John Kerry for President!

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
Let's say terrorism magically stops once Kerry is elected. Kind of like, say, Spain. What a great legacy....."see, the Terrorist prefered us".........

Ok....I don't get it.....We're attacked more with Bush in office, so therefore he's the better president ?

Galahad, usually you're coherent, but that's about the silliest argument I've ever seen...

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy


Terrorism is UP since Bush took office, remember ?

Not here it isn't. Yes, terrorism is UP in other parts of the world but could that have something to do with us deciding to fight back? Naw, that couldn't be it. Could it?

And the greatest attack on our soil in our history took place on HIS watch.

Another meaningless point. It would have happened if Gore was President.

Yet, you're going to "remind people" of this if we're attacked again ?

Yep. Because y'all think that the terrorists will stop if Kerry gets elected. Highly (very) doubtful.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
I'll remind you of this (if I can) in a few years if Kerry is elected and we are attacked here on our soil again.

K?

We were already attacked on our own soil when Bush was president. Yet another attempt at nonsensical logic.

My favorite part of Kerry's speech was when he said we should go to war only when we have to not because we want to!

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by jrydberg
As to the substance of Kerry's speech, I think he delivered it fairly well, though I was personally hoping for a bit more than the typical convention fare (I'm sure the Republicans will have their fair share of that soon enough). The speech itself seemed VERY general -- a lot of "I'm for a strong America, a strong economy"... bold stance there -- and had quite a bit of negativity thrown in. Mind you, if Kerry wants to get elected he needs to highlight the failings of the Bush administration, so I don't blame him for that. Just smart politics.

However, it was a little... disappointing to hear him talk about taking the high road and then in his next breath start on the attack.

All in all, I think Kerry did a pretty good job with the speech. It certainly won't hurt him. Personally, I would've liked to have seen more, but I think I can say that about any convention speech

jrydberg, I just want to say upfront that I am not attacking you, personally; rather, your post here brought to mind a trend that I've seen growing in the media and in political discussions, and I wanted to comment on it.

I find it somewhat distressing and disheartening that, somehow, any amount of disagreement with the current administration's policies and decisions is automatically labeled as "negative" or "an attack" or "bashing". OF COURSE anyone running against a current administration (any administration, not just the current one) is going to disagree with some of the things they've done, and highlight those disagreements, and set forth how they would do things differently. Why is this, now, perceived as "bashing"? What is so wrong with saying, "I don't like how things are going, and I want it to change."

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Not here it isn't. Yes, terrorism is UP in other parts of the world but could that have something to do with us deciding to fight back? Naw, that couldn't be it. Could it?

So, American deaths only count if they happen on American soil, is that it ?

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Another meaningless point. It would have happened if Gore was President.

Possibly, but again, beside the point. You gleefully say you'll "remind people" of saying we'd be safer under Kerry, then whine when reminded that this president oversaw the worst attack in our nation's history (when he wasn't reading about magical goats, anyway )

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Yep. Because y'all think that the terrorists will stop when Kerry gets elected. Highly (very) doubtful.

Um, excuse me, but could you please point out where ANYONE said that all terror attacks would "stop" under a Kerry presidency ? Put up or shut up.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
We were already attacked on our own soil when Bush was president. Yet another attempt at nonsensical logic.

As I stated in my reply to wvrevy. Meaningless point because the attack would have occured if Gore had become President.

My favorite part of Kerry's speech was when he said we should go to war only when we have to not because we want to!

translation:

Only fight back if we are attacked.

 

[faithinkarma]

Only fight back if we are attacked.

um...no....only attack when you have the facts and someone credible to interpret the facts properly.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ok....I don't get it.....We're attacked more with Bush in office, so therefore he's the better president ?

Galahad, usually you're coherent, but that's about the silliest argument I've ever seen...

Sorry. I'll try to be more clear. You think we are being attacked more because Bush is in office right? Or that we are being attacked because we went to Iraq? And that we wouldn't be attacked so much if we hadn't gone to Iraq? If there is a war on terror and we are trying to define it ourselves rather than let the enemy (there really is one) define it, then of course we will be attacked more during the course of that war. It's a war. Will the war go away if Kerry is elected and we will suddenly be attacked less? You have to go through the war to get to the peace. Peace is rarely if ever achieved without an actually victory. So are you saying that if someone else was President when 9/11 happened that by this point we'd be out of danger? If your argument is, "but we wouldn't have gone into Iraq". Fine, but that would only delay attacks, not eliminate them entirely. This was was going to happen after 9/11 one way or the other. It was either going to happen elsewhere or it was going to happen here. I am glad that for the time being it is happening elsewhere. I definitely think there is a fundamental difference between how many Democrats see the war on Terror and how the President sees it. I hope that is the question that the election is decided on because it is the area where the Democrats are most demonstrably wrong.
What do you imagine would have happened if we had not gone to Iraq.....simply stopped after the Taliban and dismantling Al Qaeda? What if we had found Bin Ladin right away? Would the job be done?

My point was that we are being attacked because of who they are and who we are...not because of President Bush or the War in Iraq. The attacks may have come in different places or different times....but they would come none-the-less. They didn't watch the 2000 election and decide that they must now come a kill all the infidels.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Hi Nancy!

I guess I'm confused, because I didn't notice any mention at all of Bush's service or non-service during the Viet Nam war; rather, I just heard him speak about the fact that, having fought in a war himself, having been faced with having to kill another human being, and having seen his fellow soldiers themselves killed, he gained from that valuable insight into the seriousness of sending our young men and women into war and that because he knew himself first hand what they would have to face, it allows him to seriously weigh the necessity of war.

Of course, I'm only talking about the speech itself; I haven't listened to any commentary on the networks about it, so maybe they brought up the contrast?

Actually that was my take on the whole thing. I even said to my husband I think this is so overdone..we all know Kerry served and Bush didn't so why keep shoving it in our faces. It was grandstanding, just like Bush grandstanded when he landed on the aircraft carrier and so many people were outraged by it.

No Kerry didn't come out and say it in words...to me...(ie: my opinion) it was what he was implying..if it wasn't then I misread the whole point of coming in on the boat with all his buddies..the video clip of him showing him in VietNam and then having all those guys up on stage. And I haven't even heard one bit of commentary on it one way or the other. Just my opinion of the whole thing.

 

[jrydberg]

I'd agree, Nancy. It's not that his service isn't relevant. But it was just overdone, IMO.

 

[Saffron]

Up until last night I was voting for Kerry simply to vote against Bush. When I cast my vote in the fall I will be voting FOR Kerry.

I needed to hear him say what he said about the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. I needed to feel that he has the same values or thoughts when it comes to war as I do ... that the USA should only enter into war when it's necessary, not because we want to, but that doesn't mean we won't strike back against any terrorist attacks in this country. I needed to hear him say that the lessons he learned in Vietnam will lead him in his decisions about war in the future if he becomes president.

In my opinion this country needs change and Kerry's speech made me feel hopeful about the future for the USA. It seems that his visions of what the people in this country stand for and what the USA means to him, are almost the same as mine.

 

[JulieWent]

I listened to the words and felt relieved that someone was running whom I felt would represent me. John Kerry may not be a showman, but he understands that the world is a complex place full of complicated problems. When did we get to the place where we felt that our presidents needed to look like actors and sound like commercials? I can only imagine what Abraham Lincoln would have looked like to the cameras. The Gettysburg Address would certainly NOT have fit into a 60 second television spot. No, I am not comparing John Kerry to Abraham Lincoln, simply venting frustration that frequently it seems we end up with lesser people (i.e. Saxby Chambliss instead of Max Clellan in Georgia, for instance) in office because of our need for pretty pictures and eloquent delivery. John Kerry has integrity and intelligence, characteristics I value.

Julie

 

[faithinkarma]

No Kerry didn't come out and say it in words...to me...(ie: my opinion) it was what he was implying..if it wasn't then I misread the whole point of coming in on the boat with all his buddies..

A Texas republican has spent huge amounts of money to gather a bunch of vets to disprove that Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam. I thought the purpose of having the actual people who actually served with him on the actual boat was to send the message that they were wrong. Grandstanding? Maybe. But how else does one refute a lie? Who would have taken Kerry's word for it?

 

[wvrevy]

But Galahad, you're assuming (incorrectly) that Kerry will not continue the fight against terrorism. The problem is as Bill Clinton stated it the other night: strength and wisdom are not mutually exclusive traits. We had not even properly finished the job in Afghanistan when this war in Iraq was started, as is evidenced by the FACT that terrorists are still using it as a base (per the administration's "terror warnings" of recent weeks). We launched a preventative war on Iraq (something I'm wholly against, on principle) for reasons that have since been proven incorrect, and we got into a position in which a situation like Abu Ghraib could occur and paint us in an even more negative light in the Arab world.

Will the threat of terror stop with Kerry in office ? Of course not. No matter who is on office there will be those that hate what this country stands for and that are willing to do something about that hate. But I believe that George Bush has made the situation considerably WORSE, not better, and I don't believe that will occur with John Kerry.

Strength without wisdom breeds hatred on the part of your enemies. I absolutely guarantee you that there is more anti-American sentiment in the region NOW than their was before the invasion of Iraq.

 

[faithinkarma]

Up until last night I was voting for Kerry simply to vote against Bush. When I cast my vote in the fall I will be voting FOR Kerry.

Saffron,
This is a sentiment I am seeing everywhere on every board I visit since last night. The naysayers can claim what they want. Last night was a home run.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues


As I stated in my reply to wvrevy. Meaningless point because the attack would have occured if Gore had become President.



translation:

Only fight back if we are attacked. [/B]

Someday Elwood, I would love to know exactly what the crux of your argument is. The main concern of mine is The War that we are involved in right now. Someone on here predicted that it would bother us when the body bags started coming back from Iraq. It bothers me, I grew up around military people, and I have friends and a relative serving. Nothing that you say in fragmented sentences is going to change my mind. Try looking at the World through someone elses eyes for a change. No amount of "red neck" logic is going to change my mind.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
So, American deaths only count if they happen on American soil, is that it ?

WTH are you talking about? I never said nor implied anything like that. Nice try though.

Possibly, but again, beside the point. You gleefully say you'll "remind people" of saying we'd be safer under Kerry, then whine when reminded that this president oversaw the worst attack in our nation's history (when he wasn't reading about magical goats, anyway )

No, not possibly. Definitely. It would have happened regardless of who was in the WH.

I don't gleefully say anything when it comes to this stuff. That's the way you interpreted it. That's YOUR problem. Not mine.

Are you implying that 9-11 could have been avoided if Bush wasn't reading to those school kids that day?

Um, excuse me, but could you please point out where ANYONE said that all terror attacks would "stop" under a Kerry presidency ? Put up or shut up.

Ok ok, you got me. No one here *actually* said that but the implication was loud and clear.

So are you saying the terroists attacks will not end entirely?

Or are you saying (as has been implied) that once we leave all the places they don't want us to be, they won't want to attack us anymore?

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
A Texas republican has spent huge amounts of money to gather a bunch of vets to disprove that Kerry served honorably in Viet Nam. I thought the purpose of having the actual people who actually served with him on the actual boat was to send the message that they were wrong. Grandstanding? Maybe. But how else does one refute a lie? Who would have taken Kerry's word for it?

I have not seen anything on the Texas Rebulican gathering up vets to try to prove something against Kerry. I must have missed that somewhere along the lines, do you have a link to something I could read on that? Not being sarcastic or anything, I just never saw that and I like to know both sides to everything.

 

[Galahad]

But I believe that George Bush has made the situation considerably WORSE, not better, and I don't believe that will occur with John Kerry.

OK. This is understandable. An area that we disagree on but understandable how somebody comes to this conclusion. It is equally understandable, given the same facts, that others would take the opposite position.

Strength without wisdom breeds hatred on the part of your enemies. I absolutely guarantee you that there is more anti-American sentiment in the region NOW than their was before the invasion of Iraq.

Nothing we do will not breed hatred with this enemy. I think there are more anti-American ACTIONS now than before, but not more anti-American sentiment. We can't execute a war while all the time being worried that we'll make the bad guys mad. It's a bit like not busting a couple of crack houses for fear that the people in the other three crack houses on the block will turn against the cops.

 

[Galahad]

A Texas republican

Why is it important to know what state he is from?