why do you support bush?

[Dapthar]

so we crucify martha stewart for a few illegal actions but we let it slide when it comes to ken lay who personally screwed over the majority of the country.

Crucify? You're kidding, right? 5 months in a minimum security prison, affectionately referred to as "Camp Cupcake", is about as nominal a prison sentence that one can receive.

 

Source: http:// http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:tRui1RxrI3sJ:money.canoe.ca/News/MoversShakers/MarthaStewart/2004/03/11/378693.html+camp+cupcake&hl=en&start=2

[budullewraagh]

Bud,watch this for awhile http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

whats the point?

 

Crucify? You're kidding, right? 5 months in a minimum security prison, affectionately referred to as "Camp Cupcake", is about as nominal a prison sentence that one can receive.

right, but everybody was all pissed at her while big time criminals like ken lay and dick cheney walk free without trials

[Lance]

[sarcasm]You're absolutely right. We need to just round up all the republicans and put them in prison for life. Although that would be a waste of resources. We can put them to work as slaves and sell them to the new MTV gay network.[/sarcasm]

 

Seriously though, this thread is about why we support bush not why he should be in prison.

[Pangloss]

budullewraagh (btw that name rocks, where the heck does it come from?),

 

The economy is, in fact, improving. There's more to the economy than the defict, you know. But even if there weren't, GDP growth far exceeds the deficit numbers.

 

But we're on the same page when it comes to discussing the deficit itself -- I'm very concerned about it, and can speak on it at great length in another thread if you like. But we're being chided to talk about pro-Bush reasons in this thread, so I won't launch into an explanation of whether I think Kerry will be any better about fixing the deficit, and why. That wasn't what r1demon was asking, so I can't address that here or I fear Say will stomp on me. ;-)

 

 

hussein had nothing to do it, and we continue to ignore saudi arabia, (the real place where terrorists are (in order to keep our oil contracts)) iran, north korea (the place we let obtain nukes) and the genocide in sudan.

 

Yup, that's an appropriate response to my post, I agree.

 

Unfortunately it doesn't nullify what I posted. It's simply an alternate perspective. Both are correct.

 

 

so we crucify martha stewart for a few illegal actions but we let it slide when it comes to ken lay who personally screwed over the majority of the country. and then there's dick cheney, our vice president, who, as ceo of halliburton evaded taxes by commandeering a "headquarters" on some island whose population is 0 (and nobody works at the hq by the way), illegally traded with rogue regimes and sanctioned nations, and received no-bid contracts for 5x the required price to rebuild iraq.

 

No, that's not an appropriate response to my reasoning above. Marta Stewart got plenty of leniency (more than she deserved) from the judge. Two wrongs never make a right in my book. And I've yet to see any actual evidence that Cheney has done anything illegal anyway. If he has, I definitely want to hear about it, but that doesn't change what John Ashcroft has accomplished.

 

You have me when you talk about corporate greed and corruption. You lose me when you attribute it all to Republicans (if that's what you're suggesting -- far be it for me put words in your mouth).

 

 

actually there are quite a few padillas.

 

There's only one Jose Padilla -- I hope the Bush administration remembers at some point that the guy is a real human being with real rights. But I ain't holding my breath. But anyway, yeah, I know what you're talking about, I'm familiar with other cases, and I addressed that in my explanation above. You haven't refuted it, but your point is certainly an important one. (Like I keep saying, I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm simply giving my Bush "pros", not saying that I've made up my mind. Sorry if I'm belaboring this point, but it's been my experience that few people really understand my position, or what it is that I'm trying to accomplish in this election.)

 

Thanks for the hyperlink, by the way. Interesting site.

 

 

still does not justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents

 

Yes it does. (In my opinion.) It's also not your (or my) place to make that decision. It's the Iraqi's. And they've said overwhelmingly, with polls that regularly generate 99% response rates (compared with 5% in the oh-so-busy US) that they're glad Saddam is gone. The fact that they go on to say "...and now will you please get the F out of my country?" doesn't change that point.

 

 

cost us our record surplus

 

No, it hasn't done that. We've spent about $120 billion in Iraq so far, according to Jake Tapper on ABC News the other night after the first prez debate, doing a fact-check on Kerry's $200 billion figure. (IMO Kerry's actually tapping into that $200 billion allocation figure that came later, conveniently forgetting that that was an "over ten years" allocation.)

 

And the surplus was gone before the Iraq war. It says so on the chart you put at the start of your post. (grin)

[r1dermon]

as i've stated, i'm not trying to start a flame war, but, mad mardigan, "So you dont think Kerry would mislead anyone? And you think we are all mindless zombies that believes what everything someone says?" if you can quote me as saying that you are all mindless zombies that believe what ever(ything?) someone says? then i will gladly answer to you and your fellow republicans, once i find out what that question means....

see, the thing that i can't seem to decifer is, a boat load of people support george bush. even though the dollar continues to lose value in the world market. even though supposedly around every corner there is a terrorist(while we didnt have this problem during the clinton era), even though the country has been led to a police action under false pre-texts, even though george bush has clearly screwed this country up with his environmental, education, and tax policies, even after all that crap, people still are all gungho about him. see, not to offend anyone, i believe that it has nothing to do with what bush does as president. i believe that it is a religious thing, where people feel compelled to vote for a christian leader. someone who will carry out christian inspired dealings within the confinements of the presidency. someone who will push a christian agenda because he is so out of touch, that the only thing he can relate to is the bible. now, im not saying anything bad about christians(i am catholic) im just saying that i think that the republican party takes religion WAY too far when it comes to the political spectrum. this is only my experience. feel free to comment. but please dont try to flame.

[Pangloss]

see, the thing that i can't seem to decifer is, a boat load of people support george bush. even though the dollar continues to lose value in the world market. even though supposedly around every corner there is a terrorist(while we didnt have this problem during the clinton era), even though the country has been led to a police action under false pre-texts, even though george bush has clearly screwed this country up with his environmental, education, and tax policies, even after all that crap, people still are all gungho about him.

 

You overstate the case. The major concerns you list above existed before Bush came along. Whether or not he made them worse is absolutely a valid point of debate and reason to vote for or against him. But you make it sound cut and dried. It isn't.

 

 

i believe that it is a religious thing, where people feel compelled to vote for a christian leader. someone who will carry out christian inspired dealings within the confinements of the presidency. someone who will push a christian agenda because he is so out of touch, that the only thing he can relate to is the bible. now, im not saying anything bad about christians(i am catholic)

 

I'm not a religious person. In fact if anything I'm closest to humanism. But I voted for Bush in 2000, and whether or not I vote for him in 2004 will have nothing to do with religion.

 

 

Would you care to respond to any of the points I posted earlier? I think I'm the only poster who's actually responded to your question in a non-partisan, non-ideological manner. I would think you would want to respond to that, since it's what you were asking for, and have asked for it again.

[Luminol]

as i've stated' date=' i'm not trying to start a flame war, but, mad mardigan, "So you dont think Kerry would mislead anyone? And you think we are all mindless zombies that believes what everything someone says?" if you can quote me as saying that you are all mindless zombies that believe what ever(ything?) someone says? then i will gladly answer to you and your fellow republicans, once i find out what that question means....

see, the thing that i can't seem to decifer is, a boat load of people support george bush. even though the dollar continues to lose value in the world market. even though supposedly around every corner there is a terrorist(while we didnt have this problem during the clinton era), even though the country has been led to a police action under false pre-texts, even though george bush has clearly screwed this country up with his environmental, education, and tax policies, even after all that crap, people still are all gungho about him. see, not to offend anyone, i believe that it has nothing to do with what bush does as president. i believe that it is a religious thing, where people feel compelled to vote for a christian leader. someone who will carry out christian inspired dealings within the confinements of the presidency. someone who will push a christian agenda because he is so out of touch, that the only thing he can relate to is the bible. now, im not saying anything bad about christians(i am catholic) im just saying that i think that the republican party takes religion WAY too far when it comes to the political spectrum. this is only my experience. feel free to comment. but please dont try to flame.[/quote']

 

I find it funny that someone would believe that there wasn't a terrorist problem when Clinton was president. If I remember correctly there were a few terror attacks against the US when Clinton was president but Clinton just proved to the Jihadists that the US will do nothing or pull out when we take casualties.

 

There is a great documentary out there called "Jihad in America" produced after the first world trade center attack that shows very well terrorists operating here in the US...in places like Kansas.

 

Kerry would do worse because first of all he will give Iran Uranium to test their intensions...then once they show that they are intending to be hostile with the nuclear fuel then we will put more sanctions on them...sounds like a great plan...the sanctions will stop them for sure. They don't even need enriched Uranium to do damage...all they need to do is send a few terrorists over here with a dirty bomb...why don't we just put a nuclear bomb in the middle of NY and tell the terrorists that its there...and test what their intentions are.

 

Kerry wants to pull our troops out of Iraq within 4 years giving the terrorists a nice time line for their plans. I just want to know what magical plan Kerry has to get Europe into Iraq so we can pull out. I also believe that Iraq is not as bad as the media protrays after writing to soldiers in Iraq and hearing them speak most say that they are more afraid of Iraq here at home watching the news than when they are actually there. The elections will happen on time and the Iraqi people will have a government that they elected. We already have 200,000 Iraqi troops and police trained to take on the grunt work now...they have already participated in many military operations.

 

The Iraq war was a very good idea. It is the center of the Middle East and many Jihadists believed that Saddam would be the one to lead a final PanArab attack on Israel to exterminate the Jews. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq had ties with TERRORISM...this is a war on TERRORISM...not a war on just Al Qadia. Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was part of Al Qadia when in Afghanistan...then moved to Iraq and set up operations there under an Islamic terror group called Ansar Al-Islam which was founded in 2001 from the Jund Al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam) terrorist group and the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan. This terrorist group (along with the Salafist Brigades of Abu Bakr Al-Sidiq, Tawhid and Jihad (Zarqawi's group), The Army of Ansar Al-Sunnah, The Army of the Black Flag, Sadr's Militia, ect, ect) are the people killing Iraqis with car bombs and killing civilian workers by sawing off their heads. There are numerous terrorist groups out there besides Al Qadia. To think that if we would just catch Bin Laden that the war is over is dangerously ignorant. Bin Laden is only a very small part of a large problem...and who knows if he is even running Al Qadia anymore...he wasn't the only person to sign the fatwa declaring war on the US. We need to go on the offensive against these people...we have already captured or killed many high level terrorists but that means nothing when millions of muslims support Jihad.

 

The Patriot Act is a very good law that has and will continue to help the Law enfocement communities and agencies work together to catch terrorists. It doesn't bother me that the FBI can check a terrorists email or tap their phone without telling them...it doesn't hurt me. Where is the FBI going to get all the extra time to start spying on peaceful citizens minding their own business?

 

I couldn't care less about Bush's religious values and don't hear much about them from him or anyone else. The left takes attacking religion way to seriously and that's why Christians became involed in politics in the first place.

[budullewraagh]

Kerry would do worse because first of all he will give Iran Uranium to test their intensions...then once they show that they are intending to be hostile with the nuclear fuel then we will put more sanctions on them...

whered you get that one from? limbaugh? seriously, cite your source or the above will be declared an invalid statement.

If I remember correctly there were a few terror attacks against the US when Clinton was president but Clinton just proved to the Jihadists that the US will do nothing or pull out when we take casualties.

actually, clinton did the right thing. you see, he used intelligence to stop terrorists. towards the end of his presidency, there was a plot on attacking LAX. clinton met with security advisors every day and foiled the plan at the canadian border. clinton continued to meet daily until the day he left office. when bush was elected, he did not meet once with security advisors before that tragic day. in fact, he spent most of his time on vacation.

 

They don't even need enriched Uranium to do damage...all they need to do is send a few terrorists over here with a dirty bomb...

this is a sciences-related forum. stating the above proves you have no knowledge of chemical physics. the mods will determine your fate. with regard to uranium, it is easily obtainable. if i wished to, i could yank a few chains and obtain quite a bunch of it. then all i would need is a really good centrifuge, and a great deal of lithium...but you know, i dont make nukes. people dont make nukes. if people wanted to kill us, they would. cargo is not scanned going onto planes. all you need is a bomb with a fuse set for sometime during flight and everybody dies. crates entering harbors are not checked. again, that's all you need to smuggle in energetic materials. also, chemical storage facilities are not at all guarded and many are found in cities. if you wanted, you could walk right in one day and use, say a pistol to make a hole in a container of boron trifluoride, which could potentially kill millions and at least hundreds of thousands.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/13/60minutes/main583528.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories

check the above link for more information

 

you see, the threat is hardly there

 

We already have 200,000 Iraqi troops and police trained to take on the grunt work now

we said similar things of the afghan warlords that we left to capture bin laden when we had him cornered...then they didn't capture him. sad how that works.

 

Jihadists believed that Saddam would be the one to lead a final PanArab attack on Israel to exterminate the Jews

thats complete bs and you know it. if you have any objections to that statement cite your sources

Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was part of Al Qadia when in Afghanistan..

yep, that's when the us gave al-qaida $3 billion. we also sponsored terrorism, but you dont see us bombing ourselves, now do you?

I also believe that Iraq is not as bad as the media protrays after writing to soldiers in Iraq and hearing them speak most say that they are more afraid of Iraq here at home watching the news than when they are actually there.

write a letter. see what they think

 

The Patriot Act is a very good law that has and will continue to help the Law enfocement communities and agencies work together to catch terrorists. It doesn't bother me that the FBI can check a terrorists email or tap their phone without telling them...it doesn't hurt me.

it also violates the constitution. everybody should be allowed a trial, but under the patriot act, anybody can be arrested without a warrant and held indefinately without a phone call, access to a lawyer or the justice system. that is wrong on so many levels it is rediculous for you even to argue. unless you are anti-american, you cannot support the patriot act

[john5746]

I couldn't care less about Bush's religious values and don't hear much about them from him or anyone else. The left takes attacking religion way to seriously and that's why Christians became involed in politics in the first place.

 

This is the biggest problem in the Middle East - religion based government, Thw west had this problem too - Crusades, etc. That is why it is taken seriously. I mean, if he ever says God told him to invade Iraq would that bother you?

 

As with any issue on either side, it is overblown by some.

[r1dermon]

actually, soldiers are not more afraid here at home....my cousin is in iraq right now, and my other cousin is on a destroyer(uss john mccain) in japan(however, he was involved initially at the outbreak of the war) my cousin in iraq got a badge of courage and a green ribbon for bravery. in the line of fire, he jumped out of a foxhole and saved another guys life, the guy had been shot in the leg and was recieving close proximety mortar rounds. my cousin has had grenades roll by him, RPG's flying not 4 feet from his head, and yet, he feels more secure there? i dont think so. the last time he was home(july) he stated how bad it is over there and how he wished he could stay home, or be reassigned. does this sound like he wants to be there? like its a lot better than living in america? i dont think so.

[Pangloss]

Lol, you guys finding any truffles down there? ;-)

 

Ok, I'm going to take your lack of response to my posts above to mean that you conceed that there are valid reasons to vote for Bush. You just happen to not agree with them, which of course is your prerogative. But I hope I've cleared up your stated confusion in Post #1.

[r1dermon]

pangloss....this page? or page #1...do let me know...im sure that after watching bush tonight, you will conceed that there are no reasons to vote for him.

 

GO RED SOX

[Pangloss]

I responded with a lengthy, detailed post back on the first page.

[Mad Mardigan]

as i've stated' date=' i'm not trying to start a flame war, but, mad mardigan, "So you dont think Kerry would mislead anyone? And you think we are all mindless zombies that believes what everything someone says?" if you can quote me as saying that you are all mindless zombies that believe what ever(ything?) someone says? then i will gladly answer to you and your fellow republicans, once i find out what that question means....

see, the thing that i can't seem to decifer is, a boat load of people support george bush. even though the dollar continues to lose value in the world market. even though supposedly around every corner there is a terrorist(while we didnt have this problem during the clinton era), even though the country has been led to a police action under false pre-texts, even though george bush has clearly screwed this country up with his environmental, education, and tax policies, even after all that crap, people still are all gungho about him. see, not to offend anyone, i believe that it has nothing to do with what bush does as president. i believe that it is a religious thing, where people feel compelled to vote for a christian leader. someone who will carry out christian inspired dealings within the confinements of the presidency. someone who will push a christian agenda because he is so out of touch, that the only thing he can relate to is the bible. now, im not saying anything bad about christians(i am catholic) im just saying that i think that the republican party takes religion WAY too far when it comes to the political spectrum. this is only my experience. feel free to comment. but please dont try to flame.[/quote']

 

The way I read what you wrote, I felt you was saying we just take what Bush says as the writen word.

 

and this....

(while we didnt have this problem during the clinton era)

 

What do you call this?

A landmine kills three U.S. soldiers in Somalia. In a subsequent UN force attack against Somali leader Mohammed Farah Aidid, 18 Americans, 2 Pakistanis and 1 Malaysian are killed and 75 Americans are wounded. Video shows two Americans being dragged through the streets of Somalia; A bomb inside a rental truck explodes outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, tearing apart the building and killing one hundred sixty-eight people.; The USS Cole, a U.S. Navy destroyer, is bombed in the waters off the coast of Yemen; Teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold open fire at Columbine High School in Littleton.; Bombings in Nairobi, Kenya

and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

 

Extraditions/Renditions of Terrorists

 

3/93 = Mahmoud Abu Halima

February 1993 World

Trade Center bombing

 

7/93 = Mohammed Ali Rezaq

November 1985 Hijacking

of Egyptair 648

 

2/95 = Ramzi Ahmed Yousef

January 1995 Far East bomb plot;

February 1993 World

Trade Center bombing

 

4/95 = Abdul Hakim Murad

January 1995 Far East bomb plot

 

8/95 = Eyad Mahmoud Ismail Najim

February 1993 World

Trade Center bombing

 

12/95 = Wali Khan Amin Shah

January 1995 Far East bomb plot

 

9/96 = Tsutomu Shirosaki

May 1986 attack on

U.S. Embassy Jakarta

 

6/97 = Mohammed Rashid

August 1982 Pan Am bombing

 

8/98 = Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali

August 1998 U.S. Embassy

bombing in Kenya

 

8/98 = Mohamed Sadeek Odeh

August 1998 U.S. Embassy

bombing in Kenya

 

12/98 = Mamdough Mahmud Salim

August 1998 East Africa bombings

 

source = http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/terrorists_extradition.html

 

Yeah, the world was a safe place for all of us during the Clinton time.

[budullewraagh]

you forgot oklahoma city

[Mad Mardigan]

you forgot oklahoma city

 

No I didnt.

[budullewraagh]

in your list i mean

[r1dermon]

"The economy is improving. We've recovered from the late Clinton-era recession, and we're moving forward again. LEI is up, with a growth rate equal to or (sometimes) surpassing Clintonian levels (I'm a Clinton fan, by the way, so don't take all this Clinton mentioning as an attack), and the only real remaining negative indicators are unemployment, which is a *lagging* indicator and has shown massive improvement over the last year or so (we might get ten million new jobs in the next term from *either* president), and inflation, which is being watched by the best set of eyes in the business (Greenspan), and is so far showing signs of remaining under control."

 

thats a false economy...the real economy is the one that is being shipped to india and china. you know, the outsourcing of jobs...bush claims we've got a good economy, when in-fact, he isnt creating as many jobs as were lost during the end of the clinton era and throughout the bush term. 8 million people are out of work, and thats 8 million people who used to work. thats not people who are just out of college who can't find jobs, because they've never worked before. bush has to do something about outsourcing in my opinion. if he "loves" america, then why is he letting all the business go overseas to devalue the dollar and to lay off 5% of the country?

 

i'll give the corporate corruption thing to you, however, thats a small percentage of people and money. single companies. granted, they add up, but they dont add up to half the population being screwed. what worries me more is that we're giving away billions of dollars for no reason to iraq. winning the war on terror has no place in rebuilding iraq.

 

the patriot act is a sham, its a piece of crap. it totally goes against the core values that america was based upon. unrestricted wire-taps...all they need is suspision of terrorism...lol. thats a little vague at best. so now, we're putting ALL the power in the police hands...i thought that was against republicans belief system...i thought the power was for the people. i guess not. double standard.

 

i dont care about democracy for iraq. i care about catching osama bin laden. the person who attacked us. not hussein, not anyone else, osama is the person i want to catch, and now we're focused on rebuilding iraq? where did that come from? not only that, but bush gave a HUGE tax cut, and then decided to spend 200 billion in iraq. for the purpose of rebuilding a country that has no relevancy toward us. if bush is concerned about oil, then look into alternative energy production sources...nooo, not bush, not the tree hugging conservatives, "no windmills on our unused portions of land that just sit there and do nothing" of course not. and then we've got the tree hugging liberals telling us not to drill in alaska(which BTW has already been researched and concluded that it would cost us more to drill there and extend a pipeline than we would get out of the oil) alternative fuels is something that bush has to touch upon.

 

finally, i think bush should explain to the american people that he lied about the WMD's. and that his information was bad. instead of placing blame all around the table...he is the president, he is the one that issues the orders...he is the one that should be accountable for any and all mistakes. "senator kerry thought they were there too" well, too bad, he's just a senator, he was given information from your staff and your information was bad, thats why as president, you should always take your time to review the intelligence instead of rushing to war over something that was absolutely no threat to us.

[Mad Mardigan]

thats a false economy...the real economy is the one that is being shipped to india and china. you know, the outsourcing of jobs...bush claims we've got a good economy, when in-fact, he isnt creating as many jobs as were lost during the end of the clinton era and throughout the bush term. 8 million people are out of work, and thats 8 million people who used to work. thats not people who are just out of college who can't find jobs, because they've never worked before. bush has to do something about outsourcing in my opinion. if he "loves" america, then why is he letting all the business go overseas to devalue the dollar and to lay off 5% of the country?

 

Hey, I bet NAFTA had something to do with it. Who was president when that was created, oh yeah, CLINTON. What about Hanoi Johns wife, mrs Heinz, where something like 80% of there operations is over seas.

[budullewraagh]

outsourcing has benefits and disadvantages. for one, it helps third world countries grow by expanding their middle classes. these countries can be coerced into political alliances with the united states in return for outsourcing. at the same time, it sends jobs away from the states, a problem considering our lack of jobs. the real winner is the companies, who pay less for the same work

[Pangloss]

r1dermon,

 

I appreciate the response, but I think you may have missed my point. You asked why anybody would support Bush -- what reasons they might give. I assume you also meant "that are objectively valid". You've posted some nice refutations to my points, some of which I even agree with (I'm no Bush partisan).

 

But the question remains -- have I answered your original inquiry? Do you conceed that there are valid reasons why somebody might want to vote for Bush, even if you disagree with them?

 

Put another way, just how much of an ideologue are you? Did you really want an answer to your question, or were you just trying to insult Bush voters in a backhanded way?

 

 

 

I'll be happy to address your specific points, but please consider what I said above to be my primary response. The rest of this is just... detail.

 

 

thats a false economy...the real economy is the one that is being shipped to india and china. you know, the outsourcing of jobs...bush claims we've got a good economy, when in-fact, he isnt creating as many jobs as were lost during the end of the clinton era and throughout the bush term. 8 million people are out of work, and thats 8 million people who used to work. thats not people who are just out of college who can't find jobs, because they've never worked before. bush has to do something about outsourcing in my opinion. if he "loves" america, then why is he letting all the business go overseas to devalue the dollar and to lay off 5% of the country?

 

It's not false economy -- it's 99% of the economic picture of any country. What's false is to claim that unemployment is the entire picture of an economy. In fact it's not only false, it's dangerous in the extreme.

 

Is it valid to be concerned about 8 million people out of work (actually 13 million, according to Centrists.org)? Absolutely. I just think you overstate the case to suggest that the "real economy" is being "shipped to india and china". That's ridiculous. Outsourcing in the first quarter of 2004 was only *2%* of unemployment, according to the BLS (here's a link). TWO PERCENT.

 

And I think you should read what budullewraagh wrote above about outsourcing. It's an excellent point as well. Whatever happened to liberal support for free trade anyway? Certainly seems to be gone with the wind where Kerry is concerned.

 

Note that what I object to here is NOT concern about outsourcing, but making it sound like outsourcing and job-loss is the most important and ONLY important aspect of the economic picture. That is just wrong.

 

I may vote for Kerry. But it won't be because of lies, spins, and half-truths.

 

 

i'll give the corporate corruption thing to you, however, thats a small percentage of people and money. single companies. granted, they add up, but they dont add up to half the population being screwed. what worries me more is that we're giving away billions of dollars for no reason to iraq. winning the war on terror has no place in rebuilding iraq.

 

If by "half the population being screwed" you mean unemployment, I would remind you that it's 5.4%, not 50%. But I may not be interpreting you correctly there -- if you just mean in the sense that you believe corporate corruption is not as significant as the other issues, that's fine -- you have a right to your opinion.

 

I think you're wrong in thinking that, however. Corporate corruption is incredibly important. In fact it was our number one national priority before 9/11. And I believe it's very important to the stability of our system to show these companies that we mean business about them playing fair and acting within the law. The last thing we want is for it to become commonly accepted that there are no consequences for their illegal acts.

 

 

the patriot act is a sham, its a piece of crap. it totally goes against the core values that america was based upon. unrestricted wire-taps...all they need is suspision of terrorism...lol. thats a little vague at best. so now, we're putting ALL the power in the police hands...i thought that was against republicans belief system...i thought the power was for the people. i guess not. double standard.

 

What's curious about this paragraph is that you stated an opinion (which is fine -- more power to you), but you didn't refute my points about the Patriot Act. You just told me I'm wrong. That's not refutation.

 

 

i dont care about democracy for iraq. i care about catching osama bin laden.

 

I think what you care about is whatever the Bush administration has yet to accomplish. Anything that can be identified as "bad" from a pro-Kerry position. If we had Osama behind bars, you'd be talking about how that didn't matter because there's some other guy in charge now and he's just as bad. If we didn't have Saddam behind bars you'd be talking about that.

 

I suspect you're one of those people who warned us about what a quagmire Afghanistan would be. And when it turned out not to be a quagmire at all, you jumped on the anti-Iraq bandwagon. And if we hadn't gone into Iraq, you'd still be telling us how horrible it was that we went to Afghanistan.

 

 

and then decided to spend 200 billion in iraq.

 

We've documented several times here in the forum that that number is false. Here is another link for you:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/factcheck/

 

 

and then we've got the tree hugging liberals telling us not to drill in alaska(which BTW has already been researched and concluded that it would cost us more to drill there and extend a pipeline than we would get out of the oil) alternative fuels is something that bush has to touch upon.

 

Please provide a hyperlink to an article on this, from a non-partisan source. Until I read it from an objective position, I don't believe it. No matter what "it" is.

 

 

finally, i think bush should explain to the american people that he lied about the WMD's. and that his information was bad. instead of placing blame all around the table...he is the president, he is the one that issues the orders...he is the one that should be accountable for any and all mistakes. "senator kerry thought they were there too" well, too bad, he's just a senator, he was given information from your staff and your information was bad, thats why as president, you should always take your time to review the intelligence instead of rushing to war over something that was absolutely no threat to us.

 

That's all well and good, but those are just reasons to vote against Bush. They're not necessarily reasons to vote for Kerry. And when you reduce the above paragraph to stuff that can actually be proven, any OBJECTIVE person arrives at the conclusion that this is not enough to condemn on its own merits. More is required.

[budullewraagh]

Whatever happened to liberal support for free trade anyway?

you cant really divide people's political views by calling them "conservative" or "liberal".

with regard to foreign policy, my views are liberal in the sense of globalization. socially, i am progressive (usually). economically, i am socialist.

[Pangloss]

True enough.

 

But I do think there's a functional disconnect there in the "liberal" side of the American political spectrum. Clinton was for free trade, except when he temporarily stopped being free trade in order to re-acquire the support of organized labor. After the 1996 election he went right back to being Mr. Free Trade. This position is common in the Democratic party -- Kerry's doing exactly the same thing right now. He's all for free trade, but he still has the support of the labor unions, so he has to be opposed to NAFTA, which makes no sense at all. Kerry writes this off by (bizarrely) blaming the whole NAFTA business on Republicans, but if he gets elected he's going to have to deal with it himself.

[Douglas]

you cant really divide people's political views by calling them "conservative" or "liberal".

with regard to foreign policy' date=' my views are liberal in the sense of globalization. socially, i am progressive (usually). economically, i am socialist.[/quote']

Hey budullewraagh, does that mean you're FOR the "Robin Hood" syndrome, rob from the rich, pocket half of it and give the rest to the poor??

 

Talking about socialist's, I noticed the Communist party of America and the Socialist party of America do not have candidate's for President this year, both partys are endorsing Kerry.

 

BTW, what do you think of Kerry running Nader out of town? They've been fighting tooth and nail to keep Nader off the ballots.

[budullewraagh]

Hey budullewraagh, does mean that you're for the "Robin Hood" syndrome, rob from the rich, pocket half of it and give the rest to the poor??

actually, it doesnt. i'd appreciate it if you were civil. i wont even answer that question. perhaps you could be a bit more insightful.

 

Talking about socialist's, I noticed the Communist party of America and the Socialist party of America do not have candidate's for President this year, both partys are endorsing Kerry.

you mean "socialists"? ("socialist" isn't a noun that is posessing a lack of noun). what has the fact that the communist and socialist parties of america are endorsing kerry have anything to do with anything?