Presidential Politics

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by JDY
“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda” 2003 State of the Union

In his “victory” speech on the USS Lincoln, Bush proclaimed “We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda.”

It's the Residential Shrub's Crony too...

In September 2003, Cheney claimed US success in Iraq is “a major blow right at the heart of the . . . geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11.”


I guess we'll never agree on this. At least we agree that President Clinton was a good President.

OK...Iraq was an ally of al-Qaeda, and there were al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq...that's not the same at all as saying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, as you previously claimed. Where is your link or the words that back that up? Or are you still looking for those?

 

[Minnesota!]

My vote will go to Bush.

Backing away now.

 

[Beast]

Esh, what is wrong with the american people?

It's NOT what's wrong. It's (among other things) that most of the people in this country are sick to death of the weenie, spineless liberals trying to run our lives, thinking we don't know what's best for us.

Liberals hate it when people succeed in life.

 

[binny]

Originally posted by Beast
It's NOT what's wrong. It's (among other things) that most of the people in this country are sick to death of the weenie, spineless liberals trying to run our lives, thinking we don't know what's best for us.

Liberals hate it when people succeed in life.

THANK YOU!!!!! Thats exactly how I feel!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by Beast
It's NOT what's wrong. It's (among other things) that most of the people in this country are sick to death of the weenie, spineless liberals trying to run our lives, thinking we don't know what's best for us.

Liberals hate it when people succeed in life.

I don't think liberals hate in when people succeed...after all, there are many successful liberals. But I do think that many liberals believe that most people can't succeed without government help, and that's where I part company with them.

Also rampant (on boths sides of the aisle) is this belief that because the other side doesn't agree, they must be stupid or ill-informed or uncaring. I think that's an idiotic attitude to have. Educated, well informed people of good conscience can both be striving for the same things while using solutions that are totally different.

Take national defense, for example. I don't believe that Senator Kerry doesn't care about the security of this country, I just believe that his approach to national security isn't the best one. I believe that his approach will leave us weaker and more vulnerable to attacks, and that isn't a chance I'm willing to take.

 

[Fishbone†]

Thank you AFR. Well said.

 

[Figment22]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Educated, well informed people of good conscience can both be striving for the same things while using solutions that are totally different.

Very well said. I think what is most upsetting about this upcoming election is the complete polarization of most American voters. No matter which candidate wins in November, half of the voters will be against him. How did our great nation get to this point? There is no bi-partisanship any longer; DC is a political war zone.

BTW, my vote goes to Kerry, but I truly wanted Edwards to win the nomination.

 

[Robinrs]

Name calling is the solution.... thanks for that intelligent synopsis.

I've never had a problem with successful people, my family is full of amazingly successful people. My problem is with people who think it's their birthright. And as for waiting for help from the government.... uh NEVER. My parents made sure of that!

Figment I agree, there are so many emotions involved and no matter what the rhetoric, half of the country is going to be angry. This election is going to be a bloodbath, mostly because of the polarization. Most people have already made up their minds and no amount of name calling, generalizations, insults on how they look and "logic" will change that.

 

[Laura]

Originally posted by Disney Doll
Most of the time with politics we vote for the lesser of two evils. I haven't "loved" a political candidate for years.

Me too.

 

[JDY]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
OK...Iraq was an ally of al-Qaeda, and there were al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq...that's not the same at all as saying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, as you previously claimed. Where is your link or the words that back that up? Or are you still looking for those?

First, I didn't "previously" claim it. That was some one else, who, of course was correct. Second, how about a few quotes:

1. "This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda." G. W. Bush, October 28, 2002

2. "We know he's got ties with al Qaeda" G.W. Bush, November 1, 2002

3. "We know he's had connections with al Qaeda" G.W. Bush, November 2, 2002

4. "This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda. This is a man who poses a serious threat in many forms, but catch this form: He's the kind of guy that would love nothing more than to train terrorists and provide arms to terrorists so they could attack his worst enemy and leave no fingerprints." G. W. Bush, November 3, 2002

That fact is, al Qaeda had already claimed responsibility for 9/11 and Bush played on people's fears right through the State of the Union in 2003. Support for war increased and to this day people still believe Iraq and al Qaeda are linked...but where's the proof?

If you want more, read Dude Where's My Country or Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Both come with quotes and sources (Unlike Ann Coulter).

Another good book is The New War written in 1997 by John Kerry. It tells of the terrorist threat to the U.S. from abroad and how to deal with it. Bush obviously hasn't read it.

 

[AirForceRocks]

First, I didn't "previously" claim it.

Oops, you're absolutely right, you didn't make that incorrect claim. It was chadfromdallas

Second, how about a few quotes:

Great, so where in any of those quotes does he say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

 

[JDY]

Great, so where in any of those quotes does he say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

Your right, he doesn't say it outright. He implied it. The public believed it. He knew what he was doing. It was still a lie.

You can leave 9/11 out of the equation and he still lied. There's no proof what-so-ever Iraq and al Qaeda are linked.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather a president lie to me about his personal sex life than about the reasons for war and end up killing over 540 American soldiers.

I'm done here. I'll never change my views. At least I can sleep at night - I wonder if Bush can?

AirForceRocks, thanks for the debate. I wish you nothing but the best.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

I'll be voting for Kerry. Simply put, out of the choices we'll be offered, I believe he's the best man for the job.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Kerry.

Because we can do better!

 

[Lanshark]

To Summarize:

People love Bush or Hate him. They trust and like him or would vote for anyone running against him.More that half (on this board) that are voting for Kerry are doing so, not because of the man, but because they want Bush out.

What's interesting is the percentage split between the choices remained fairly constant whether only 10 or 100 people voted.

By the numbers though the two are running pretty much dead even. Pretty representative of the general population.

Thanks for participating...

 

[Galahad]

Actually, it would be better for the government to keep that money in times like this, because its known that most people don't go out and spend all their tax cut.

Have you taken an economics course at university yet? John Maynard Keynes, John Kennedy, and many that you would not be politically opposed to would think the above statement completely false and based upon bad assumptions.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by Galahad
Have you taken an economics course at university yet? John Maynard Keynes, John Kennedy, and many that you would not be politically opposed to would think the above statement completely false and based upon bad assumptions.

You take money out when there is inflation....you put money in when we are in a recession....

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by chadfromdallas
You take money out when there is inflation....you put money in when we are in a recession....

I'm not sure where you've learned about economics, but your statement is wrong unless you add the following words "the economy", as in "...you put money in the economy when we are in recession..."

That's what tax cuts do - they put money back into the economy.

 

[one_cat]

Like it or not we are still dealing with the Clinton Recession. It started on his watch and Bush has had to deal with it for 3 years. In my opinion he has done a great job of it despite having to deal with Al Qaida and 9/11 and the war on terror in the meantime. Believe it or not, raising taxes to balance the budget would not have ended the recession. Electing Scary Kerry to President will not solve any of these problems and will not make the world a loving and harmonious place regardless of how the democratic leadership would have us to believe.

 

[JDY]

I had to respond to this one:

Originally posted by one_cat
Like it or not we are still dealing with the Clinton Recession. It started on his watch and Bush has had to deal with it for 3 years. In my opinion he has done a great job of it despite having to deal with Al Qaida and 9/11 and the war on terror in the meantime. Believe it or not, raising taxes to balance the budget would not have ended the recession. Electing Scary Kerry to President will not solve any of these problems and will not make the world a loving and harmonious place regardless of how the democratic leadership would have us to believe.

I was going to be harsh but instead I'l just say:

Give me a break and the public a little credit