Political - Why can't he admit a mistake ?

[jrydberg]

Well, I did graduate tops in my third grade class

As for the rest of this, looking at minniepumpernickel's last post, I think there's a VERY important point in there. This isn't about politics. It's about much more than that. Millions of people are affected by the war in Iraq. Despite differences in where we think policy should head, I think minnie, wvrevy, fik, and many others on here all want the same end result -- a peaceful world to live in. It's not all about politics.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Well, I did graduate tops in my third grade class

As for the rest of this, looking at minniepumpernickel's last post, I think there's a VERY important point in there. This isn't about politics. It's about much more than that. Millions of people are affected by the war in Iraq. Despite differences in where we think policy should head, I think minnie, wvrevy, fik, and many others on here all want the same end result -- a peaceful world to live in. It's not all about politics.

1st, let me say that I apologize if my last comment came off as condescending, as it wasn't intended to be...I honestly enjoy debating the issues with you (and several others I disagree with) simply because your arguments are always civil, well thought out, and really make me think about my own position if I'm going to defend it.

The funny thing is, the war in Iraq isn't even in my top 3 reasons why I would never vote for George Bush. Well, maybe it's loosely related to one of the three, but only as a symptom of a greater problem, not the reason itself:

1 - Domestic economy - Bush believes in trickle down economics, which I just do not believe actually work. I think that when you reward major contributors to your campaign by cutting their taxes, they don't then pass that on to their employees, they either pocket the money or they spend it on other luxuries. Sure, if you're a yacht maker, this might help you sell an extra boat or two, but I don't exactly see that as a great contribution to society.

2 - Religion - Bush is a man that claims to be "guided" by his religion, and as such he comes off as completely intolerant to nayone that disagrees with him. Prayer in schools, his "faith based initiative", his effort to legislate bigotry towards gays, even his stance on abortion...all trace back to his fundamentalist religious beliefs and his intolerance of those that believe differently.

3 - The global community - I believe that Bush's rigid stance towards the rest of the world (we're Amurca, we're the greatest, you suck, you're opinions don't matter) not only makes our relationships with the rest of the world virtually impossible to maintain on a civil level, but indeed make us considerably less safe from those that wish to do us harm. Countries like France are ESSENTIAL to fighting the "war on terror", and by alienating them and trying to marginalize them on the world stage by acting unilaterally we lose their potential help when we simply cannot afford to.

All three of those issues are much more broad than what I outlined here, but they represent (as a group) the main reasons why I really do believe in the "Anyone But Bush" mantra. I am now a Kerry supporter because I've come to know more about him. But I will ALWAYS be a Bush opponent, primarily because of the reasons listed above.

 

[jrydberg]

wvrevy, I didn't take it as condescending at all. I was just making a joke. No need for apologies on your part.

You are obviously an intelligent, well-informed guy (albeit slightly misguided kidding!). Honestly, I'd rather discuss such issues with someone who disagrees with me in an intelligent, civil manner than discuss them with a bunch of people who all agree with me (I think that'd scare me more than anything!). Without folks like you, I wouldn't stick around to discuss these issues.

As a side note, I agree completely about issue #2 and partially about #3.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled debate...

 

[DisneyMarine]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Why the anger ? Look back through just this thread. Democrats have been called everything from un-American to idiots to commies...and you ask about my anger ?

I never called anyone any of these things, and I don't agree with anyone that uses such language. As far as my statement about "Intesinal fortitude", I have met a great many people that believe that war is never an option under any circumstances. I know that for some regions of the world, war is a way of life unfortunately, and we will never change that. I just think that America is growing too soft to deal with adversity. I really did not mean to come off as offensive in any way, I guess I've been a Marine too long, it's hard to offend Marines. I honestly don't believe Kerry can change things for the better, but I do accept that there are people that do think he can. I do know one thing, there is no one on earth that can get France to be our ally, they have disliked the U.S. for years.

Again I don't think you're totally an un-american, idiot, commie.

 

[vernon]

I do know one thing, there is no one on earth that can get France to be our ally, they have disliked the U.S. for years.

Don't take it personally, France dislikes EVERYONE. But you're 100% right, if France is ever your ally watch what information you give them, cos they'll use it against you.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by wvrevy

1 - Domestic economy - Bush believes in trickle down economics, which I just do not believe actually work. I think that when you reward major contributors to your campaign by cutting their taxes, they don't then pass that on to their employees, they either pocket the money or they spend it on other luxuries. Sure, if you're a yacht maker, this might help you sell an extra boat or two, but I don't exactly see that as a great contribution to society.

2 - Religion - Bush is a man that claims to be "guided" by his religion, and as such he comes off as completely intolerant to nayone that disagrees with him. Prayer in schools, his "faith based initiative", his effort to legislate bigotry towards gays, even his stance on abortion...all trace back to his fundamentalist religious beliefs and his intolerance of those that believe differently.

3 - The global community - I believe that Bush's rigid stance towards the rest of the world (we're Amurca, we're the greatest, you suck, you're opinions don't matter) not only makes our relationships with the rest of the world virtually impossible to maintain on a civil level, but indeed make us considerably less safe from those that wish to do us harm. Countries like France are ESSENTIAL to fighting the "war on terror", and by alienating them and trying to marginalize them on the world stage by acting unilaterally we lose their potential help when we simply cannot afford to.

All three of those issues are much more broad than what I outlined here, but they represent (as a group) the main reasons why I really do believe in the "Anyone But Bush" mantra. I am now a Kerry supporter because I've come to know more about him. But I will ALWAYS be a Bush opponent, primarily because of the reasons listed above.

Thanks for taking the time to write this out so clearly...you've captured my thoughts (and probably many others) exactly. These are all vital categories, and the differences you point to between the two candidates illustrate the urgency that many of us are feeling about this particular election.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by DisneyMarine
I never called anyone any of these things, and I don't agree with anyone that uses such language. As far as my statement about "Intesinal fortitude", I have met a great many people that believe that war is never an option under any circumstances. I know that for some regions of the world, war is a way of life unfortunately, and we will never change that. I just think that America is growing too soft to deal with adversity. I really did not mean to come off as offensive in any way, I guess I've been a Marine too long, it's hard to offend Marines. I honestly don't believe Kerry can change things for the better, but I do accept that there are people that do think he can. I do know one thing, there is no one on earth that can get France to be our ally, they have disliked the U.S. for years.

Again I don't think you're totally an un-american, idiot, commie.

Oh, I don't get offended easily at all, and I was NOT trying to direct my anger at you, specifically. But I do get annoyed with the labeling of all Democrats as "anti-war". Have you honestly talked to people that thought we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan ? Seriously ? 'Cause I've been to quite a few democratic events and spoken to an awful lot of people, and haven't heard anything of the sort. We aren't against WAR, when it is necessary, as it sometimes (unfortunately) is. We are against THIS war, simply because it was NOT necessary, at the time, and because we had other, much more pressing business to take care of.

I'm not against the use of the military when it is necessary....and I tend to get annoyed by people claiming that "democrats are against" things when I know better.

As for France...There's a long way between "being an ally" and "being an adversary", and our attitude towards them certainly moved them closer to the latter category than the former. Nobody is expecting every country to suddenly rush to our aid when John Kerry is president. But I think most people believe that he will do a MUCH better job of keeping countries like France and Germany closer to the "friend" category than the "Foe". They don't have to be declared enemies to hurt our efforts against terrorism, you know...all they have to do is withhold their help.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
The weapons inspectors left Iraq in Spring 2003 because of the warnings of the coming war by the Bush administration.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

yes we've established that before, I was referencing other times when they left Iraq

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
)....and another person that thinks that, because people make fun of the president sounding like a nervous teenager every time he gets in front of a microphone, we somehow don't also have real grievances.



Oh, and we also have the relatively few cogent arguments from the right (jrydberg, a few others (you know who you are)). It's a shame there aren't a heckuva lot more from that direction, but I guess they are just following the lead of Bush and his attack goons.

thanks for the acknowledgment...

you'd give your arguement more credibility if you refrained from eye rolling, name calling, and judging people on their speaking ability

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
thanks for the acknowledgment...

you'd give your arguement more credibility if you refrained from eye rolling, name calling, and judging people on their speaking ability

And yours would have more credibility if it consisted of less whining about the poor president being called a name and less trying to score semantic points and much more actual focus on the issues at hand.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
yes we've established that before, I was referencing other times when they left Iraq

My apologies. I think I'll just blame it on the late hour.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by vernon
Don't take it personally, France dislikes EVERYONE.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by wvrevy
1 - Domestic economy - Bush believes in trickle down economics, which I just do not believe actually work. I think that when you reward major contributors to your campaign by cutting their taxes, they don't then pass that on to their employees, they either pocket the money or they spend it on other luxuries. Sure, if you're a yacht maker, this might help you sell an extra boat or two, but I don't exactly see that as a great contribution to society.

Kerry just came out with a statement that he would have more help for the businesses than what is currently in place.

Originally posted by wvrevy
2 - Religion - Bush is a man that claims to be "guided" by his religion, and as such he comes off as completely intolerant to nayone that disagrees with him. Prayer in schools, his "faith based initiative", his effort to legislate bigotry towards gays, even his stance on abortion...all trace back to his fundamentalist religious beliefs and his intolerance of those that believe differently.

I see your point, although I disagree with the conclusion.

Originally posted by wvrevy
3 - The global community - I believe that Bush's rigid stance towards the rest of the world (we're Amurca, we're the greatest, you suck, you're opinions don't matter) not only makes our relationships with the rest of the world virtually impossible to maintain on a civil level, but indeed make us considerably less safe from those that wish to do us harm. Countries like France are ESSENTIAL to fighting the "war on terror", and by alienating them and trying to marginalize them on the world stage by acting unilaterally we lose their potential help when we simply cannot afford to.

This is why I would never vote for anyone who says we have to have UN approval before we can do anything. I disagree that France is essential to fighting the war on terror, I think they want to be. France's position in this, from what I have seen throughout, has been one of political manuevering, attempting to become a major player on the world stage again. By doing so, they marginalize themselves.

Originally posted by wvrevy
All three of those issues are much more broad than what I outlined here, but they represent (as a group) the main reasons why I really do believe in the "Anyone But Bush" mantra. I am now a Kerry supporter because I've come to know more about him. But I will ALWAYS be a Bush opponent, primarily because of the reasons listed above.

This is why I don't believe in the Democratic party anymore. I hated Bill Clinton as President starting with how he treated Mogadishu. Yet I would never do a "Anyone but Clinton" because I know there are worse out there. Remember, "Anyone But Bush" included Dennis Kucinich was one of those - if he had been elected, the first thing he would have done was to bring the troops home. How would that have been better? Howard Dean, a front runner at one time, is a loose cannon. He speaks his mind, and doesn't mind showing that there isn't much there. Imagine him trying to conclude diplomatic deals. How would he have been better? More humorous I grant you but better? (I could hear him in my mind talking to Tony Blair - "What is the deal with having a royal family, I mean, come on already, it's a new century").

Personally, I dont' think President Bush is the best one out there, but he is in my opinion much less scary as President that what Kerry might do. From what I have seen, Mr. Kerry has changed his principles for politics, and I can't trust that. Just my thoughts.

 

[Pete's Mom]

Originally posted by vernon
Don't take it personally, France dislikes EVERYONE.

Hey, that's not true! They love Jerry Lewis!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MJames41
Kerry just came out with a statement that he would have more help for the businesses than what is currently in place.

And there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. Keep in mind, we're talking about rolling back tax cuts for rich individuals, not businesses (at least, not that I've seen from Kerry). I also like his idea of giving some tax incentive to companies creating jobs domestically rather than exporting them to India (and in the IT industry, that's something I REALLY care about).

Originally posted by MJames41
I see your point, although I disagree with the conclusion.

What conclusion is that ? Bush wants to force his religious beliefs on others, where-as Kerry doesn't. What is there to disagree with ?

Originally posted by MJames41
This is why I would never vote for anyone who says we have to have UN approval before we can do anything. I disagree that France is essential to fighting the war on terror, I think they want to be. France's position in this, from what I have seen throughout, has been one of political manuevering, attempting to become a major player on the world stage again. By doing so, they marginalize themselves.

ABSOLUTELY France is essential, as are Germany and any number of other nations. The terrorists aren't going to plan their attack in New York, they're going to plan it in Hamburg and EXECUTE it in New York. European support is absolutely crucial if we're going to ever make any real progress (and, though the Bush administration doesn't seem to realize it, Britain no longer rules all of Europe).

Originally posted by MJames41
This is why I don't believe in the Democratic party anymore. I hated Bill Clinton as President starting with how he treated Mogadishu. Yet I would never do a "Anyone but Clinton" because I know there are worse out there. Remember, "Anyone But Bush" included Dennis Kucinich was one of those - if he had been elected, the first thing he would have done was to bring the troops home. How would that have been better? Howard Dean, a front runner at one time, is a loose cannon. He speaks his mind, and doesn't mind showing that there isn't much there. Imagine him trying to conclude diplomatic deals. How would he have been better? More humorous I grant you but better? (I could hear him in my mind talking to Tony Blair - "What is the deal with having a royal family, I mean, come on already, it's a new century").

Honestly...Short of Al Sharpton, I'm not sure ANY of the democratic candidates would have made a worse president than Bush has. There are a couple that might have made me stay home, but not even Al would likely have got me to vote for Bush, I simply cannot stand anything that the man believes in.

Originally posted by MJames41
Personally, I dont' think President Bush is the best one out there, but he is in my opinion much less scary as President that what Kerry might do. From what I have seen, Mr. Kerry has changed his principles for politics, and I can't trust that. Just my thoughts.

Again, you're swallowing the campaign commercials without bothering to investigate the facts. Bush has flipped on any number of things, and largely for political reasons as well. Why else flip flop on the formation of the 9/11 commission when public support showed that it was a popular idea ? Why else flip flop on the "We hate queers" amendment when polls showed that the public (puke) supported it ? You think it's somehow limited to Kerry ?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
And yours would have more credibility if it consisted of less whining about the poor president being called a name and less trying to score semantic points and much more actual focus on the issues at hand.

there was no whining, and I would have spent more time on the issues at hand but it took forever for you to actually read a simple post and understand I NEVER said the inspectors were kicked out immediately prior to our invasion,

do some psychology reading and perhaps you'll understand my point of calling names,and judging someone based on their speaking ability, such behaviour says more about the person doing the name calling and judging, than it does about the person being judged..

and for the record my reference to name calling was about you calling fellow disers names because their beliefs are different than yours..

have a great day......

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
there was no whining, and I would have spent more time on the issues at hand but it took forever for you to actually read a simple post and understand I NEVER said the inspectors were kicked out immediately prior to our invasion,

Whatever...I'm tired of arguing about this. If you want to use something that happened a 5 years or more prior to our invasion as proof that Saddam was an imminent threat to our security, be my guest.

Originally posted by MICKEY88
do some psychology reading and perhaps you'll understand my point of calling names,and judging someone based on their speaking ability, such behaviour says more about the person doing the name calling and judging, than it does about the person being judged..

Wow, did you learn that in Freshman Psych ? Thanks for the tip...I guess everyone in the country that makes fun of the president for sounding like an idiot is just supressing their own insecurites, huh ?

Originally posted by MICKEY88
and for the record my reference to name calling was about you calling fellow disers names because their beliefs are different than yours..

have a great day......

Where have I been calling people here names ? I referred to that one guy as an idiot, but that was ONLY after he referred to me as both an idiot and a commie, so I just assumed it'd be ok in that case

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
1st, let me say that I apologize if my last comment came off as condescending, as it wasn't intended to be...I honestly enjoy debating the issues with you (and several others I disagree with) simply because your arguments are always civil, well thought out, and really make me think about my own position if I'm going to defend it.

The funny thing is, the war in Iraq isn't even in my top 3 reasons why I would never vote for George Bush. Well, maybe it's loosely related to one of the three, but only as a symptom of a greater problem, not the reason itself:

1 - Domestic economy - Bush believes in trickle down economics, which I just do not believe actually work. I think that when you reward major contributors to your campaign by cutting their taxes, they don't then pass that on to their employees, they either pocket the money or they spend it on other luxuries. Sure, if you're a yacht maker, this might help you sell an extra boat or two, but I don't exactly see that as a great contribution to society.

2 - Religion - Bush is a man that claims to be "guided" by his religion, and as such he comes off as completely intolerant to nayone that disagrees with him. Prayer in schools, his "faith based initiative", his effort to legislate bigotry towards gays, even his stance on abortion...all trace back to his fundamentalist religious beliefs and his intolerance of those that believe differently.

3 - The global community - I believe that Bush's rigid stance towards the rest of the world (we're Amurca, we're the greatest, you suck, you're opinions don't matter) not only makes our relationships with the rest of the world virtually impossible to maintain on a civil level, but indeed make us considerably less safe from those that wish to do us harm. Countries like France are ESSENTIAL to fighting the "war on terror", and by alienating them and trying to marginalize them on the world stage by acting unilaterally we lose their potential help when we simply cannot afford to.

All three of those issues are much more broad than what I outlined here, but they represent (as a group) the main reasons why I really do believe in the "Anyone But Bush" mantra. I am now a Kerry supporter because I've come to know more about him. But I will ALWAYS be a Bush opponent, primarily because of the reasons listed above.

It was posts like this, when you first started posting on the Debate Board, that I really admired and found myself thinking, "Hmmm, good point." more often than not.

Lately, you're just so dripping with sarcasm right off the bat. It's discouraging and I don't even want to bother responding. Stuff like that really sucks the life out of a post.

People are always saying that there are "Bush defenders" who will never admit he did anything wrong. The thing is, there are so few posts that actually deal with policy issues. It's all recycled crap from some other website that pieced together some evil conspiracy. The post earlier from KarenC about the inspectors being kicked out vs leaving--I've seen that same exact post on so many websites--and it's just not true. It's cut and pasted and repeated and somehow becomes fact.

If anyone bothered to post about substantive policy issues, I think you'd find plenty of what you call "Bush defenders" disagreeing with his policies and/or proposals. But when it's all unsubstantiated vitriol, of course you're going to have people disagreeing with that--because the facts aren't there.

I can tell you honestly that I do not care who wins this election. I really don't. I normally vote third-party, but even that candidate is a crackpot this year, so I really don't know what I'll do. If Kerry loses, I'm fine with that because I'm concerned about his economic proposals. If Kerry wins, I'm fine with that because I'm honestly curious about how it will go and I'm ready to be done with the constant barrage of hatred.