now they are not. That is change. I personally willing to spend an extra hour at the airport if it saves one life

The TSA has done a far better job of browbeating grandmothers than of protecting Americans from would-be hijackers. TSA is punishing critics, slapping fines of up to $1,500 on airline passengers guilty of showing the wrong "attitude" as they pass through TSA checkpoints.

20-year old college student, Nathanel Heatwole, made a complete mockery of the TSA by smuggling the following items past the TSA's vaunted airport screeners:
- two box cutters
- appx 10-12 oz of a simulated plastic explosive
- a few dozen "strike-anywhere" matches
- appx 8 oz of liquid bleach

Heatwole stashed these items away inside a airplane lavatory. He then emailed the TSA telling them exactly what he did and where they can find his items. Heatwole signed the email and even included his phone number. The TSA ignored the email. The massive security breach was discovered five weeks later when a Southwest airline jet had a toilet problem.

Still think the TSA is doing its job?


If you belive Michael Moore, What would you have done that he did not?

I don't necessarily believe everything Michael Moore portrays. And for the record, I'm not basing my assertions on Farenheit 9/11. Rather, I'm basing them on journalists such as James Bovard, Naomi Klein of Harpers Magazine, znet, and other political journalists outside of Fox News.

But back to your question...

9/11 was a day of shocks, no doubt. But the fact that Bush touts himself with "Steady Leadership in Times of Change" is particularly infuriating. It is well documented that Bush continued to read to school children for an additional 5-7 minutes AFTER he was notified of the second plane hitting the second tower.

Also, Bush proudly declared that on the morning of 9/11, "one of the first acts I did was to put our military on alert". Bush had no role in raising the military alert that day. Instead, it was the Richard Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff, who gave the order to the Pentagon w/ no input from Bush.