WoooooooHoooooooo, John McCain rocks!!!!!

[LoraJ]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Do I blame President Bush for the war in Iraq? No way. Do I blame Clinton,you bet. When Bush senior left office,he left with the best military,and intelligence agencies. When Clinton came in office all military expences were drastically cut. The most important people in this country,are military ,were making below the poverty level. If we were recieving poor intelligence,I guess we should look to see why. Could it be possible due to Clinton? When Clinton was in office he had three chances to get Binladin,guess what he failed. I believe he was to busy with Monica. He sent are troops into Mogadisho without proper military backing,alot of our troops were killed.Under the hands of Democrats,going back to Truman we have not one a war. Do I want another Democrat in office in these scary times? No way! Before we blame,lets look at the facts! One last thought. Clinton was given important information from Arab countries that might have stopped the attack on 9-11, What did he do with that?

Oh my goodness. Hello, koolaid!

Do you blame Bush 1 for the 1st WTC attack? By your logic, you should.

You need to check out snopes.com, search "Clinton did nothing terror" and see the facts. And since you seem to think that capturing Bin Laden is so easy, why hasn't Bush done so? Why did he say Bin laden was his #1 priority and then a year later said he didn't care where he was?

The reality of it all is that congress didn't want to deal with bills that would fight terrorism, or anything clinton would want to do because they were too busy worrying about Clinton's sex life.

Bush and his cronies IGNORED the terror warnings that lead to 9/11. Yet you solely blame Clinton. Wow! The reality of this is that several administrations, from the 70's to now are all to blame.

Why are you blaming Iraq on Clinton? Maybe Bush 1 should have finished the job back in '91?

Also, to the person who said I don't get the point of Bush's quote in my sig, Um, did you read it clearly? He has a new Bushism every day. When I hear past presidents talk, it is so nice to hear them speak the English language correctly.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Do I blame President Bush for the war in Iraq? No way. Do I blame Clinton,you bet. When Bush senior left office,he left with the best military,and intelligence agencies. When Clinton came in office all military expences were drastically cut. The most important people in this country,are military ,were making below the poverty level. If we were recieving poor intelligence,I guess we should look to see why. Could it be possible due to Clinton? When Clinton was in office he had three chances to get Binladin,guess what he failed. I believe he was to busy with Monica. He sent are troops into Mogadisho without proper military backing,alot of our troops were killed.Under the hands of Democrats,going back to Truman we have not one a war. Do I want another Democrat in office in these scary times? No way! Before we blame,lets look at the facts! One last thought. Clinton was given important information from Arab countries that might have stopped the attack on 9-11, What did he do with that?

You claim to be making below poverty level now, right? Bush has been in office for awhile now so why are you still making below poverty level?

I lived the military lifestyle as a dependent so I feel for you and your family! You take the ultimate risk with what little you get back, and I admire you for that! I also know a lot of military people who are anti-Bush and pro-Kerry, it's something to think about.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

What is it that people see in Kerry? Someone who can't seem to make up their mind on important issues? Votes for what seems popular at the moment? Then changes it around. Look at his voting record. That should say alot. George Bush is no saint,but I feel alot safer with him in charge. My personal thought,those terrorists are saying prayers each night Kerry gets elected. Why? You can look at Kerry and see he is no threat. With George Bush ,they know he isn't afraid to take any of them on . Will other countries be more helpful to us if Bush is not elected? I highly doubt it. This is a different world we live in. We can not afford to take any chances. Keep someone strong in office. Bush!!!

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
You claim to be making below poverty level now, right? Bush has been in office for awhile now so why are you still making below poverty level?

I lived the military lifestyle as a dependent so I feel for you and your family! You take the ultimate risk with what little you get back, and I admire you for that! I also know a lot of military people who are anti-Bush and pro-Kerry, it's something to think about.

Sorry I gave you the impression I am in the military,I am not. I am not making below the poverty level,that would make me a Democrat. All I am saying is look what cuts were made in the military under Clinton. Democracts are not known for their high support of military spending.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Sorry I gave you the impression I am in the military,I am not. I am not making below the poverty level,that would make me a Democrat. All I am saying is look what cuts were made in the military under Clinton. Democracts are not known for their high support of military spending.

I have no idea what the poverty level is, numerically speaking? I'm a democrat and I don't earn all that much. I have a job that I enjoy, and I don't want a high-stress, high-powered job or the lifestyle that goes with it. So everyone is different, and I wish you much happiness and success in all that you do!

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Sorry I gave you the impression I am in the military,I am not. I am not making below the poverty level,that would make me a Democrat. All I am saying is look what cuts were made in the military under Clinton. Democracts are not known for their high support of military spending.

I have no idea what the poverty level is, numerically speaking? I'm a democrat and I don't earn all that much. I have a job that I enjoy, and I don't want a high-stress, high-powered job or the lifestyle that goes with it. So everyone is different, and I wish you much happiness and success in all that you do!

 

[ripleysmom]

"I am not making below the poverty level,that would make me a Democrat."

This sentence is not correct. I do not have a poverty level income and am a Democrat. Perhaps you should look elsewhere for your stereotypes


"All I am saying is look what cuts were made in the military under Clinton."

Greater cuts were made under Bush Sr. Also you would do well to remember that it was the Republican majority that approved those cuts made under Clinton.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by shortbun
I can't wait four more years through this insanity so the
best candidate this election-an honorable man with integrity,
humility and a constant hunger for information,

Let me know when you find him/her.

Richard

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by ToriLammy
But the platform has been like that for years... the fact of the matter is that it's just words on paper. You only really hear once every 4 years and it is normally pretty well forgetten in between. The real change comes from within, with the addition of new members who believe as I do (moderate), with the acceptance of members like McCain, Guillaini and Arnold. Heck even Cheney and his view on gay marriage didn't raise that much of stink with the more religious members. I'm not expecting an overnight change but I do see some change and will be working for it continuing and expanding.

OK- so I know this was posted way back on page 3 or something, but I find it simply amazing that some could so readily dismiss a party platform- this is a statement of intent, this is what is suppose to be unifying party members. It's thier ideology, thier statement of beliefs. And, if the speakers of the convention, primarily moderates, don't support this agenda, then the convention is a huge, huge facade. Just because we haven't seen the hard-line conservatives doesn't mean they are there behind the scenes reassuring other hard-liners. It's very telling to me that they don't want to advertise thier platform- it doesn't correspond with the beliefs of the majority of voters.

I'm going to take Mal's approach on this one- turn off the TV and read the statements given to me by each party.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
I have been a Republican most of my life. What I don't understand is what all the hate for Bush is about? He could not help what happened on 9-11, But I was glad that he was are leader in that crisis time. Though I am not in favor of the war in Iraq,I do not blame him for it.

So now Bush is not responsible for the war in Iraq? Isn't he the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? Didn't he order troops into war?

Reality check...... this is Bush's war all the way and I don't give a tinker's damn what anyone else said about WMD's or Saddam Hussein and that includes the UN, the Clinton administration, the Russians, or any US politicians. None of those groups could order American troops into war. Bush did.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Do I care that other countries now look down on the US for are disregard to their stance on the handling of the Iraq war? These countries have always hated the US,with or without the Iraq war.

Really? How many of those countries you claim have always hated the US have you visited personally? One, five, any?

FYI, French and German troops have been in Afghanistan almost since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan and are still there today. Both countries have suffered casaulties in Afghanistan.

Given that fact, what does our government officials and right wing nuts do? They sneer and whine and talk about "old Europe" and freedom fries. What a disgrace.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
For Kerry to come in and say things will change with him in office,what a lie.

And you know this how? While you've got the crystal ball working, could you tell me what tomorrow night's lotto numbers will be? How about something a little less ambitious like say, tonight's Pick 3.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
This country has been in a mess since Clinton.

Yeah, sure it has. Keep dreaming.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Democrats through the help of the media want people to believe this country has declined because of Bush,wrong.

Okay, here's your chance to shine. Tell me how life's improved for the average American under Bush? And, since pre-emptive strikes are all the fashion today, here's mine. Don't tell me about how folks are paying less taxes under Bush without also examining the greater tax burden statewise and locally.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Who signed on to Nafta? Clinton.

Along with just about the entire Republican Congress. A question: are you saying you don't like NAFTA? If so, why are you supporting the Republicans?

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Who took away the ten commandments from a public forum?

No one. You can post the Ten Commandments anytime you want publicly and on your property. What you cannot do is use property funded by other taxpayers for your own religious purposes. Do you have a problem with that concept?

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Thank god for George Bush's believe in good morales and family values.

Oh yeah, the Republicans are the keepers of family values. Did you catch Rudolph Giuliani at the convention? Wasn't he the one who was screwing around on his wife and then wanted to move his girlfriend into Gracie Manor? How about Newt Gingrich playing hide the weinie with his girlfriend while pointing the finger at Bill Clinton? Do the Republicans call Newt a hypocrite? No, they call him "Mr. Speaker". How about the rising star for the Republicans, Arnold (let me grab the schnitzels on that fraulein) Schwarzenaggar? Or Rush Limbaugh who's about to get his 3RD divorce?

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
It's a shame how the important issues we loose sight of. Everthing has to be politcally correct.

Finally, something we agree on.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
What country could you go to , bing your ideas,force them upon that country,get free tax breaks to open up buisnesses, travel freely illegally,but still want rights,possible welfare,take our jobs,move 20 family members over to live with you. The US! now it's biting us in the ***!

No kidding! And if you have a problem with that, I suggest you contact Bush and ask him why he hasn't tightened the borders and why he was proposing amnesty for illegals.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
The thought of John Kerry in office is a scary thought.

Just what is it you're so damned afraid of?

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
It's a shame most people are so blindsighted on issues.

Again, something we agree on. Too bad Republicans continually bring up the "guns, God, and gays" issues as a diversions for Bush sorry record.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
We need better education before we let just anyone vote.

Yeah, bring back the literacy test...........that's the ticket. And while you're at it, would you also like to bring back the poll tax and the grandfather clause?

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
When we are better informed on the lives of tv actors then who we are putting into the most important job in this country,that says so little on the intelligence of this country.

If people like you were half as informed as you think you are, you'd be a little more informed about John Kerry.

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
When people can't even speak english and they are voting,again how sad.

FYI, your royal highness, my father was an immigrant, spoke very little English and was one of the proudest Americans you could ever meet. So, according to you, he shouldn't have been allowed to vote because his English didn't meet your standards?

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
My only hope is four more years of George Bush. He has done the best he can with what he has to work with!

Yup, he doesn't have much to work with and his record proves it.

(edited for quotation correction)

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
My personal thought,those terrorists are saying prayers each night Kerry gets elected. Why? You can look at Kerry and see he is no threat. With George Bush ,they know he isn't afraid to take any of them on .

Hello, this is your reality check calling. Bin Laden is still alive and out there after nearly 3 years, nearly 1000 dead Americans, and nearly 6000 wounded in this "war on terror". Bin Laden has to be afraid of George Bush? LOL. Dream on.

I've said it before and I'll say it again whenever someone brings up "what would Osama do" as a basis for their vote.

Why would the terrorists want to risk John Kerry and what he might do when they've got a sure thing in George Bush?

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
Will other countries be more helpful to us if Bush is not elected? I highly doubt it.

My crystal ball says you're wrong or do you have a better crystal ball?

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
This is a different world we live in. We can not afford to take any chances. Keep someone strong in office. Bush!!!

Not only is this a different world, when I read some of the stuff from the Republican kool-aid drinkers, it borders on the Bizarro world.

 

[Island_Lauri]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
What is it that people see in Kerry? Someone who can't seem to make up their mind on important issues? Votes for what seems popular at the moment? Then changes it around. Look at his voting record. That should say alot. George Bush is no saint,but I feel alot safer with him in charge. My personal thought,those terrorists are saying prayers each night Kerry gets elected. Why? You can look at Kerry and see he is no threat. With George Bush ,they know he isn't afraid to take any of them on . Will other countries be more helpful to us if Bush is not elected? I highly doubt it. This is a different world we live in. We can not afford to take any chances. Keep someone strong in office. Bush!!!

The flip flop charges against Kerry are just Republican rhetoric. If you bothered to look into any of the charges in the Republican ads (I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message), you would learn the true facts on Kerry's supposed flip flops:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

"The Bush ad says Kerry "voted . . . for military action in Iraq" and then "voted against funding our soldiers." In fact, Kerry did vote October 11, 2002 to grant Bush authority to use military force against Iraq at his discretion, and a year later Kerry also voted against Bush's request for $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ad strains the facts in some places. Granting Bush the authority to use force is not exactly the same thing as favoring its actual use, for one thing (though Kerry had a difficult time convincing many Democratic voters of that.) And Kerry did not cast separate "no" votes on popular items contained in the $87-billion package, as the ad depicts him doing. There was one vote on the entire package."

And from http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/3985/

"Sen. Charles Hagel of Nebraska on Sunday became the second Republican senator to break ranks with the Bush-Cheney campaign's characterization of John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, as soft on defense issues.

Hagel joined fellow Vietnam veteran Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in criticizing ads sponsored by the Bush campaign that call Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts who also is a Vietnam veteran, "weak on defense."

"The facts just don't measure [up to]the rhetoric," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."

One ad includes video footage of Kerry in West Virginia last week, responding to a charge that he had failed to support U.S. troops in Iraq by opposing the $87-billion military funding bill last fall. "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it," he said a phrase the Bush campaign seized upon as showing the Massachusetts senator flip-flopping on issues.

"You can take a guy like John Kerry, who's been in the Senate for 19 years, and go through that voting record," Hagel said. "You can take it with any of us, and pick out different votes, and then try to manufacture something around that."

Kerry's staff said he was trying to indicate his support for an amendment funding the appropriation from increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. When that amendment failed, he voted against the bill."



And as far as flip flopping, what about Bush's stance against the 911 commission before embracing it?



What I see is someone (Bush) who sees everything in terms of good and evil or black and white and someone else (Kerry) who gives a great deal of thought to positions and all the issues involved.

 

[Saffron]

I love this! ThAnswr

Why would the terrorists want to risk John Kerry and what he might do when they've got a sure thing in George Bush?

 

[bsnyder]

Not meaning to inject a personal message into this thread, but the poster doesn't have PM's turned on....

ThAnswr, I'm so glad to see you back posting after Hurricane Charley. I started a thread asking if anyone knew if you and your family were okay....I assume you were without power for a time but I hope that was the worst you suffered. I've been thinking about and praying for my fellow Floridians to the south of me and supporting some local charities that are providing assistance. I only wish I could do more...

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Island_Lauri
The flip flop charges against Kerry are just Republican rhetoric. If you bothered to look into any of the charges in the Republican ads (I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message), you would learn the true facts on Kerry's supposed flip flops:

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

"The Bush ad says Kerry "voted . . . for military action in Iraq" and then "voted against funding our soldiers." In fact, Kerry did vote October 11, 2002 to grant Bush authority to use military force against Iraq at his discretion, and a year later Kerry also voted against Bush's request for $87 billion to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ad strains the facts in some places. Granting Bush the authority to use force is not exactly the same thing as favoring its actual use, for one thing (though Kerry had a difficult time convincing many Democratic voters of that.) And Kerry did not cast separate "no" votes on popular items contained in the $87-billion package, as the ad depicts him doing. There was one vote on the entire package."

Thanks for providing the link. I thought the next few paragraphs were interesting as well.

"Nevertheless, the bill Kerry opposed did contain $300 million requested by the Pentagon to buy best-grade body armor for all troops in Iraq, and also contained additional combat pay and health benefits for reservists called to active duty.

But it's also true that as many as 40,000 US troops were sent to Iraq without the best-grade body armor. Frontline troops had the new vests, containing ceramic plates that can stop assault-rifle bullets, while others had only older designs that offered protection mainly against shrapnel and lower-velocity projectiles.

At a House Appropritions subcommittee hearing Sept. 24, 2003, Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, did not dispute the estimate that 40,000 troops were without the newer design, and said the $300 million was needed to buy more of the vests."

Originally posted by Island_Lauri
Kerry's staff said he was trying to indicate his support for an amendment funding the appropriation from increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. When that amendment failed, he voted against the bill."

So our troops are already there. Senator Kerry gave the okay for that. Some aren't properly equipped and we'll blame that on the President. And Senator Kerry wants to argue who will pay for it? This country hasn't been fiscally responsible for many years. I'm not sure this is the bill I would have chosen to "make a stand". Wouldn't it make sense to just get the troops what they need right away and then blast the President for being irresponsible for them being there and being poorly equipped?


Richard

 

[jjskribs]

Forgive me but I'd like to back up a little and return to a concern that rcyannacci voiced about the Republican Party Platform. I'd like to especially speak to those of you that consider yourself "moderate Republicans."

Make no mistake. This is a Right Wing administration with a Right Wing agenda. There is nothing moderate about the party platform. I too believe that it is more than a "piece of paper." It is the ideology of those who are in control of our country.

The Republican convention is spotlighting the moderates of the party in order to focus attention away from the actual party platform. The Right Wing is willing to sit quietly back because they know if Bush is reelected they will continue to control the party agenda.

The part that scares me the most is that over the course of the next four years we could see three new judges appointed to the Supreme Court. Do you really want the Right Wing of the Republican party controlling the court. The decisions they make affect your lives.

If you are at all uncomfortable about that prospect, please please carefully consider your vote.

 

[Lanshark]

Zell Miller said something the other day that made a lot of sense to me. The Democratic party used to have room for Liberal Democrats, Moderate Democrats and Conservative Democrats. The Republican party used to have room for Liberal Republicans, Moderate Republicans and Conservative Republicans. Now it seems you're either a very Liberal Democrat or very Conservative Republican.

Some of us do not fall into those categories and it makes it very difficult to allign ourselves with either party. Kerry is way too liberal for me. Bush is way too conservative for me. I am conservative on fiscal issues and more liberal on social issues. I consider myself moderate. Neither candidate or party represents me.

I too was surprised that McCain endorsed Bush after the smear campaign Bush did on McCain in 2000. I always had the feeling that McCain hated Bush.

 

[jjskribs]

Lanshark ....... you are exactly the type of person I was speaking to in my post. You stated that you are more liberal on social issues. Would you be uncomfortable with the Right Wing gaining control of the Supreme Court? I believe that many of the decisions they make affect our lives more than decisions made by the President or Congress.

 

[Lanshark]

Would you be uncomfortable with the Right Wing gaining control of the Supreme Court?

Yep. That is a concern of mine.

But

I am also concerned about national defense and homeland security. Like it or not, Bush is stronger, IMO, on these issues.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by LoraJ
Oh my goodness. Hello, koolaid!

What flavor are you drinking?