|
Post by Galadon on Aug 2, 2004 15:29:26 GMT -5
So far I heard people say that Keary is better than Bush. I ask why? What do they tell me, Because I hate Bush.
I ask another question.
Is it a intellegent way to vote for a president, just because you hate the other guy.
Keary has said over and over he was in Vietnam, for four months. Demorats have been the one to hate the military yet they make every know Keary was in Viet Nam.
What has Keary done in the passed 19 years, he has been in congress. Can you state any major bill that has Keary's name on it, how about a minor bill.
Keary will improve the economy, has he said how.
Keary will keep us safe, by cutting the military, voting against weapond systems, (These weapon systems bring jobs to middle america, I guess Keary missed that point.)
Keary will keep us safe after were attacked. Will someone explain how your safe after the attack ?
You notice that Keary doesn't say much about health care yet. Could it be that his running mate made his money by taking doctors to court on false medical reasons
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 2, 2004 23:48:24 GMT -5
True, but, then again, the grass is always greener...
While Kerry may not be terribly well known, we can be pretty sure he isn't going to start invading countries on the flimsiest of excuses and blowing the heck out of government spending.
I really have to laugh at Republicans who accuse Dems of overspending. Look at the greatest periods of growth of the public debt. Mid 1980's during Reagan and right now, during Bush. In 8 years under Clinton, you had a balanced budget and actually paid back some of those debts. Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 3, 2004 13:09:26 GMT -5
Hey Hussar, want ot take the commander in chief test. Tell me what you would do.
You are the president in early 2003, just months after September 11 and anthrax. The Clinton administration had incited Osama bin Laden citing ties to Saddam Hussein and had bombed a suspected bioweapons plant in Sudan with ties to Iraq. (They say it was a aspirin factory).
Intelligence suggests that terrorists met with others in Prague.
UN weapon inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq.
British intelligence says Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
Saddam invaded Kuwait a decade before. He had used chemical weapoons on his own people.
One of the perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing had taken refuge in Baghdad.
Families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq.
The CIA Directir originally appointed by Clinton tells you it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
The French are opposed to war with Iraq, saying their intelligence service believes Iraq still has weapons of mass destuction.
Russian President Putin opposed to war with Iraq tells you Russian intelligence believes Iraq has plans for terror assaults in the US.
Most of the CIA contacts in Iraq are murdered.
DO you wait to get more spies in the country to confirm the other intelligence, or do you go to Congress for a resolution supporting the use of force and then use the force.
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on Aug 3, 2004 15:32:50 GMT -5
More spies.
The best course of action is never the brash ones. Plus, remember, as a "commander in cheif" you're supposed to be the cool-level headed not-pressing political agenda type.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 4, 2004 6:42:16 GMT -5
Well, let's see:
UN weapon inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq. - and Hans Blix specifically states that he doesn't believe that Hussein has WMD's
British intelligence says Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. - Information proven faulty by a two hour Google search by a French journalist. The signiture on the orders was from a guy who had been dead for ten years.
The CIA Directir originally appointed by Clinton tells you it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. - A lie told by the administration. The CIA director later says that he never said any such thing.
Families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq - Families of Palestinian suicide bombers are also paid by the royal family of Saud. Remember them? The guys that rule Saudi Arabia. Also the country where most of the AQ terrorists come from. Hmmm.
Dubbya invaded Iraq to clean up daddy's mess. There was no reason to invade. None. YOu don't blow up a country and depose a leader because you think that he might have WMD's. You do it when you have pictures and a smoking gun. Snort.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 4, 2004 14:59:40 GMT -5
So in other words, you would let your country continue to be attacked by terrorist and do nothing about it. Just like Clinton. Who admits he knew about the plan to use airliners flying in to buildings in 1998. Oh but he's a demorat so he's automatically not gulity.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Aug 4, 2004 15:36:38 GMT -5
I have a feeling that most people in democratic countries, particularly the United States don't see themselves voting for a party or candidate so much as they see themselves voting against the opposite party or candidate.
Which is really rather silly, when you consider how identical the two major parties in the United States are. Do you know how many times Al Gore agreed with Shrubby II during the debates of the 2000 presidential race? I don't have the exact figure, but I seem to remember that it was alarmingly high for someone of the "opposite" party.
The Democrats claim to value religious and cutlural diversity, but how many Wiccan, Buddhist, Satanist, Santerian, Taoist, or Muslim represantatives, senators, or presidents have their been? The Republicans claim to be the preservers of Christian family values, but how many haven't cheated on their spouses or gotten divorced and remarried?
The Democrats claim to favor the working class little guy and be against evil Big Business interests, but how many have really pushed for strong environmental laws that would hurt Big Business? or a truly livable minimum wage? or tough price controls so that minimum wage becomes more livable? or closing up tax loopholes that only Big Business and the ultarich can take advantage of? The Republicans claim to help the economy by being friendly to Big Business, but how many have pushed for repealing existing environmental laws that sting Big Business a little? And why are the Ray Gun, Shrubby I, and Shrubby II years asociated with a recession and tanking economy?
I'm considereing voting either Libertarian, Communist, or Green this year because I think the big two have sold us out totally and thoroughly. Of course, so would the Libertarians, Communists, or Greens, if they had the power.
|
|
|
Post by Challenger on Aug 4, 2004 18:14:40 GMT -5
Well personaly I'd just think to myself.
Why would a weak little country with a leader with strong sense of self suvival who is at odds with AQ ask for me to nuke him?
and come to the conclusion everyone is being bloody stupid and ignore them. Can't fight terrorists in their backyard by shooting it up. Doesn't work and will never work.
Just one thing I wish to point out.
CIA contacts in Iraq are called spies. Spies IIRC are subject to the death penity in many countries.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 4, 2004 20:02:34 GMT -5
Actually Khyron makes an excellent point. There are a large number of Dem senators and Congresspeople who have voted almost 100% in line with Republican policies. The difference between the two parties IS truly overshadowed by the similarities.
BTW, Gal, where did you get the bit about Clinton knowing about the plot? Considering the Congressional report just said that no one could have forseen 9/11, I'm wondering where Clinton got his godlike powers.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Aug 4, 2004 21:44:20 GMT -5
Actually Khyron makes an excellent point. There are a large number of Dem senators and Congresspeople who have voted almost 100% in line with Republican policies. The difference between the two parties IS truly overshadowed by the similarities. BTW, Gal, where did you get the bit about Clinton knowing about the plot? Considering the Congressional report just said that no one could have forseen 9/11, I'm wondering where Clinton got his godlike powers. Well even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I'm commenting on myself, not you.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 5, 2004 0:15:30 GMT -5
No worries bud.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 5, 2004 12:57:11 GMT -5
On one of the news shows, Clinton said durning an interview.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 5, 2004 19:44:21 GMT -5
Which one? Don't you think that if Clinton had publicly stated that he suspected a 9/11 style attack, they'd have his butt in front of a Congressional hearing?
But, you still haven't answered the question. Iraq at the time posed no threat to anyone. Everyone in the world, except for the US said that Iraq posed no threat. Iraq had no ties with AQ. Everyone in the world except for the US said that Iraq had no ties to AQ. The US invades anyway and everything the rest of the world said is proven true. Hmm, slightly damaging to US credibility dontcha think?
The invasion of Iraq is not and cannot be justified through a threat to the world arguement. Hussein posed zero threat to anyone other than his own people. You can justify the invasion through a moral arguement, BUT, that arguement only became used AFTER all other arguements and justifications failed. You cannot use the means to justify the ends. That's where tyranny lies.
Hitler used exactly the same justification to invade Poland in 1939. Poland was a threat to Germany and had even attacked German towns. He had the films to prove it. Footage showing Polish artillery attacking a German town and German refugees fleeing the scene. How is the invasion of Iraq any different?
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 7, 2004 11:39:10 GMT -5
Well this is obvivious, he said it but they did nothing about it. Instead they chose to go after Sandy Buger.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 7, 2004 20:42:39 GMT -5
Who? I can't find that name anywhere on Google. Nor Sandy Burger. Who is this person?
|
|