Well, who knew that Ali bin Goofoff was a Republican. I guess it is true that the extreme right wing are no better than terrorists. That’s the way to show your true colors Goofoff. YOu keep supportin those right wing “values”.
ROFL… 
Mike
Toker, when you say Bush took the rich man's way out by getting into the National Guard, you must also be saying that only rich people were in the National Guard. If not, then no legitimate proof has been shown (that I am aware of) that says anyone did Bush any favors.
Sorry Truth, but your logic is flawed. Just because wealthy. politically influentual people could get their sons into the national guard so they could "stay at home" does not mean that ALL the people in the guard were wealthy. Not every wealthy person did use their influence (Kerry's family didn't) nor did every wealthy person feel like their son needed to stay out of vietnam. Truth, I was around at that time (just about 18) and I was aware of this loop hole for the politically strong and wealthy. My family was of average income and had no political clout. I was very lucky. The draft stopped just one month before I would have had to sign up.
Knowing that our President's family took advantage of this loop hole for him, does not make me feel like he understands what he is doing to the families whose sons and daughters he is sending over seas. Remember that he ducked his "real" service and took to flying planes in the states. Do you think he would better understand the concerns of a soldier that is being sent to the front lines? Kerry would. Whether you believe he "earned" the 5 medals he got or not, he knows what the concerns of a front line soldier are. And he knows what the concerns of a family with a member on the front lines is like. These are the truely important points no matter how the extreme right wing paints it. McCain knows this, Dole knows this, Bush is clueless.
Mike
Sorry Truth, but your logic is flawed. Just because wealthy. politically influentual people could get their sons into the national guard so they could "stay at home" does not mean that ALL the people in the guard were wealthy. Not every wealthy person did use their influence (Kerry's family didn't) nor did every wealthy person feel like their son needed to stay out of vietnam. Truth, I was around at that time (just about 18) and I was aware of this loop hole for the politically strong and wealthy. My family was of average income and had no political clout. I was very lucky. The draft stopped just one month before I would have had to sign up.
Knowing that our President's family took advantage of this loop hole for him, does not make me feel like he understands what he is doing to the families whose sons and daughters he is sending over seas. Remember that he ducked his "real" service and took to flying planes in the states. Do you think he would better understand the concerns of a soldier that is being sent to the front lines? Kerry would. Whether you believe he "earned" the 5 medals he got or not, he knows what the concerns of a front line soldier are. And he knows what the concerns of a family with a member on the front lines is like. These are the truely important points no matter how the extreme right wing paints it. McCain knows this, Dole knows this, Bush is clueless.
Mike
These are the truely important points no matter how the extreme right wing paints it.
McCain knows this, Dole knows this, Bush is clueless.
Mike
But weakminded one, both McCain & Dole support and agree with President Bush
Ali bin Gali
McCain knows this, Dole knows this, Bush is clueless.
Mike
But weakminded one, both McCain & Dole support and agree with President Bush
Ali bin Gali
Toker & Dr. G, it appears you didn’t understand my post. The fact of the matter is, is that you are willing to overlook certain people for their postion but not other. This is known as a double standard. That was my point.
Second, I believe Kerry has proven that just because someone serves in a war doesn’t mean they understand everything. Kerry allowed himself to be used by extremists back in the 70’s when he made a bunch of claims that were not proven fact. There are plenty of people today that disagree about the war crimes he alleged happened. It is known that many people of the era lied about experience that they never had. Because Kerry allowed himself to be used without thinking of the consequences of his actions, alot of our good soldiers were spat on and cursed for things they simply didn’t all do.
And now, Bush had alot more support prior to the election season starting. Iraq was hardly the quagmire that it has become. Why, because the during the democratic primary, the democrats were so worried about regaining the power of the white house they didn’t consider the consequences of their actions. If they would have shown more support for the war chose a different strategy things may not be as bad as they are now. In fact their contempt for the President, the war and the troops fighting gave all the dissenters in “THE WORLD” more credence than they should have gotten. Now, their words are broadcast all over Al Jazeera and other middle eastern media outlets calling Bush a traitor, a liar and everything else under the sun. What does this do for american credibility? Sinks it. Also, the terrorists now think they have support within the ranks of the democrats (I’m speaking only of those in Iraq). They actually think Bush is a conquerer and not a liberator.
To sum this up, it looks to me as though Kerry is doing the opposite of what a person who understands the military should do. You can’t critisize the military every step of the way, and try to blame it on Bush (who has very little to do with the actual planning). Those in the military know the truth and that’s why they support the president almost 10:1. Kerry is seen by military personnel to be an opportunist and nothing more.
The reason there is alot of dislike towards Kerry is not because of his military service, but because of how he likes to play monday morning quarterback without all the facts. Also because he blames the military for everything that is going wrong in the war, but says he supports the military. I will admit that he doesn’t come out and say it that way. But perception is everything and he is percieved by the military to blame them.
Take these missing weapons. He didn’t know what happened, who planned what, but he came out and said immediately that it was the president’s fault. In fact, it was the military planners that were given the information and supposed to plan the objectives. How about the infamous museum. Can anyone honestly say that Bush should have sat down at the table and looked at every building, storage facility, national treasure, monuments, vacation spots, schools, hospitals, (the list goes on and on) and made sure that everyone was spared looting. We don’t have enough people in the entire military to do such a thing. All the critisisms do is make the US and its military look foolish, incompetent and, more importantly, like conquerers not liberators.
Kerry does not blame the military - he blames the polticial leaders! Did you hear Rudi blame the military (not Bush) yesterday on national news? Isn’t that the same thing that the right is criticizing Kerry for? Talk about double-standards.
One more thing. The only thing Kerry understands about the military is the few months he spent in vietnam. I don’t know about you, but alot of things that happened to me over 30 years ago are grey at best. The duties Kerry did in vietnam do not qualify him to be Commander in Chief. A lieutenant maybe, but not the President. That would be like saying becuase I worked in the mailroom for Microsoft, I would be more qualified than the contract security guard to be president of the company. Neither one qualifies you. Therefore, if you dodged the draft or not as it was alleged against Clinton, did not play any bearing on wether or not he was a good president. Bush’s national guard service doesn’t either. So, in staying with that logic, I conclude that Kerry’s doesn’t either.
Does anyone believe after all the visits Bush has made to V.A. hospitals that he doesn’t understand what the troops are going through. Kerry’s injuries weren’t that severe. He doesn’t know what it’s like to lose an arm or a leg anymore than Bush does. But the both have seen the horrors first hand. Kerry may have a slight advantage in that he probably witnessed the actual blowing off of arms or legs or the fact that he has seen people killed. He might also not be the best person because he has admitted committing war crimes, such as blowing off arms and heads, participating in free-fire zones, etc…
The argument goes on and on and on. What’s the point.
Does anyone believe after all the visits Bush has made to V.A. hospitals that he doesn't understand what the troops are going through.
I think he has a clue but I don't think he or the guys pulling his strings give a rats ass. The Compassionate Conservative in him lasted only long enough for him to say it before he became President. He's a patsy for Cheney. He's a good man being used by some really bad guys.
I think he has a clue but I don't think he or the guys pulling his strings give a rats ass. The Compassionate Conservative in him lasted only long enough for him to say it before he became President. He's a patsy for Cheney. He's a good man being used by some really bad guys.
But weakminded one, both McCain & Dole support and agree with President Bush
Ali bin Goofoff
They both want a job tomorrow. McCain ,Dole and BUsh Sr. have all stated publicly that they support Kerry's plans for cleaning up the mess in Iraq. None of them said it that way, they have all stated that we need a stronger, larger coalition to finish the job. And both McCain and Dole have renounced the the silly Swift boat charges made by right wing extremists. Of course they aren't going to say, "I'm votin' fer Kerry!".
Truthseeker, it is obvious that you have bought into the right-wing extremist propaganda. SO as you say, The argument goes on and on and on. What's the point.
There is none at this point, I just thought your name meant you were seeking the truth.
I'm sorry, I was wrong.
Mike
Ali bin Goofoff
They both want a job tomorrow. McCain ,Dole and BUsh Sr. have all stated publicly that they support Kerry's plans for cleaning up the mess in Iraq. None of them said it that way, they have all stated that we need a stronger, larger coalition to finish the job. And both McCain and Dole have renounced the the silly Swift boat charges made by right wing extremists. Of course they aren't going to say, "I'm votin' fer Kerry!".
Truthseeker, it is obvious that you have bought into the right-wing extremist propaganda. SO as you say, The argument goes on and on and on. What's the point.
There is none at this point, I just thought your name meant you were seeking the truth.
I'm sorry, I was wrong.
Mike
You guys are missing my point. Let me say it this way without appearing to sound negative towards either party.
Both Kerry and Bush have questions raised about their past. Of all the things I’ve posted, I consistantly stated that it doesn’t matter what happened 30 to 35 years ago. The Swift Boat Vets, the national guard service, the throwing of medals, etc… I can list all of the propoganda and it just goes on and on.
So lets throw that all out. We are weighing the evidence to find out who should be commander in chief. In my mind I can’t possibly claim to know everything and I will not be able to find out the precise truth so therefore I must move on.
Now, the reason I made comments regarding Kerry and the ramifications of his actions was to point out yet more propoganda. When someone says things like Bush is Cheney’s puppet; there is no evidence of that. I do believe TomS has presented some good information on how Cheney’s involvment in PNAC does mean that Bush either believed that way all along or Cheney sold it to him. I’m sure everyone agrees that when you are in charge, you take charge. To say that Bush isn’t, is more propoganda. So I say fight propoganda with propoganda. But if you believe the propoganda the truth doesn’t matter anymore.
When someone says things like Bush is Cheney's puppet; there is no evidence of that.
It's my opinion. The evidence I have is based on what Bush said before the last election and what he did after he took office. If I am to believe that he's a good guy -- and I do -- then I must believe that he's not a liar. I also believe that. I really believe that what he says he truly believes to be the truth. He's our President. I feel like he knows more about what's happening than I do since about all I know is based on what I read in the paper/internet, see on TV, hear on Radio, and get through word of mouth. Most of that stuff is well slanted at best, and and outright distortions or lies at worst. I feel like it's my duty to support him, even if I disagree with his policies.
That said, how could someone change so radically after they take office? Well, one way is if I was duped because he was lying through the whole 2000 campaign. I choose not to think that because, like I said, I think he's a good guy. The other reason is that those around him convinced him that he was headed down the wrong path if he followed up on all that campaign talk. They filled him with ideas that were in their best interest, whatever motives might be behind those ideas.
For whatever reason, in the following months after taking office Bush did a huge swing from the right of the middle to the far right. Many of his policies for the last four years have been haphazard, short-sighted, and some downright dangerous. He's got a sharply divided Congress on his hands and has done nothing to get it working as a team in the best interest of the country as a whole. He's signed every single bill that's come in front of him and not vetoed one -- not one. On years past Republicans would be appalled at his increased spending and regulations, yet these bills came from todays Republicans for the most part.
Yeah, he's a patsy to the whole Republican Party. He's not a President for the whole country. If things don't change we'll be living the the Republican States of America, with coal burning generators and clear cut national parks. Duck hunters will be hunting seagulls because there're are no ducks and the seagulls are no longer protected.
BTW: My taxes went up $1000 after the Bush tax cut....what Republican would approve a tax hike? Think about what it would have gone up if it wasn't for the well publicized tax cut we got.
The last four years is what I look at. He's no Republican. He's a patsy.
Should I just blame Bush, call him a liar and fraud for those campaign promises he was elected for 2000, or give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's a good guy doing his best? He knows better than I why he does what he does. I only know the bottom line that stops at home, and it ain't coming from the guy we elected in 2000....unless I misjudged him.
It's my opinion. The evidence I have is based on what Bush said before the last election and what he did after he took office. If I am to believe that he's a good guy -- and I do -- then I must believe that he's not a liar. I also believe that. I really believe that what he says he truly believes to be the truth. He's our President. I feel like he knows more about what's happening than I do since about all I know is based on what I read in the paper/internet, see on TV, hear on Radio, and get through word of mouth. Most of that stuff is well slanted at best, and and outright distortions or lies at worst. I feel like it's my duty to support him, even if I disagree with his policies.
That said, how could someone change so radically after they take office? Well, one way is if I was duped because he was lying through the whole 2000 campaign. I choose not to think that because, like I said, I think he's a good guy. The other reason is that those around him convinced him that he was headed down the wrong path if he followed up on all that campaign talk. They filled him with ideas that were in their best interest, whatever motives might be behind those ideas.
For whatever reason, in the following months after taking office Bush did a huge swing from the right of the middle to the far right. Many of his policies for the last four years have been haphazard, short-sighted, and some downright dangerous. He's got a sharply divided Congress on his hands and has done nothing to get it working as a team in the best interest of the country as a whole. He's signed every single bill that's come in front of him and not vetoed one -- not one. On years past Republicans would be appalled at his increased spending and regulations, yet these bills came from todays Republicans for the most part.
Yeah, he's a patsy to the whole Republican Party. He's not a President for the whole country. If things don't change we'll be living the the Republican States of America, with coal burning generators and clear cut national parks. Duck hunters will be hunting seagulls because there're are no ducks and the seagulls are no longer protected.
BTW: My taxes went up $1000 after the Bush tax cut....what Republican would approve a tax hike? Think about what it would have gone up if it wasn't for the well publicized tax cut we got.
The last four years is what I look at. He's no Republican. He's a patsy.
Should I just blame Bush, call him a liar and fraud for those campaign promises he was elected for 2000, or give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's a good guy doing his best? He knows better than I why he does what he does. I only know the bottom line that stops at home, and it ain't coming from the guy we elected in 2000....unless I misjudged him.
Hey phoo, your argument seems reasonable. I don’t quite see it the same way you do. Perhaps it’s becuase I actually got about a $1500 tax cut. I have 3 kids is probably the reason.
Anyway, I agree that some of the legislation that the president has signed have concerned me. For example, I no longer get time-and-a-half for overtime. Not a big deal since I usually take comp time anyway.
I don’t think we are going to lose all the ducks and seagulls though. But I do see what you are getting at. I’ve heard Bush on numerous occasions say (about this ideas he sends to congress) are to be debated and discussed in congress. If they come it with crappy bills then it’s congress’ fault. I do agree the president shares some blame. I just haven’t got the feeling that you have about him.
Take drilling in alaska. I actually believe that’s a good idea. We can’t drill for new oil here in the lower 48. We have to buy it. If I recall the energy policy he put foreward not only involved drilling in AK but also provided alot of money for research into alternate energy. The alaska thing was meant as a temporary measure. I don’t think its damaging seeing how much oil gets pumped out of AK already.
Also, if I remember correctly Bush did just as he promised. He gave a huge tax cut to alot of people. But his biggest priority was education. He did pass his no child left behind deal, which the jury is still out on that one. Then 9/11 hit and everthing changed. I believe it wasn’t until after the UN decided not to follow through on the final resolution and Bush decided to go to Iraq that all the problems started. If you remember his approval rating, or atleast support was around 70% at the time (maybe more). There was the Susan Sarandon and husband incident, the Richard Gere incident, and then the Democrat Primary. It seems most of the anti-war folks are democrats. Which incidentally probably would have been the other way around if Gore was President. That being said. I think the congress was on its way to working together until politics got involved. I don’t see any really radical change. Just my opinion.
About the Patsy thing, I think we can agree to disagree.
We cannot say what happened 30 years ago doesn’t matter. History teaches us by our mistakes, if we forget them, or sweep the embarrassing ones under the rug, then future generations haven’t got a snowball’s chance in ####. One candidate served in Nam, saw the horrors of war, doesn’t want to send troops into battle needlessly, the other served state side and only saw white lines on mirrors, therefore doesn’t have any reservations of sending OUR sons and daughters to their deaths. I was up for the draft when Nam was going on, my brother served 11 monthes there, and wrote me letters telling me to get my butt up to Canada. We pulled out of Nam before my number came up. The war crimes that were committed there are true. My brother came home and to this day still lives in a world of paranoia, (don’t go around him when it’s raining, cause Charlies on the move). I now have a son and daughter including their spouses that could concievably be called to war in Iraq. I have 4 grandchildren that could be left parentless from this reason. If it was from defending our home land it would be a different story, but we are not chasing Osama Bin in Iraq, just the billions of dollars to be made by rich partisans who contribute to getting the man elected they know will do their bidding. So get off yer soapbox about the war, the people who actually go and fight these wars, the poor, are very sick and tired of the crap yer shovelling. I’ve said my piece and counted to 3!