Bush for Pres. and my debate with people for kerry

[Viking]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Okay, well thank you for enlightening me regarding the phony camera story. I believed the story until I read your posts.

Quasi-sarcastic definition: partial sarcasm and partial joke--kind of along the same lines, to me, as "thank you for your opinion" or "hmmmm interesting".

I would like your thoughts on the pm I sent you. Thanks,

Obviously conservative Americans like falling for phoney stories, or they wouldn't even consider voting for Bush again

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by WillyJ
but this idea that one side can slam and take cheap shots at the other and then express this fake outrage, phony sadness, and unbelievably myopic reading of people who disagree with them is pathetically dishonest.

Be civil from now on and I will be civil.

Keep being mean, insulting, and nasty.. and I will be mean, insulting, and nasty.

And trust me, I do it better then you do. . .

Now remind me which side is which? It's hard to tell

Continuing to be mean, insulting and nasty because "they started it!" is hardly a compelling argument. Hurling about insults and petty remarks says an awful lot more about the person posting them than it does about the political candidate they support (and it certainly does nothing whatsoever to advance one's political ideas).

 

[BedKnobbery2]

TrinaC, I'm sorry that the people who were arguing with you were misinformed; Kerry has never said that he plans to pull the troops out willy-nilly.

His criticisms about the war in Iraq is that we went in unprepared and without an exit strategy in place. There seemed to be an assumption that it will all be nice and tidy, like Kuwait (not that war is ever nice & tidy, but as far as wars go, that's about as nice & tidy as it gets) and when Baghdad fell, that's pretty much the attitude the administration took--"Look, we did it! We're done!"--as demonstrated in Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech when we've all learned since that the mission was far from accomplished; in fact, the real war had barely begun.

What Kerry has said is that we need more countries to be involved, and to be truly involved--not just as a "come on in and join us, fellas!" kind of way which is all we've had so far, but in a "Let's work on this together and make this the best place we possibly can using each contributing country's strengths and resources" kind of way. We share the responsibility.

Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[auntpolly]

I've been wondering about people who will vote for GWB again. Are you convinced that he lived up to his promise of "compassionate conservatism?

Also, he said: <i> "Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power -- or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness." </i> Do you really think he has lived up to that promise?

I remember after 9/11 thinking that GWB was rising to the challenge and that maybe I could get behind him. But in my opinion, he has not only let us down but squandered the chance for greatness. He had a chance to really make a difference if he had just done like he said he would do before he was elected.

For those of you who voted for him because of these things - do you feel let down? If not, help me understand why.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by peachgirl
And you know very well that some time back he had a signature line that said, as I recall, "Vote Republican, it's easier than thinking". That was long before you made the changes to it and proclaimed how original you were.

I don't know what you are talking about. I've had this signature for awhile and I've never seen this signature line or a variation of this signature line as someone's signature line. Please perform a search and show me where wvrevy had this signature thread. I did a search and all I found was his reference to the "original version," which would be "Vote Republican, it's easier than thinking." Based upon his response I would say that he was making a jab at the Republican party and me.

The hypocrite in you is raising it's ugly head. That's really funny coming from someone who another poster wouldn't even answer because of the vulgarity in your posts. You won't see too many sensor edits in my posts, but yours are littered with them.

And what vulgarity would that be? These boards are censored/filtered. I'll admit that I do type profanity, but I don't try to "fool" the filter system (remember, this could get you banned).

What poster are you talking about? I don't believe I've ever personally directed profanity to anyone on any thread. Please provide me with the link and if you're right I'll admit I'm wrong and then I'll apologize to the individual.

You called me a hypocrite because of my "vulgarity" and the multiple sensor edits in my posts (I disagree with you, my edits are minimal), but in the same paragraph you state,

You won't see too many sensor edits in my posts.

Aren't you the one that's being hypocritical?

 

[jrydberg]

I certainly do feel disappointed, to say the least, in President Bush's administration in a number of areas. But not so much that I'll vote for Kerry. Bottom line, I'm not going to be real thrilled about casting my vote for anyone in November.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Kendra17
I would take a poll, but I think the liberals' responses would be biased. I don't think they'd look at the actual issues.

Also, I'd probably be banned.

Thanks for your support, though!

I've been debating on here for awhile and have never been banned. Have you ever been banned before?

What issues were you refering too?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by lucysdad
liberal (adj.)
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Gosh, being a liberal sounds really evil. Somehow, though, it doesn't sound like their responses would be biased. Rather they would be broad-minded or progressive. I'm not really clear on this, however, because I am incapable of thinking for myself. Must listen to Hannity ... need direction ... fade to black.

Cute.

Would these be the same people that help pass out condoms in high schools and other "free thinking" stuff?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by auntpolly
I've been wondering about people who will vote for GWB again. Are you convinced that he lived up to his promise of "compassionate conservatism?

Also, he said: <i> "Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power -- or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness." </i> Do you really think he has lived up to that promise?

I remember after 9/11 thinking that GWB was rising to the challenge and that maybe I could get behind him. But in my opinion, he has not only let us down but squandered the chance for greatness. He had a chance to really make a difference if he had just done like he said he would do before he was elected.

For those of you who voted for him because of these things - do you feel let down? If not, help me understand why.

in all fairness I think the events of 9-11 would have changed the focus and priorities of any president, if not I would question the thought process of the president at the time..

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Just for the record Kendra....

If you think you're fooling anyone with your constant backdoor jabs, you're not.

Well, that's probably not entirely true, but just so you'll know, there are plenty of folks on this board who aren't falling for you're crap and I'm one of them.

You want to continue this, we will.






And that comment is equally clever. Do you ever just post without insulting someone?


And for those of you who think I'm being mean to poor little Kendra...check her posts. She never fails to include a little hidden message directed my way. It's beginning to have the appearances of stalking.

not taking sides here, or saying that what anyone said said was proper,

however,,by definition, legal or otherwise,stalking involves following for the purpose of harassing or intimidating..

since she was here first, and you showed up to challenge her post....I believe the term stalking would not apply to HER in this instance..

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
in all fairness I think the events of 9-11 would have changed the focus and priorities of any president, if not I would question the thought process of the president at the time..

I believe that if GWB <i>had</i> followed his original thought process, we'd be in better shape right now. I'm not just saying that I could have respected him if he had done this -- it's true. After 9/11, I believe it was even <i>more</i> importart that he stick to that mission statement, IMO.

Kerry won't be pulling out of Iraq -- I wish he could but GWB has opened a can of worms that we're going to have to deal with.

 

[Kelsie]

Originally posted by peachgirl
That's ok, you don't need to since it doesn't involve you. I wasn't looking for support or agreement with me on this one.

It is what it is and she and I both know what's going on. Whether anyone else does or not does not matter. Perhaps I shouldn't have invited anyone to read her posts. I was just trying to avoid the predictable defend her/defend me posts that always follow this stuff.

Actually, your personal battle with each other doesn't involve any of us so if you must continue, please do it in private.

Thanks!

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by auntpolly
I've been wondering about people who will vote for GWB again. Are you convinced that he lived up to his promise of "compassionate conservatism?

Also, he said: <i> "Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power -- or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness." </i> Do you really think he has lived up to that promise?

I remember after 9/11 thinking that GWB was rising to the challenge and that maybe I could get behind him. But in my opinion, he has not only let us down but squandered the chance for greatness. He had a chance to really make a difference if he had just done like he said he would do before he was elected.

For those of you who voted for him because of these things - do you feel let down? If not, help me understand why.

I think you don't understand that there will always be people that look at the US in a negative way. No matter what we do. We can not and should not try to do things with the idea "what will *they* think. That would be watering down the great country that we have. Sure, we have our problems. Some unique, some not. I also believe that while we get a bad rap for some of the things we do (some deservedly, some not) there are many great things we do that go unnoticed and under appreciated. But we will continue to help regardless.

(inspired by the passport poll).. I wonder how many people (if given the choice and means to do so) would want to live anywhere else in the world.

The thing I don't get is that if the US is disliked by so much of the world, why do people still come here in large numbers to vacation, work, buy property (have you seen how many Brits own rentals in FL?), do business with us, etc. Do you think it's all out of necessity?

So to answer your question, I do think we can do better, I think GWB can do better, but I don't want us to cave under pressure from those that want us to be everyones "buddy".

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by jrydberg
I don't think Kerry will pull the troops out. He has made no indication that I've seen that he will do so.

Kerry Withdrawal Pledge Sharpens Iraq Debate
AFP: 8/10/2004
by Peter Mackler

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (AFP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry`s pledge to slash US troop levels in Iraq by next August has sharpened a debate over the war that had produced bitter exchanges but no hint of an exit strategy.

Under pressure to offer a clear alternative to President George W. Bush, Kerry promised last week to "significantly" draw down the 138,000-strong US force in Iraq within eight months of taking office.

The Massachusetts senator said that using diplomacy to raise more international help and accelerating the training of Iraqi security forces, "it is appropriate to have a goal of reducing our troops over that period time."

The Republicans have also vowed to withdraw US troops as soon as possible but refuse to set a timetable. Bush said while campaigning on Friday that an immediate pullout would lead to "mayhem and bloodshed" in Iraq.

"The mission is ... (to have) a democratic Iraq, where they have elections to elect their government," he said. "We will stay there until the job is completed and our commanders on the ground tell us."

The notion of a withdrawal timetable injected a new dimension into sparring over the Iraq operation that had left voters seeing little substantive daylight between the two candidates in the November election.

A Gallup poll 10 days ago showed Americans evenly divided between Kerry and Bush when it comes to managing Iraq. But 42 percent thought the president had a clear plan for the future while only 38 percent felt the Democrat did.

Although a majority of the country disapproves of Bush`s policies in Iraq and nearly half feel the March 2003 invasion was a mistake, Kerry has been bedeviled by the issue as well.

Kerry voted to authorise the use of military force against Saddam Hussein before turning critical of the war and the administration`s failure to find suspected Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or a link to al-Qaeda terrorists.

His acknowledgment Monday that he would have voted the same way in 2002, even knowing what he knows now, drew derision and a claim of political vindication Tuesday from Bush.

"He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq," Bush told a campaign rally in Florida. "I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up."

Kerry`s national security adviser Rand Beers countered that "the issue has never been whether we were right to hold Saddam accountable. The issue is that we went to war without our allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace."

Kerry is also facing heat from left-wing Democrats seeking an outright pullout from Iraq, but he has vowed to "stay the course" to keep Iraq stable and even send in more troops if necessary.

The veteran lawmaker and Vietnam war hero has provided few specifics of his troop draw-down plan and has yet to explain how it squares with the need to keep Iraq from becoming a "failed state."

On Monday, he was giving himself some wiggle room, saying his ability to bring the troops home would depend on events in Iraq, including the success in building up Iraqi security forces and holding scheduled elections in January.

"If things don`t go well initially, that means any cutbacks in American forces will come slower," said his senior foreign policy adviser James Rubin.

Analysts were divided whether other nations would contribute any significant number of troops to allow an American withdrawal. They also said the Iraqi security forces have been slow to get organised.

But Kerry is making the issue one of personal leadership and credibility, arguing that Bush`s penchant for unilateral military action has left him isolated an unable to recruit outside help.

"I`m convinced I can be more successful than President Bush in succeeding in doing that," Kerry said Monday. "It is an appropriate goal to have and I`m going to try to achieve it."

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt said the president had the same goals of replacing US troops with other multinational contingents and beefing up local forces.

But Holt added: "To put an artificial time frame on it is to reveal it as a campaign promise and no more."

 

[Yzma and Kronk]

Originally posted by auntpolly
I've been wondering about people who will vote for GWB again. Are you convinced that he lived up to his promise of "compassionate conservatism?

Also, he said: <i> "Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power -- or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness." </i> Do you really think he has lived up to that promise?

.

I am not an American citizen - just a guest in your country for a few years. I find all this political debate very interesting!

We moved here just after 9/11.

From an "outsiders" viewpoint - I believe GWB has lived up to this statement. Especially, "And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character"
You do. And that is not a bad thing. Please don't get too wrapped up over what other countries think. It is mainly media fed (I still get many media sources from elsewhere - and sometimes I cannot believe the crap that is written about this country). Just remember, the world does look up to the US and a lot of countries would be in serious trouble without you!

For those of you who are on the opposite sides of the political perspective.......please try to at least see the others point of view. No one is telling you to accept it - but the juvenile bantering really discredits any argument presented.

 

[WDWMom]

After reading the posts here and the other thead that was closed I feel the need to ask some questions and make a few statements....


First of all I have no clue who I am going to vote for. Wish there were several more choices. I am not happy with GWB but he is my President and I respect the office and the job he has to do. I have never walked in his shoes, nor would I want to.

I have heard a ton of negative information about Kerry and I have no idea what to believe. Recently read an article about other men he served with who are fighting to keep him from office. Something about how he was hit in friendly fire but received the Purple Heart anyway. Then went to the Dr. to take out the piece of whatever and was told he could have done it himself and put a band-aid on it.(Not real sure on my facts so please don't flame in for it.) In my opinion he sounds like a real whiner.

I look at his voting record and wonder what his real thoughts are on some topics. I have also read and seen on TV that he has missed many meetings and opportunities to vote while being a Senator.

So my questions are....
What is the real truth??? What really happening in VN??? Dh says he is more liberal that the Kennedys yet he talks like a conservative whenever I hear him???


Again, I have no clue who I am voting for so I am not on one side or the other. Looking to make an informed decision "I" think is best for my family and country

 

[jrydberg]

Having a goal of reducing US troop strength in favor of more international forces does not constitute withdrawing from Iraq. Realistically, if Sen. Kerry gets elected, I think he'll find it exceedingly difficult to actually get other countries to bring in substantial military forces to replace ours. As such, I take that for what it is... Democratic Party posturing.

Sen. Kerry wants to paint himself as different from President Bush on the issue of Iraq. That's a way to do it without really having a substantive disagreement. The end result will likely be the same, but Sen. Kerry can say he advocates a different approach.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

WDWMom, I can understand your confusion; it is often difficult to figure out what is what, particularly when fiction is woven with small bits of fact, or conjecture is made from the slightest suggestion.

Regarding Viet Nam, I doubt we will ever fully know the facts. Memories fade after 30+ years, so I don't know that either side's "memory" of the time is fully reliable. However, we do know that the review board saw fit to award Kerry with his Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, and Silver Star. I don't think they make those decisions lightly, and I'll take them at their word that Kerry deserved those medals, rather than the accusations many, many years later that he did not. Regarding the doctor which you refer to--it's been show that he did not, in fact, treat Kerry for any of the wounds that earned him a Purple Heart. The paperwork leading to the medals show this.

Making a truly informed decision takes a lot of hard work. There is soooo much that is thrown out at us by the media, who try to make every issue into a tidy little soundbite that we can understand in 10 seconds or less. It's amazing to me the lack of depth and research that seems to go into the very programs we hope to educate us on the issues. It is also tough because more and more, many of these programs try to bill opinion as fact, and many people will swallow it wholesale without even stopping to consider what may or may not be true.

Honestly, I can't think of anything to say that will sway you either way, other than to keeping looking for what is true, and understand that sometimes it is going to come down to what is true to you. (A subtle difference, and one folks often miss, but I think you'll know what I mean.)

Good luck!

BK

 

[jrydberg]

Good point about opinion being more prevalent in the media, BedKnobbery2. The bottom line is just that... the media is a business and interested in the bottom line. A news outlet that merely reports the facts is working with the exact same facts as a zillion other outlets. The only substantial way they can make themselves stand out from the crowd is to add opinion to it. There is a lot more competition in the media than there used to be.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by WebmasterKelsie
Actually, your personal battle with each other doesn't involve any of us so if you must continue, please do it in private.

Thanks!

It doesn't involve me, either, believe it or not.

Anyways, back to Bush:

. . .

Also, he said: "Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we refuse the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power -- or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness." Do you really think he has lived up to that promise?

I remember after 9/11 thinking that GWB was rising to the challenge and that maybe I could get behind him. But in my opinion, he has not only let us down but squandered the chance for greatness. He had a chance to really make a difference if he had just done like he said he would do before he was elected.

For those of you who voted for him because of these things - do you feel let down? If not, help me understand why

Bush does reject isolationism contrary to European and the Left's opinion. In America, the government is expected to protect and serve its CITIZENS, not the rest of the world. That said, he tried to include the "international community" in the decision to invade Iraq. When it came down to it, he had no choice but to do what he, his administration and supporters believed to be the Right thing to do. He answers to us and works for US-- the people of the U.S.-- not Europe and not the UN.

The backlash against America didn't happen after 9-11. It was WHY 9-11 happened. It also opened our eyes, collectively, to the Anti-Americanism that was already rampant--not new to the Bush administration time frame.

I spent much of the mid 80s to mid 90s traveling in Europe, India, South America, etc. There was always a love/hate (I believe the hate was based on false ideas and misunderstanding)relationship with Americans. There were many criticisms regarding our crime rate, our obesity rate, our mode of dress, our prudishness or modesty, the fact that many of us aren't fluent in other languages, etc., our perceived individual wealth, sizes of homes and apartments, etc. , even our "protestant" work ethic, our religion, and our patriotism--among many other.

It seemed to me then and now that so much of that criticism directed at Americans have more to do with others' inability to spread the tolerance they profess to have, over this way.

Our culture (that's another gripe. . .we are often accused of lacking one) in America is not a mirror image of France's or Germany's or England's. But, we have many many strong points which are continually belittled. People accuse us of being the "worlds' policeman". What can one really say to this? Is it better to let another--with a VERY recent history of misconduct, mass murder, despotism, etc. --amass weapons or use masterful brinksmanship to dare us into forcing his hand? Many of us would say no. I would rather have America calling those shots than North Korea or Iraq or Saudi Arabia, etc. And, for those of us living here, even while griping about the Patriot Act, our "loss of liberty" and the supposed fear of losing our freedoms, do themselves and others a disservice. There is more freedom here than anywhere else, and the Patriot Act is only designed to protect those freedoms in the future. Look at our posts, here. . .can one in Saudi Arabia, Sadam's Iraq, North Korea, China, even Argentina, for goodness' sakes, etc., post comments such as these? Absolutely not.

The people that argue that no culture is inferior, that they are all equal and relative are, ironically, usually the ones that bash the U.S. the most, it seems.