i have a few questions for my friends at madjack's who doesn't like bush or chaney

[AR182]

i hope i don't open myself up to ridicule, but i am curious about why some posters, who i respect feel the way that they do:

i have posted a few times here that i have voted along the lines of a liberal/democratic most of my life. that all changed after the carter administration when i discovered that liberals don't have a clue on how to run our country, without giving away the kitchen sink. over the years after carter, i voted for reagan, bush sr., clinton, & gore. i have also stated that 9/11 has completely changed my perspective on foreign affairs as now i believe in attacking countries who don't follow international law (iraq) & countries that befriend terrorists. i also believe that bush & his administration is doing an exellent job fighting these thugs.

my questions to my liberal/democratic friends here are:

why don't you feel the same way as i do ?

other than hating the ground that republicans walk on, why do you think the democrats will do a better job than the present administration? what are their postions on national security ?

how come you call bush & chaney liars & murderers ? what proof do you have that they lied ? if you blame bush for killing the iraqi people, how come there is no indignation for what saddam did ? are you aware that he tortured, killed & imprisoned innocent children for just being born into the wrong family? doesn't that bother you?

we are supposed to be a world of laws, how come it didn't bother you that saddam broke international law about 17 or 18 times ? or that he stuck his nose out to the international community defying them to uphold the law?

doesn't it bother you that "some of our allies" illegally traded with saddam & gave him banned weapons, or that they may have been getting money from saddam illegally?

if you accuse bush as a liar, how come it didn't bother you that when kerry came home for the viet nam war he supposedly threw his medals in the river as protest against that war, only to be later revealed that those weren't his medals that he threw in the river? isn't that lying?

i'll probably have more questions. but i am curious to read some of the answers to my questions. because maybe i'm missing something.

 

[Marco]

Don't know how my reply fits in with the questions you have raised.....my own thought about the Iraq situation:

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, part of the conditions of the Iraqi surrender should have been that Saddam and his immediate ruling party be put on trial for war crimes....what we did was the equivalent of driving Hitler back to Germany, tell him to be a good boy, and stay home.

Reparations should have been made by the nation of Iraq to the nation of Kuwait, and the rest of the countries of the world who fought and spent millions of dollars pushing back the Iraqi army and putting out how many goddamn oil well fires???? Wars cost money, there's no reason in hell why we should foot the bill for this war. If Iraq is forced into utter poverty for decades because of this, so what. Let this be a lesson to other countries who think it's fashionable to invade countries with an army and start a war.....

How many times were the UN inspectors disallowed access to sites to search for compliance with the terms of surrender? IMO too much time was spent dicking around letting them toy with the inspectors and setting the rules the UN was now going to play by. Pull the inspectors and start bombing again.......if they can't inspect it then level it......

So we wait like 10 or 12 years after The Gulf War, then decide Saddam is still an a$$hole, decide we need to get him out of power.....WHAT A SURPRISE THIS IS! Maybe a revelation during someone's sleepless night that Saddam really needs to go? In the meantime during those 12 or so years the world community gets the impression he isn't really a threat, let the sleeping dog lie so to speak.....we go into Iraq with mixed world opinion......HELLO! Had we did that 12 years ago the whole world would have thought we were cool....

Too much diplomacy with world policy and dictators and not enough "This is what it's going to cost you if you try this $hit"...

Even when we started the Gulf War the president was giving Saddam deadline after deadline after deadline to pull back out of Kuwait, then practically telling them the bombs were coming next Thursday at noon.......Be more swift about these issues, then the next time some bull$hit flares up all you have to do is just turn an aircraft carrier towards that area and the instigating country starts sweating knowing that something serious is going to happen if they continue.....

 

[bjfinste]

why don't you feel the same way as i do ?

Mostly because social issues are most important to me. Bush's religious fevor really bothers me. It's one thing to be a religious person, but to use your position to force your religious beliefs on others is horrific in my eyes. The thought of Bush stacking the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative, religious justices which could restrict people's rights to make their own choices makes me sick. That could have an effect long after he's out of office, and that is honestly the No. 1 reason for me.

what are their postions on national security ?

I hear all the time about "Oh man, I am sure glad it was Bush and not Gore after 9/11." That's horseshit to me. Anyone would've reacted the same way. That was a time in which party didn't matter. We were all just Americans. The Iraq stuff, well....

As I've stated here before, I don't think Iraq was ever a threat. They didn't have the capability of attacking us and weren't a threat. But yet, since our military couldn't find the terrorists who caused 9/11, Bush had to find something to distract the people, and while he was at it, throw a little more bling in the pockets of his major campaign contributors. And like I've said before, if Iraq was really such a threat, why was the US able to occupy it with relative ease? And finally... weren't the treaties that Hussein signed with the UN, and not with the US? And didn't the UN vote against military action?

doesn't it bother you that "some of our allies" illegally traded with saddam & gave him banned weapons, or that they may have been getting money from saddam illegally?

Sounds like they got some tips from Ronald Reagan. Of course this bothers me, but no more than Iran-Contra does.

when kerry came home for the viet nam war he supposedly threw his medals in the river as protest against that war, only to be later revealed that those weren't his medals that he threw in the river? isn't that lying?

Sure it is, but to me, a lie about something as trivial as that- considering it was done for symbolic purposes- is not in the same league as a lie that led to a war and the death of over 500 Americans and who knows how many Iraqis. Same thing with lying about infidelity. How people can even compare them is beyond me.

And finally, one last thing. Someone posted a little while back, asking the question "Who would our enemies vote for?" I think that question needs to be defined more. Like the terrorists that want to destroy the country, or so-called enemies like Iraq? I have a question in line with that one: who was the single-most-happy person about Bush's invasion of Iraq? To me, the answer is easy: Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Snake Plissken]

I agree with you AR182

When people say
"Bush is a liar"
"Cheney is a crook"
" Iraq wasn't a threat"
"He had no weapons"
and so on

Those are OPINIONS and you are allowed to have them and that is fine. For me it is pretty black & white. We were attacked by Terrorists (Al Queda) I know there is no proof yet that Iraq didn't have there finger in it but they openly celebrated it (which for me was enough since I lost a family member on 911). ALL of these Terror groups have the same goal, Destroy the West and Destroy Israel that you cannot say is not true. This President declared war on Terrorism not war on Al Queda. Saddam was a Terrorist and diplomacy ran its course. HE HAD WEAPONS this is fact the question is where did he put them.

It is amazing to me how some people would trust a murdering Cold blooded Dictator and not there own President.

 

[gardenweasel]

marco

marco

the first gulf war was a U.N. operation that was lead,as usual, by the u.s....

their goal was to drive saddam out of kuwait....not remove him..that was not what the u.n. set out to do......as happened this time,the france`s and the other european friends of saddam did not want him removed...if we had proceeded to remove saddam it would have been without the u.n. and and all the hand ringing that you see now would have occurred back in the day...

i`m just thankful that "the horrible jews" bombed the piss out of the nuclear reactor that saddam was building(by way of the french).....

if they hadn`t,and saddam had produced nuclear weapons,it`s a good bet that kuwait would be part of iraq and that he`d still be the leader of iraq with enormous clout and power.....

and the middle east would be much more unstable than it is right now....

 

[Trossi3389]

I agree with you AR182

When people say
"Bush is a liar"
"Cheney is a crook"
" Iraq wasn't a threat"
"He had no weapons"
and so on

Those are OPINIONS and you are allowed to have them and that is fine. For me it is pretty black & white. We were attacked by Terrorists (Al Queda) I know there is no proof yet that Iraq didn't have there finger in it but they openly celebrated it (which for me was enough since I lost a family member on 911). ALL of these Terror groups have the same goal, Destroy the West and Destroy Israel that you cannot say is not true. This President declared war on Terrorism not war on Al Queda. Saddam was a Terrorist and diplomacy ran its course. HE HAD WEAPONS this is fact the question is where did he put them.

It is amazing to me how some people would trust a murdering Cold blooded Dictator and not there own President.

i agree 100% with evrey word u just said.. its much safer with this man out of power then in... this guy had the money and the power to make 911 look like a tea party.. us taking him out was a HUGE statement not to fawk with us... for intance: look at al queda recently crying out for help.... were winning the war on terror and were doing it a HUGE piece of a time!!!! i support bush 100%... this man will get another 4 years in power...i think hes doing a great job considering all thats happened since hes been in power.... no other man would of held a candle compared to bush in this situation and thats why god has got him OUR COMMANDER AND CHEIF!!! god bless president bush!!!!!!!

 

[maverick2112]

I don't think Iraq was ever a threat. They didn't have the capability of attacking us and weren't a threat. But yet, since our military couldn't find the terrorists who caused 9/11,

AR182...........Question for you???????

If you have a decent answer to this then you should work for the bush administration...........cause I have not heard one yet.

Why did we go after Iraq and just overlook the blatant ties the attackers had to Saudi Arabia????


I like others here didnt feel one bit of a threat from Iraq and actually didnt feel that much of a threat from any country. But I sure think the 9-11 attackers had a lot more ties to the Saudis than they ever had to Iraq. Also Saddam should have never been an issue anyway cause we should have put him under in 1991 instead of letting him have a free pass.

their goal was to drive saddam out of kuwait....not remove him..that was not what the u.n. set out to do

Since when did we decide to follow exactly what the UN wanted to do??? We did in 1991 but not in 2003???????

 

[maverick2112]

i have posted a few times here that i have voted along the lines of a liberal/democratic most of my life. that all changed after the carter administration when i discovered that liberals don't have a clue on how to run our country

Actually. both parties can take a share of the blame and praise for the past successes and failures in running the country. My Dad was a stanch conservative but he also believed a lot of the problems that Jimmy Carter had was in part due to the previous policys of the Nixon and Ford administration. Remember the days of double digit interest rates.................

 

[gardenweasel]

maverick

maverick

cry about us not going in and getting saddam in "91".....and now cry in 2003 because we DID get him?......

which one is it gonna be?....you can`t have it both ways....

YOU WANT RATIONALE AS TO WHY WE DID WHAT WE DID THIS TIME....

o.k....i posted this before....i`ll post it again.....and i repeat,i was on the fence about the war...still am only because we obviously have no exit strategy....

but make no mistake,there was reason to get saddam....agree or not....here it is......................................




...."like israel or not,they are a democracy and our biggest ally in the region.....

strangely enough,the u.s. stands by it`s allies(how very un-french of us).....

israel does have nuclear weapons....they have not used them,even though gravely provoked....

saddam hussein is on record as saying,"my biggest mistake was not having nuclear weapons when going into kuwait"...if he`d had nukes when he invaded kuwait,he`d probably still have kuwait....

..if you are fair and objective,you understand that if the israeli`s hadn`t taken out that french built iraqi nuclear reactor in the 80`s,there would have been nuclear weapons thudding into israel,not poorly guided scuds(saddam was certainly trying hard in the 80`s to obtain nuclear weapons).....and why was saddam attacking israel while they sat on their hands?....he was hoping that they would retaliate and he could drag other muslim nations into a full scale conflagration with him basically pitting the west against the middle east....

.......and as i said,about 3 hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs would pretty much annihilate a small country like israel....

make no mistake....a big part of our decision to take saddam out,is rooted in the continued existence of israel..and even more so the stability of the middle east....even if ,in todays world,we can`t publicly state this as a reason to go after saddam...and it`s not the only reason...

LET ME SAY AGAIN,THE STABILITY OF THE MIDDLE EAST......AND THE OIL SUPPLy...YES,THE OIL SUPPLY....THE LIFE`S BLOOD OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION....AND THE WORLD`S ECONOMIC WELL BEING....


these issues were seen as being jeopardized by the one dictator in the middle east crazy and ballsy enough to try and annihilate israel and throw the middle east and much of the world into an all out conflagration... ..the one willing to murder his own people and invade his neighbors...

the world is becoming rife with black market nuclear processing material and some say,actual nuclear weapons(the soviet union cannot account for all of their cold war weapons)....

n. korea has already been caught secretly shipping missiles to terrorist nation yemen on unmarked vessels....fortunately,china is now putting the economic clamps on n. korea as we speak....you haven`t heard much from n.korea lately....that`s because china isn`t ready to have this tin pot dictator sh-tting all over their backyard....this,and the fact that n. korea ALREADY HAS.....I REPEAT,ALREADY HAS nuclear weapons is why we did not address the n. korean situation first...they pose no threat to the world`s oil supply and economic well being....and we have assistance from china,in keeping them in line....but they DO have nuclear weapons....that effectively ties the hands of any country trying to deal with them....unless we are willing to see s.korea and/or japan go up in a puff of smoke...



if saddam`s reactor hadn`t been taken out prior to the gulf war,israel would most definitely have been hit with nuclear weapons.....thus,bringing retaliatory strikes with nuclear weapons from israel....thus opening the middle east up to a full scale arab vs israeli conflict,fecking up half the world`s oil supply,and possibly creating a global catastrophe.......which would be harder on our society than any other.... which would cause our economy to grind to a halt....our way of life to be inexorably changed....


i`m not a big proponent of the war...but for all those that cry,"no war for oil",well,they are either stone cold stupid or totally uninformed....their may not be a better reason to get rid of a dangerous dictator than to secure the world`s energy supply....

if you can`t assuredly get the knife away from jack the ripper,then you must get rid of jack....


it`s not hard to understand why we are doing what we are doing....i don`t like it....but i understand it......saddam has proven he`s willing to do what your average despot will not do.......

and strangely enough,if he didn`t have weapons(chemical,biological or nuclear),he felt it was in his best interest to play the bluff and make us and his neighbors think he was more powerful than he really was....if he was shown to be much weaker than anticipated,he loses a certain amount of credibility....

he could have thrown open the doors and come totally clean....he chose not to...

as it turns out,the bluff didn`t work....

he gambled....and he lost....hopefully in the near future,it will be to the benefit of the iraqi people....

.trying to give a suppositional explanation that ,maybe, is a little to politically sensitive to be presented as public policy....

 

[Trossi3389]

[I like others here didnt feel one bit of a threat from Iraq and actually didnt feel that much of a threat from any country. But I sure think the 9-11 attackers had a lot more ties to the Saudis than they ever had to Iraq. Also Saddam should have never been an issue anyway cause we should have put him under in 1991 instead of letting him have a free pass.



saudis administration is wrapped around our finger.. we just got to moniter who comes in and out of that country... were talking administrations here...saddam had the power and the terriost links to do much threat to us.... not to mention isreal...u say saudis...your right its the saudis,palestinians,the fawking afgans,iranians and the list goes on... and all of the countries i just mentioned who do u think had the worst most threat dictator.. SADDAM HUSSAIN thank u very much.... u type people are starting to get under my skin..... WTF then u say we should of got rid of saddam back in 91....c-mon buddy roll with the times!!!

 

[Trossi3389]

mav,by the way buddy im not bashing u at all,,im just posting my thoughts as u are...dont take it the wrong way...just stating my point of veiw...:nono:

 

[Nolan Dalla]

Ari182:

You posted several interesting, and valid, questions. I had an opposite political evolution than you did, coming from a conservative Republican background. Over the years, I have became much more liberal-progressive-populist-libertarian. This is not to say I vote or support the Democratic Party. However, I strongly OPPOSE this President for several reasons, which I will list here. I doubt if there's much agreement here with my reasoning for being so anti-Bush, but I'm trying to answer some of your questions as best I can, according to my point of view (since you asked).

REASONS I WILL VOTE AGAINST PRESIDENT BUSH IN 2004, NO MATTER WHO IS THE OPPOSING CANDIDATE:

1. Intellect -- President Bush is an intellectual lightweight. He's an embarassment to the nation. This is NOT the man I want representing me and my nation in front of the rest of the world. It's that simple.

2. Appalling Communication Skills -- Listening to President Bush (without a teleprompter) is a painful experience. The President is completely unable to explain his policies and positions on even the simplest issues, without resorting to old cliches and worn out catch-phrases. This man is a HORRIBLE communicator. No wonder he never holds press conferences.

3. Dishonest Campaigner -- Flashback: I first realized the depths to which this man would resort in the week leading up to the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary. Bush and his henchmen (Karl Rove and Karen Hughes) came out with daggers and completely misrepresented the primary opponent (John McCain's) stand on several ley issues. They lied. They made John mcCain look like Ted Kennedy (I was traveling in the Carolinas at the time and heard most of the ads and watched the coverage). It was sickening for a man who supposedly holds "Christain values" to resort to not just dirty campaigning, but outright lies and deception. If he'll do that as a candidate, what will he resort to as President?

4. Bush's Close Ties to the Religious Right -- If this man wins re-election in 2004, look for the so-called "socal conservatives" to introduce a whole new agenda that will make the first term look pale in comparison. Without ramification of re-election, this President will launch into a vast array of social agenda items during this second term which Jerry Falwell will love, and civil libertairans will fear. This could include legislation against gambling, particualrly online gambling.

5. Bush's Interventionalist Foreign Policy -- This man is a strict interventionalist, perhaps even an old world colonialist. I consider this to be a very dangerous time in global politics. American battleships in every sea and troops in dozens of foreign countries is not making us "safer." It's creating a lot of resentment and a backlash which will have severe repercussions for future generations.

6. Bush's Unilateral, Unwavering Support of Israel -- The Right Wing loves Bush for supporting Israel, despite international criticism, UN resolutions, and proven human rights violations (AI). Until the President becomes an HONEST broker in peace for the Middle East where both sides are invited to negotiate with the White House/State Department, there will be no peace treaty. People will continue to die on both sides, in part because President Bush is one of Israel's most vocal cheerleaders. Ariel Sharon has been invited to the White House SEVEN times, to date. No Palestinian leader has received such an invitation. That's not exactly the role a honest broker in peace negotiations should be taking.

7. Explosion in the Size of Federal Government -- I thought Republicans were AGAINST government bureacracy. Not accoridng to the last four years. We've had a Republican President, Republican Congress, and Republican Senate, yet the government has expanded more in the last four years than any other period in history! The size of the federal budget has ballooned 35 percent during the Republican's tenure. This is an outrage!

8. Budget Deficits -- There's no point in posting this budget deficit figure, because it's so mind-boggling that it can't be comprehended. President Bush gave most of the tax cuts to people making over $200K a year, in the hope it would "jump start" the economy. Nice move. Now, we are faced with record deficits. Fiscal conservatives should be appalled.

9. Immigration Policies -- I'm astounded that this "law and order" President wants to allow NINE million illegals to become citizens of the United States. That really sends a horrible message to those legal immigrants who have followed our laws and processes. This is an incredibly dangerous policy with STAGGERING potential economic and security ramifications. The bottom line is -- President Bush wants to provide millions of cheap workers at the low end of the economic spectrum, so big business can proper. This is DISASTROUS for working people -- particularly unions, people in cities, and minorities. I predict that, if passed, this new immigration law could create urban chaos in many American cities within the next decade. And, no I don't think I'm exxagerating.

10. President Bush's Big Lie -- This is an issue pertaining strictly to Nevada. Candidate Bush PROMISED Nevada voters there would be no nuclear waste dump in our state. Now, President Bush supports the nuclear waste dump IN NEVADA. This man us a bold faced liar.

11. More Nevada Issues -- There's no doubt President Bush has disdain for Las Vegas, the state of Nevada, and the gambling industry. He never once set foot in this state as President (although Nevada did vote for Bush in the election -- that's two votes that pushed him over the top), at least not until November of 2003 (in an election year). Vice Presdeint Cheney came here just twice -- both fundraisers for the Republican Party. During Bush's visit, he spoke at a Venetian fundraiser, which raised about $1.5 million. This man is basically saying -- WE DON'T CARE ANYTHING ABOUT NEVADA, EXCEPT FOR YOUR MONEY. Screw you, Mr. President.

12. Personal Background -- I'm still not satisfied with Bush's explanation of his days in the Air National Guard in the early 70s. He was a child of priviledge who ducked his obligation to serve (unlike his opponetn Kerry, who despite being from a well-off family -- did enlist and served honorably) Furthermore, I thought he ducked the issue when he was asked in 2000 if he had ever used drugs (he refused to answer the question). This man is evasive when it comes to sticky political issues. I don't like that in aa man, and I despise it coming from my President. For more "evasion" proof, consider his failure to respond to the Weapon's of Mass Destruction controversy (at least until last Sunday)

13. Unwillingness to Address Specific Issues: I get tired of this President always wrapping himself in the American flag when he is in the midst of a crisis. Patriotism is truly wonderful, and I get as teary-eyed as any vet, but being "President" is about confronting problems and making tough decisions, then articulating those policy initiatives to the public. I''m nauseated by this President's sound bite strategy, which sounds like a broken record -
-- "We need to get the economy moving again."
-- "We need to keep America strong."
-- "We need to suppoprt our men and women overseas."
Sure, these are all good ideas, but I'd like to hear more detail from my President as to how we might do this. Instead, I feel President Bush's rhetoric is geared to a third-grade civics class, with rah-rah cliches and brain-dead bystanders cheering every word.

I could continue with some other issues -- on the environment, NAFTA (what a disaster!), economic policy, tax policy, and other vital subjects. But, that's a "start" list on reasons why I would NEVER vote for this man uner any circumstances.

-- Nolan Dalla

 

[Eddie Haskell]

It is amazing to me how some people would trust a murdering Cold blooded Dictator and not there own President.

Snake. Who are you referring too, President Bush or President Hussein? In World War II, Roosevelt or Hirohito? Arguments can be made for both sides.

Ed

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

bjfinste: who was the single-most-happy person about Bush's invasion of Iraq? To me, the answer is easy: Osama Bin Laden.

Could you elaborate why? I can't think of one semi legit one let alone an easy one???????

Nollan

1. Intellect & 2 Appalling Communication Skills
Would agree on both however however if I had my choice of intelligence or character and convictions---lets just say I had my fill of Rhodes scholars.

3 Dishonest Campaigner
Show me one that isn't and ----"dirty campaigning" --hmmm you must not be watching democratic primarys????

4. Bush's Close Ties to the Religious Right
While I detest the Jerry Falwells and religious fanatics I loath the anti religious zellots worse. I'll take environment and people in neighborhood with church on every corner over a San Fran atmosphere any day.--and I'll take the conservative judges over the ACLU BS every day of the week. Fortunately we have a Supreme Court that can counter these absurb rulings of liberal judges.

5. Bush's Interventionalist Foreign Policy
I like it. Time will tell who is correct here.--but terrorism is the greatest threat to just not us but the world. I could post over 250 incidents of terrorist killing civilians since 1986 worldwide--and I can not think of any 1 person who has done so much in such short time to counter this threat.

6. Bush's Unilateral, Unwavering Support of Israel
I understand your thoughts on this issue from article you wrote couple of years back,which was quite persuasive and had me thinking.--but bottom line that makes me side with Isreal is one basic fact. While Isreal does kill innocent civilians via colateral damage -Palestine targets them on purpose. They ARE a terrorist state and you can NOT negotiate with terrorist, Until they remove that element from Palistine there will be no peace.
I think all U.S. intervention has been detrimental to date. I do think Isreal should give the land back they stole --then if terrorist attacks still continue---The Mossad is probably the most effective force against terrorism as they understand the only way to fight terror is with greater terror--its just that their ally's do not have the stomach for it YET!

7. Explosion in the Size of Federal Government
8. Budget Deficits
9. Immigration Policies

1st I adamantly agree on immigration issue and deficeit to degree of Medicare Bill which will be an ongoing,escalating expenditure I hate. However I would like see any president go through choatic hit of 911 on economy and 2 wars (in 3 years)without increased spending.---was a little surprised by your assessment without cause factor?
To me it is absolutely incomprehensible our current financial and economy is where it stands While I disagree with tax cuts being cause here is article of pros and cons--but bottom line is things could be MUCH worse considering he inherited recession,911 and 2 wars.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...day/mosteconomistscreditbushstaxcutsinrebound

10. President Bush's Big Lie
11. More Nevada Issues

I am totally unfamiliar with these issues but take your view with merit as I have always viewed you as straight shooter.
Will consider him guilty as charged.

12. Personal Background
I do not know much about his backround except military.--and granted he joined the guard rather than go to battle but wonder why with family's money he could not find other modes of avoidance.
I have been doing research on Kerry's backround which I think some may prove interesting in the future.
Without going into detail do you find it unusual that a person would volunteer for Viet Nam (Navy mind you) and after being transfered from safe ship to patrol boat on Delta (combat) gets 3 trivial wounds) "walking wounded" in his own words,and immedediately requested to be sent home.
"Navy rules, he pointed out, allowed a thrice-wounded soldier to return to the United States immediately".
Seems 3 months of patrol boat combat changed his outlook

I was surprised by your raising issue that he ducked question of drug use? Surley your not one that prefers the "never inhaled" speil

13. Unwillingness to Address Specific Issues:
I disagree. As I think Saftey and ecomomy are 2 of citizens major concerns currently and supported by poles.
Which of your "any other candidate" has spoke on SOLUTIONS to issues rather than whining bout others being wrong.

Since jobs seems to be one of the "others" as well as many citizens current concerns I would be most curious to any solution a candidate or yourself has to create jobs.-----because I consider it impossible given increased productivity of modern era. Manufacturing jobs have declined constantantly since 1986 and will continue to do so because 1 man can do job of 3 back then because of inovations and technology.
Granted you had spike in jobs last admimistration which increased tax revenue and in turn cut deficeit BUT------ 75% came from dot.com boom and left on its demise.---an occurance that had nothing to do with politics

 

[kosar]

AR,

Put me down for 3,4,5,6,7 on Nolans list.

Dogs,

You seem baffled by bfinstes comment that Osama is happy about our occupation of Iraq. Not to speak for him, but the answer seems obvious. He was and is no longer our main focus. In addition, we created a big playground for him.

You also mention that you're sick of 'anti-religious zealots'. lol- come on man. If there *is* such a thing, it's about 98% to 2% the other way.

 

[Master Capper]

AR182:

Great topic my friend, I vote for whom I feel is the best man for the job and party lines make no difference to me. In my brief voting history I have voted for Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr, thus I am all over the board and this coming election I will either vote for Kerry or Nader. The reason wh yI don not like how the Bush administration has operated is that I feel the bottom line is that this administration has been less than truthful with the american public during the past few years. As I have stated in previous threads I really don't mind GW but I could never support four more years of Cheney and his cronies reaping profits. GW reminds me of a little kid whom when confronted with an issue either doesnt answer of vaguely answers so that technically you cannot say they lied, when he filed to run for pres he left the question blank have you ever been arrested, did he have amnesia? Surely he knew at the time that he had been and I am sure that most people like myself would not of held that against him. The whole National guard issue is the same thing everything is gray with no concrete answers, it's pretty bad that if he served for a whole year in Alabama that only one person can recall ever seeing him there. I also feel Bush lied about being a Uniter and not a Divider when he ran for Pres (main reason why I voted for him) going back in history this country has not been as divided since the regime of Anrew Johnson thus he has probably become the biggest divider in the last century. He has seriously divided this country into a upper class and lower class with the middle class facing extinction. Eisenhower forecasted the type of administration that Bush is running when he said the american public best beware that soon the military machine will be run by the large companies for profit. Two other issues I have with this administration is the destruction of the environment, during the 00 election I really didnt pay much attention to this issue but as I have researched the topic more this is a serious and deadly issue for future generations and this administration has no clue or care. Secondly, the religious overtones of this administration make me sick, how a guy like Cheney can go to church and actually believe he is a honest and upstanding guy makes one have to wonder about the whole aspect of religiong because if there is a heaven and hell crooked gents liek Cheney would have no shot of going to heaven.

 

[Chanman]

Great post AR182*sigh* At least Eddie didn't refer to Bush as Hitler.

 

[gardenweasel]

what saddens me

what saddens me

is that many very intelligent people just can`t seem to get past their political affiliations and look at issues objectively....

the majority of opinions almost always fall in the " i hate everything republican" or "i hate everything democratic"

for many,political party affiliation trumps everything....

nobody`s changing anybody else`s entrenched political ideology...it seems so deeply ingrained that it really doesn`t matter who runs for office....for either party....

the wmd thing is a joke....everyone knows that hussein has tried repeatedly to garner wmd`s....and invade neighbors...and gas his own people...and lob scuds into israel...

to generally be a one man gang regarding middle east destabilization....and if clinton had stayed in office,he would have had to address the issue himself....we all saw the post on democratic commentary on iraq...and we all know that the u.n. is gutless,toothless and basically useless....and we have very few real allies...

on the other side,nolan`s right about bush being less than mensa material....and yes,although i saw the rationale for getting saddam out,i also see that we had no end game strategy prepared....

we are in what appears to be another endless foreign quagmire..... a living nightmare....a horrible mistake for this administration..one that i feel may be their undoing if they are fortunate enough to get another 4 years....

do they deserve another 4 years?..
i`m on the fence right now...i`m thankful that kerry appears to be garnering the democratic nomination....the best possible candidate,imo,

he`s a little wishy washy on some policy issues...
when nolan was talking about apalling communications skills,he must have also have had dean and clark in mind....these guys made so many crucial faux pas` that it became almost laughable...they got what they deserved....

lucky for us.....

as for israel,i feel it`s a necessary evil....anybody that doesn`t see the slow but sure "muslimification" of europe has their head buried deeply in the sand.....the muslimist extremist threat is the next world crisis,as i see it....much more dangerous than the religious right,whom i have no use for...at least in the manner and practice of a jerry falwell...

we are surrounded by extremists on all fronts...lol..

just some random rants....

a great thread...

 

[ceciol]

This is a great thread guys. Lots of useful conversation here and food for thought (and no attacks).

None of us are going to be presented with a candidate that is our personal ideal, so we're going to have to choose from the lot.

I applaud the comments that talk about avoiding partisanship. 100% of the voters should be voting for which person and administration they want in office, not simply along party lines.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Hoops]

I'm a registered Republican, but will definitely not vote for Bush in the next election.

His seemingly religous crusade and the continued growth of the government coming to fruition in an almost Orwellian sense aren't my idea of what this country is about. This coming from the party that is supposedly for 'less' government.

And as others have pointed out in somewhat nicer terms...the guy is a complete dunce, at least in relative terms to the position he holds. I would say a majority of those outside the United States view him as a cartoon character and an embarrassment to our country.