Political Experience

[diznygirl]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I would have thought 8th Grade Civics would have taught you Presidents do not introduce legislation

Bush was never the General Manager of the Texas Rangers? Where did you get that idea?

I'm sorry, that was General Managing Partner - different than the GM who actuallly runs the team.

As for the civics lesson, thank you but I already know that presidents do not introduce legislation. I was making a point about comparing apples and oranges. Both men have experience doing what they have done. How do we weigh one against the other?

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by diznygirl
Rokkitsci - that was an excellent post. There is an awful lot to think about. However, the editorial at the end was a bit much - I'm trying to see past the name calling and see each candidate on their own merits. So far all I have to go on is "Kerry is a flip-flopping spoiled rich man who did nothing with his 20 years in the senate" and "Bush is an ignorant spoiled rich kid who lied to the American peeople in order to make a lot of money for daddy's friends."

Based on your reasoning, the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. Bush has taken care of us in the last four years and we should give him another four. Problem is these last four years domestically have been pretty rough. Invading Iraq may protect us from terrorists (although I'm still not sure about it) but it does nothing to put food on the table. Who was it that promised "A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot?" He knew what he was talking about.

So I know Bush wants to cut taxes to help the economy, but how are we going to pay for the war? Is there enough money to do both?

Well - then you have to ask yourself = "what makes me think Kerry could do any better to put food on the table?"

I might add that it is not the duty - or capability - of the president to put "food on the table" - but in the context of your question, you have to phrase it that way.

By the way - I believe your "chicken in every pot" quote came from my very own state of Louisiana - Gov. Huey P. Long. If he didn't actually coin the phrase, he certainly made it a household quip here in Louisiana back in the thirties.

The real job of the president is to execute the day to day business of the country as constrained - and required - by the constitution. Nothing in that description involves "putting food on your table." Part of his real job is to make sure that nobody interferes with YOUR efforts to put "food on your table." And it is his job to prevent you from "taking food off someone else's table."

You summed it up pretty well with = "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." This is a great way to approach many decisions.

Those who argue that it is "broke," are speaking from ideological grounds, not objective logic.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Actually, from what I keep hearing, it seems to of made terrorism worse.

worse where?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by diznygirl
I'm sorry, that was General Managing Partner - different than the GM who actuallly runs the team.

As for the civics lesson, thank you but I already know that presidents do not introduce legislation. I was making a point about comparing apples and oranges. Both men have experience doing what they have done. How do we weigh one against the other?

The point is, even after 20+ years in the Senate, Kerry appears to have little experience in even introducing legislation.

My point is, in my mind being a Governor gives one better experience in running an administration than does being a Senator.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by dmadman43
worse where?

Beheadings, kidnappings, threats against people helping us n Iraq and coalition countries.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Beheadings, kidnappings, threats against people helping us n Iraq and coalition countries.

ah in Iraq. So, we have them concentrating there efforts there and not elsewhere. Do you SERIOUSLY think that if we had not gone into Iraq the terrorist would have viewed 9/11 as their ulitmate act and would have retired?

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by dmadman43
ah in Iraq. So, we have them concentrating there efforts there and not elsewhere. Do you SERIOUSLY think that if we had not gone into Iraq the terrorist would have viewed 9/11 as their ulitmate act and would have retired?

and coalition countries.

 

[julia & nicks mom]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
Beheadings, kidnappings, threats against people helping us n Iraq and coalition countries.

I believe that President Bush has taken a hard stance against terrorism that the previous administration refused to do -

During the Clinton Administration there were terrorist attacks with little response: 1st WTC , USS Cole, Embassy bombings in Africa

President Bush had one attack on his watch and went after the terrorists.

Of course the terrorists are going to try to stop us the only way they can - more terrorism. We have to stand strong against them and John Kerry has a track record that shows him continually on the wrong side of foreign politics.

I was pregnant on 9/11 and cried that I was bringing a child into such a cruel world - but President Bush has made me feel safe -

a change of commander in chief and philosophies in the middle of a war just doesn't make sense to me!

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by julia & nicks mom
a change of commander in chief and philosophies in the middle of a war just doesn't make sense to me!

Earth to julia: The war on terrorism will never be over.

I believe that President Bush has taken a hard stance against terrorism that the previous administration refused to do -

And started a war that had nothing to do with it?

In fact, when the Iraq war was started, it took troops away from afghanistan. You know, the place that actually HAD al qaeda
?

 

[julia & nicks mom]

The war on terrorism will never be over.

are you denying that there is a war in Iraq? I said "change of commander in chief and philosophies in the middle of a war just doesn't make sense to me!"

President Bush has said his plan is to train Iraqi's to defend their country and to leave - so yes I do believe the war in Iraq will end...

In fact, when the Iraq war was started, it took troops away from afghanistan. You know, the place that actually HAD al qaeda

Again - I said on terrorism and for you to think there was no threat to us from Saddam Husein is incredibly naive.

This man had a history of lying and refusing the weapons inspectors to do their inspections. The intelligence used to make this decision was something that everyone in the know, saw (on BOTH sides of the aisle) and most agreed with. For over a decade, Reps and Dems alike, AGREED that SH needed to be taken out. See any statement in that genre made by basically anyone. See the UN Security Council resolutions where an international concensus was made about the subject.

But as soon as there were no WMD found - everyone bailed on Bush. Funny how the The Clinton Administration went into Somalia and Bosnia in the name of freedom and you all cheered him - but President Bush went in with Congressional approval to Iraq becasue of a perceived threat and in the process freed an entire country and you are all appalled.

You may not agree - but I am glad President Bush didn't wait for Saddam Hussein to come to our soil to attack.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by julia & nicks mom
are you denying that there is a war in Iraq? I said "change of commander in chief and philosophies in the middle of a war just doesn't make sense to me!"

According to Bush, the war was over long ago. Remember when he declared victory?

Again - I said on terrorism and for you to think there was no threat to us from Saddam Husein is incredibly naive.

Oh sure, he was a threat, but the question is, "How much of a threat? Why did we rush to war against him when everyone as saying he had NO WMD and other countries were KNOWN to have them?

But as soon as there were no WMD found - everyone bailed on Bush. Funny how the The Clinton Administration went into Somalia and Bosnia in the name of freedom and you all cheered him - but President Bush went in with Congressional approval to Iraq becasue of a perceived threat and in the process freed an entire country and you are all appalled.

No, a hell of a chunk of America bailed on Bush long before this.

Went to congress and even with many telling him not to, went to Iraq anyhow. That country is now in Chaos. I wouldn't call what state it is in now "free". We are appalled(or atleast I am) because of the choice to go to this country over the others and the spending. I want our 120Billion or so back in the US!

You may not agree - but I am glad President Bush didn't wait for Saddam Hussein to come to our soil to attack.

 

[Planogirl]

No one is answering the question of who will pay for this war. I thought that conservatives hated massive amounts of government spending. It surprises me that the cost of the war and some of the other spending issues never come up in these discussions.

 

[Disney Doll]

As far as who will pay for the war, or any other programs either candidate wants to start, continue or change, the answer is, the American public. Senator Kerry seemed to espouse quite a few ideas for changes & programs that didn't sound like they'd be free either.

I have no problem with Senator Kerry's overall campaign except for one thing. I feel that he is not prepared to fight the war against terrorism. I also feel that the war against terrorism is the most significant issue in this election. If we are defeated in this war, whatever other things folks may think are important will cease to matter...they will be out of our control. I do not think the American public has a clear understanding of the gravity of the situation. The environment, domestic programs, Social Security,Medicare etc will cease to matter if we are no longer in control of our government.

I will quote from a very thought-provoking e-mail I received regarding what would happen if we lost this war:


"We would no longer be the premier country in the world. Then attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years(starting with the Iran hostage crisis in 1979). The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see us as impotent and cannot help them. They will pick off other non-Muslim nations one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw their troops. Anyhitng else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished. The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and are therfore fully committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too..."

Don't kids yourselves that Iraq has no ties to Al Qaeda. They do. Stop the PC litany that "the Muslims are a peaceful people"...maybe the majority are, but the minority that aren't peaceful are after us, and the majority that are peaceful isn't speaking out against it. Pretty much (note I said pretty much) every act of terrorism against the USA since 1979 has been perpetrated by Muslim extermists...young men between the ages of 17-40. Let's not kid oursleves, let's stop the PC baloney, and throw it on the table.

Personally, I want a President who is going to fight to save my country. I don't want a President who is going to base his decisions on the "global test" or what the rest of the world thinks.

The pivotal issue in this election is terrorism and keeping the USA safe. It isn't about who has the better tie, or more hair, or the better public-speaking ability or the better football-throwing ability, or who remembers who they met or didn't meet or who has a better tan or who is better-looking.

The pivotal issue is who has the guts to do what has to be done to keep us safe without getting permission from the rest of the world.

The terrorists were here once. Frankly, I don't want them back again. If we have to fight, I'd rather fight them over there.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by Disney Doll
*****
we would no longer be the premier country in the world. Then attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase.

Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet.

If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years(starting with the Iran hostage crisis in 1979). The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see us as impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off other non-Muslim nations one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw their troops. Anyhitng else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France.

France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it.

After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and are therfore fully committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too...

****(edited for length)

Personally, I want a President who is going to fight to save my country. I don't want a President who is going to base his decisions on the "global test" or what the rest of the world thinks.
*****

Disney Doll - THANK YOU - THANK YOU - THANK YOU

You have expressed my sentiments better than I could myself. The e-mail you shared with us encapsulates the arguement in unrefutable terms.

If anyone can muster a rebuttal to that arguement - here is your chance.

Please the leave the PC hockeypuck in the trashcan - speak your mind - present your arguement - defend your position - tell us why the message in the quoted e-mail is not correct - give us some insight into your mind - tell us what we should do differently than what we are doing.

The floor is yours - only rational responses will be considered.

No ranting

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by Disney Doll

Prepare your child for the path, not the path for your child.

Stop telling God how big your storm is. Instead, tell the storm how big your God is..

DISNEY DOLL

I absolutely love your quotes also - these are great rules for guiding one'e life - thank you for sharing this thought - I have never seen it expressed so well.

I am going to share these quotes with others in the future.

Thanks again.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
Lt Gov. in Massachusetts is an elected office but there isn't a lot of responsibility that goes with it. (Remember Jane Swift?)
While being a senator is nice, Kerry has never had a major leadership role nor has he introduced any significant legislation. In the last year he has spent very little time there. His senate record is not one to be proud of. He has been on the wrong side of history with every vote for the last twenty something years. A governor of a state however has to deal with some of the same issues as a president; budgets, laws, direction, the economy, etc.

And the governor of Texas doesn't have a lot of power either.

The office of governor of Texas is probably, as per the Texas Constitution, the weakest governorship in the US. The power that you mistakenly believe is vested in the Governor is really vested in the Lieutenant governor and his name, may he rest in peace, was Bob Bullock. Bob Bullock was running the state of Texas, not George Bush.

And as to Bush "owning the Texas Rangers", he was one of many managing partners and he acquired that status via a sweetheart deal with Eddie Chiles.

Like Bush all you want, but don't try to make a political titan out of him.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas

No, a hell of a chunk of America bailed on Bush long before this.

Here is the only answer the anti-Bush crowd have that is backed by credibility.

Anything else they say is nothing more than window-dressing to cover up the fact that they simply oppose the MAN.

They will do anything - say anything - twist logic - defy truths - embrace evil - look for nits - ignore the obvious - employ semantical arguements - sacrifice their credibility - engage in smear tactics - ANYTHING to oppose the MAN.

It is a sad sight to behold.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by dmadman43
ah in Iraq. So, we have them concentrating there efforts there and not elsewhere. Do you SERIOUSLY think that if we had not gone into Iraq the terrorist would have viewed 9/11 as their ulitmate act and would have retired?

What makes you think they've retired now? Because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the US in the 3 years since 2001?

There was no terrorist attack on American soil from 1993 to 2001, a total of 8 years.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by Planogirl
No one is answering the question of who will pay for this war. I thought that conservatives hated massive amounts of government spending. It surprises me that the cost of the war and some of the other spending issues never come up in these discussions.

War is the one legitimate reason for going into debt that nobody can argue with.

The answer is obvious - WE will pay for it - meaning us - our children - our grandchildren, etc.

Of course, we could use the OLD method of paying for wars - demanding tribute from the defeated enemy. However this has been proven by history to ensure that the hostilities that prompted the war continue to fester and grow and become the cause for ANOTHER war that the grandchildren of the original warriors have to fight - and pay for - and the cycle continues.

We last learned that lesson in WWI - in WWII we went MORE into debt after the victory to make sure the defeated nations survived and prospered. Look at what was created - the defeated nations are now leaders in the world economy and no longer a direct threat to our grandchildren.

In this war, we are going one step further. We are trying to rebuid the "enemy's" nation while the war is still going on. We could of course have chosen to completely destroy Iraq and all its infra-structure and allowed famine and disease to do most of the dirty work = thereby saving a lot of OUR lives and fortune.

I don't advocate that and I am sure you would not either - but it is essentially what we did in Germany - and were threatening to do in Japan unless they surrendered immediately.

Instead, we have chosen to try to fight this war by only concentrating on the enemy PERSONNEL, thereby sparing the innocent inhabitants of the battlefield.

WHY??

If this military had been built by the draft - I would oppose the strategy of sparing THEIR innocents by putting more of OUR innocent draftees into harms way.

But, this is a volunteer force - and God bless them for that - I thank God every day that we have such willing patriots who will CHOOSE to put their lives on the line to defend the better principles of this nation. These volunteers know the current military doctrine - they know what they are doing.

I think that they only ask to not be used by vainglorious politicians - either in victory or defeat - either in heroics or mistakes - either in survival or death. They don't even want much acclaim.

They fight for honor.

Don't ever take that from them.

You have to decide whether it is "worth it" or not.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by julia & nicks mom
I believe that President Bush has taken a hard stance against terrorism that the previous administration refused to do -

During the Clinton Administration there were terrorist attacks with little response: 1st WTC , USS Cole, Embassy bombings in Africa

President Bush had one attack on his watch and went after the terrorists.

Of course the terrorists are going to try to stop us the only way they can - more terrorism. We have to stand strong against them and John Kerry has a track record that shows him continually on the wrong side of foreign politics.

I was pregnant on 9/11 and cried that I was bringing a child into such a cruel world - but President Bush has made me feel safe -

a change of commander in chief and philosophies in the middle of a war just doesn't make sense to me!

So the criteria for getting your vote is invoking war and telling
you you are safer now than you were "then?" If you believe
everything you are told by these people, I've got some great
land in a swamp I want to sell you. The political climate regarding
Americans and their safety is worse thanks to George Bush
and "Dick the man WHO IS President." They think Saddam is
Osama and Al Quida is in Iraq. You still believe them?
Bon chance m'ami!