John Kerry

[toms]

Originally posted by rccar328

He voted for the authorization to use force. Then he voted against the funding (actually, according to him, he voted both ways...)

 

didn't skin mention that very thing in the post before yours?

 

The problem with being an elected representative is that

 

(a) on the one hand people want you to reflect their opinions

 

(b) but on the other hand they wnat someone who sticks to their beliefs.

 

So, if you are anti-war, but your constituants (as the whole US was after 9/11) are anti war... what do you do?

Stand by your principles, but not represent your constituents?

or vote by what your constituents want and get accused of flip-flopping?

 

Bush of course doesn't have these problems as he has never done anything with his life (until suddenly deciding to become president).

 

Personally i don't think kerry is that great, but i don't think he is as weak and flip-floppy as the bush lot are trying to make out. Or any more so than any other senator or career politician who has a voting record that long.

[El Sitherino]

Kerry is a douchebag, but he's the lesser of two evils, thus Kerry > Bush.

[rccar328]

Sorry, Skin, I'm not really back...I just got bored the other day.

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

I disagree. I think Kerry has a very solid position on the invasion and subsequent occupation. Kerry voted for the authorization for the President to use military force, but he also stated that he did so with the belief that we would build a coalition of nations beyond the rag-tag nations that gave us token forces (with exception to Great Britain).

 

This argument would work except for the fact that when George H.W. Bush went to war against Saddam with UN backing and with the largest coalition of nations ever seen, John Kerry voted against it. So what, according to Kerry, is an acceptable coalition?

 

Answer: the one that does nothing, capitulating and appeasing the terrorists, allowing them to walk all over us until the American people finally get pissed off enough that they don't let their commander-in-chief get away with it anymore.

 

I'm not saying that the war is being fought perfectly well...in fact, I do disagree with George W. Bush on something with the war: we shouldn't be allowing terrorists to hide in mosques. Our troops should be going in and killing them, no matter where they're hiding.

 

As far as the bin Laden argument, Teddy Kennedy couldn't have said it better. I don't understand how you people can live under the illustion that our forces are securing Iraq and doing nothing about bin Laden. Here's a tip: just because the press gives that illusion, that doesn't make it true.

 

 

 

 

On a similar topic, here's something I found both amusing and disgusting that happened the other day:

 

Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq gave an amazing speech before Congress the other day - extremely optimistic, very hopeful, and very sincere. Then, in a similar vein, the Prime Minister stood with President Bush at the White House and gave a press conference with similar optimism and hope.

 

One thing in particular that struck me about the Prime Minister's speech before Congress was that he spoke about how the American press is misrepresenting the war in Iraq by reporting each and every conflict, each and every death, each and every tragedy, all the while leaving out any story of success and/or hope happening in Iraq. He specifically pointed out the fact that hundreds of schools have been built, and Iraqi children are being educated again, this time in a free society.

 

 

About half an hour after Prime Minister Allawi's speech, John Kerry came out with a very critical statement, basically saying, "How could he say that we're winning? Hasn't he seen the news?" (that's not a direct quote, but that is the gist of what he was saying). This argument, coming from Kerry, is laughable, and shows that he probably didn't even listen to the Prime Minister's speech before coming back with such a pathetic response.

 

 

As far as casualty numbers are concerned, though, I find these arguments disgusting. I saw Teddy Kennedy on some Sunday morning talk show or other yesterday, talking about how Iraq is turning into another Vietnam, that it's a horrible quagmire, etc. That whole argument is a bunch of bull, if you ask me.

 

In World War II, 408,306 US soldiers were killed in action freeing Europe from the Nazis between 1941 and 1945. That's 80,000 to 100,000 soldiers per year. That didn't keep us from continuing on to secure the peace in Europe and see the conflict through to the end by routing the Japanese threat in the Pacific.

 

In the US Civil War, 23,049 men were killed in the battle of Gettysburg alone! That didn't keep the Union from working both to preserve the United States and free the slaves.

 

Taken in context, the losses incured in Iraq are small, particularly so when taken into account Iraq's newfound freedom. Approximately 5,000 bodies have been recovered from 55 mass grave sites within Iraq. Saddam Hussein is no longer filling those graves. I found it bizarre to hear a member of the Iraqi Olympic soccer team talking about how he wanted to join the insurgency and fight against America in light of the fact that he would have been tortured by Saddam's son when he got home for not winning a gold medal if those American soldiers had not deposed the Hussein regime.

 

I'm not saying that each and every life lost in Iraq is not a tragedy - each and every one is. However, it confuses me that liberals in America can in one breath say that they have compassion and in the next breath say that the war in Iraq was wrong and should not have been fought solely because the WMD stockpiles were not there, particularly when every intelligence source beforehand said that they were there, and there were no legitimate reasons not to believe those sources.

 

The next thing I would do is seek the assistance of bordering countries to Iraq in order to seal the borders between Iraq and Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait. I would convince these nations that it was in their best interest to do so, since a civil war in Iraq would do far more harm to them than good.

um...I don't know any other way to say this other than that you would have to be absolutely insane to enlist the assistance of Iran in this conflict. Iran is a hotbed for terrorism with an anti-American Islamo-Fascist regime, and the idea that Iran would want anything other than the same in Iraq is naive, at best. Also, Saudi Arabia needs to do a lot of work before they should be trusted fully as allies (another thing I disagree with GW on).

 

Also, how would you "convince" these nations that it was in their best interests, ye who complain about supposed coercion in the forming of the current coalition? If Iraq becomes a free nation, these countries are going to have to do a lot of work at ridding terrorism and Islamo-fascism within their own borders. If they stand by and do nothing while Iraq blows itself to pieces in civil war, all they have to do is throw in with whatever side wins at the end.

[TheLiberator34]

Personally I have to ask who wouldn't vote for the authorization to use force when it hit the senate floor. People don't realize it but there is a lot of political pressuring and image control going behind the scenes. If Kerry had voted against the war and been "consistent" like the Bush campaing implies he should have, he would have been accused of being a pacifist and not doing enough to protect americans against terrorism. So it's really a silly argument. Either way Kerry would get bashed.

President Bush and the Republican's in general have an amazing media system in place. You're watching the news and you see Bush say Saddam Hussein, Terrorism and WMDs in the same sound byte, and people naturally link these three things in their minds, even though there is no solid evidence besides a few surveillance photos.

So Bush gathers up military forces and goes to war, on FALSE PRETENSES, wins against a pathetic force of infantry with minimal casualties and then what? The point kerry is making is there was NO PLAN for the occupation of this country in the midst of what can be considered as enemy territory.

Now on the economic side of things Bush decides only american companies will be invovled in the reconstruction effort which is another screwup. He could have restored much of the foreign relations with various nations by letting them profit from the effort to rebuild Iraq. Also, if foreign companies were involved in the reconstruction effort the nations they are based in would be more likely to send addition troops to help america keep the peace and keep terrorists out.

So all in all Bush has commited 3 major blunders.

A) Starting a war without solid intelligence

B) Not preparing a plan for the occupation of what can be considered a hostile coountry.

C) Continuing a isolationist economic policy which further damages our relations with other countries.

And you say this guy is gonna keep me safe? Nope sorry, three strikes and you're out.

[Master_Ginn]

Well i was reading a newspaper and came across these little tidbits and wonder if anyone has any truth or fallousness.

1. John Kerry commited acts of treason meeting with communists Paris while still a Reserve Naval Officer.

2. John Kerry admitted to committing war crimes.

What do you guys think about this? I read in our school paper, aloing with stuff bashing Bush as well.

 

 

 

I was also thinking about how Kerry says he represents the average citizen. Tell me something, how can someone whose married to the richest woman in the world represent the average citizen? Why are politician always so dang rich and say they can represent us? They havn't had to do anything to get money, and they try to represent people who HAVE to work to live. I hate politics.

[Kain]

I don't like Bush. I don't like Kerry. I don't like Nader.

 

I'm voting for Kerry, for a few reasons.

 

1: Atleast he's seen war, so I feel that may help him be able to make better choices about Iraq.

2: Kerry is a flip-flop, but Bush is a flat-out liar.

3: I'd rather have an issue dodger than a draft dodger. Less shame.

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Kain

I don't like Bush. I don't like Kerry. I don't like Nader.

 

I'm voting for Kerry, for a few reasons.

 

1: Atleast he's seen war, so I feel that may help him be able to make better choices about Iraq.

2: Kerry is a flip-flop, but Bush is a flat-out liar.

3: I'd rather have an issue dodger than a draft dodger. Less shame.

 

No offense, but I have to laugh everytime I hear someone say "I'm voting Kerry, Bush is a liar" or "Fire the Liar" or whatever else. It's just a great laugh. Like Kerry doesn't lie. Let me tell you people something. Being a politician has lying as a prereq on its job application. Fire the Liar. HA! No matter who you hire, he'll be a liar. THAT'S A PROMISE. That oughta be on all the sigs and bumper stickers around here.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Kain

I don't like Bush. I don't like Kerry. I don't like Nader.

 

I'm with you on that. I wish the the incumbent president didn't have to run and John McCain would've been able to run for president.

 

[toms]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

No offense, but I have to laugh everytime I hear someone say "I'm voting Kerry, Bush is a liar" or "Fire the Liar" or whatever else. It's just a great laugh. Like Kerry doesn't lie. Let me tell you people something. Being a politician has lying as a prereq on its job application. Fire the Liar. HA! No matter who you hire, he'll be a liar. THAT'S A PROMISE. That oughta be on all the sigs and bumper stickers around here.

 

Fair point..

I'd go with "fire the bumbling rich kid who only got the job cos of his parents and is making our country a hated laughing stock", but it isn't my country, and our commedians would have so much less to work with if bush didn't get re-elected...

[Breton]

Originally posted by rccar328

Answer: the one that does nothing, capitulating and appeasing the terrorists, allowing them to walk all over us until the American people finally get pissed off enough that they don't let their commander-in-chief get away with it anymore.

 

I agree with you on one thing: Doing nothing or appeasing the terrorists won't solve anything. But thing is, will war and conflict do? It seems as if though you ignore that terrorism is a sympthom and not the problem itself. All terrorism starts from a conflict, and adding to the conflict will only add to terrorism as well.

 

How about all the terrorism that's currently going on in Iraq? Do you think those people were terrorists before the war? No, they were regular people, farmers, traders, students, family fathers, etc. Yet they feel now that the US are oppressing and harming Iraq and its people.

 

Bush's agressive attitude against terrorism is only adding to the problem. Al Quida is alledged stronger than ever before.

 

I'm not saying that the war is being fought perfectly well...in fact, I do disagree with George W. Bush on something with the war: we shouldn't be allowing terrorists to hide in mosques. Our troops should be going in and killing them, no matter where they're hiding.

 

You don't seem to see the problem with that. Slaughtering terrorists in general, and especially when they are in holy places such as mosques, will only confirm the terrorist-made stereotypes of USA, and thus help their cause. When the US are alledged brutal and war-loving and hates Islam, do you think slaughtering muslims in a mosque will make people think better of USA?

 

There has never been so much terrorism and so many terrorists as since the "War on terror" started. Hypocritical?

[Master_Ginn]

So is there any place where you can get all the FACTS about what the cannidates are backing? Cause i've read that Kerry supports gay marraige and i've read he opposes it. But i'm pretty sure he opposes gay marriage. Can any one help me find a good website?

[wassup]

Originally posted by Feanaro

So is there any place where you can get all the FACTS about what the cannidates are backing? Cause i've read that Kerry supports gay marraige and i've read he opposes it. But i'm pretty sure he opposes gay marriage. Can any one help me find a good website?

 

You can start with http://factcheck.org/ though they seem to be focused more on clearing up the misconceptions instigated by Bush/Kerry attack ads, rather than alot of the major issues surrounding each candidate.

[Loopster]

Originally posted by rccar328

Taken in context, the losses incured in Iraq are small, particularly so when taken into account Iraq's newfound freedom. Approximately 5,000 bodies have been recovered from 55 mass grave sites within Iraq. Saddam Hussein is no longer filling those graves. I found it bizarre to hear a member of the Iraqi Olympic soccer team talking about how he wanted to join the insurgency and fight against America in light of the fact that he would have been tortured by Saddam's son when he got home for not winning a gold medal if those American soldiers had not deposed the Hussein regime.

 

 

I think there's a common misconception on the part of Western populations that assumes occupied peoples will judge their occupiers/liberators based on their intentions. We all have good intentions, but do they always get us where we intended?

 

Obviously I cannot speak for the whole Iraqi population, but in the case of the malcontents and those opposed to the continued foreign military presence, I'm guessing they're judging us based on what's actually happening. The people who have been without jobs for months, or still get erratic water and electrcity, or just lost a family member to an anti-armor mine, they probably don't care what our intentions are. Understandably, their frustration, anger, possibly even hate is going to cloud their vision and their judgement. As the invader and the one responsible for toppling what was formerly their government, tyrannic and oppressive as it may have been, it is now up to us to restore the Iraqi peoples hopes and well being. We want to do good, but are we?

 

Something else that cannot be underestimated is the nationalistic zeal in any population.

 

If Canada launched a full scale incursion into her southern neighbor on the basis of ensuring equal rights for homosexuals and guaranteeing health care for every citizen under the age of 18, would us Americans just roll over? No, I'm pretty sure there'd be one hell of a battle. Even if Canada promised not to adjust our government beyond their stated parameters. Even if Canada promised our freedoms would not be hampered, so long as we ensured the fair treament of all homosexuals and the well being of citizens under the age of 18. Even if Canada executed a fairly bloodless attack that only killed a few thousand bystandards, and allowed us a nationwide curfew of 23.00, and left most of the utility services in the country intact. Even if their troops were the most benevolent and loving ever, and their accuracy rates allowed them to aim their air-to-ground weaponry to minimize collatoral damage.

 

You see, nationalism can be a real pain sometimes, and mixed with other external, desperate conditions, it becomes a catalyst for a reaction that's often messy and leaves a lasting stain.

 

People shouldn't be so quick do diss the Iraqi people for their "ungratefulness." Do I think it's kind of short sighted of some of them to think of their occupiers as a mortal enemy, even though the occupiers really do mean well? Yes, certainly. But it's something I can understand. If Canada did what I described above, I find it hard to believe my fellow Americans wouldn't be launching mortars at their forward operation bases and sniping their soldiers in the streets.

 

---

 

P.S. Not that Canada could ever do that. All the guns in Texas alone could probably repel that invasion.

[toms]

good post.

Also, take into account that no matter how terrible a government may be, it often gets a lot of support due to nationalism, and it will rarely be attacking the majority of it's citizens.

 

Look at the nazis, they were possibly the worst government ever, but they had pretty widespread support among the german people at the time.

Of course, those people didn't know everything that was going on, but the nazi government talked well, blamed all problems on outsiders and actually targetted only small minorities.

Saddam did the same.

 

Look at russia, where dispite all the failings of the communist party, many of the population still wish for the "good old days".

 

My girlfriends parents are from Hong Kong, and like many older hong kong residents, they won't hear a word said against the Bejing government, and hold it and china in fond regard.

Even if most of HK knows about a lot of the human rights injustices in china, they still get about 50% of the popular vote.

 

Nationalism, conservatism, rose tinted spectacles and personal gain are big factors.

 

The simple fact is that MOST iraqis were better off under saddam. They had food, jobs, power, water and didn't have bombs going off everywhere.

Of course there were those that weren't better off (kurds, minorities, his enemies, the football team, anyone who got on the wrong side of his sons) but they were likely in the vast minority, and most people would either not know about them, or manage to convince themselves to ignore what was going on.

 

In a few years the majority will likely be better off, and they will hopefully have democracy (if they want it, which isn't actually clear), but right now, most are probably looking back on the good old days.

 

Also, when you add in the fact that the biggest cause of their suffering over the last 10 years was UN sanctions, and saddam was quick to point out for years how everything was the US's fault...

Imagine that peaceful invasion by canada, when for the last 10 years all the media had done was tell you how everything bad was Canada's fault.

Then you would have even MORE violent resistance.

[toms]

The owner of the largest chain of television stations in the US and a huge contributor to Republican causes is to disrupt its regular programming schedules two weeks before the election to air a documentary highly critical of the Democratic challenger John Kerry.

 

Officials from Sinclair Broadcasting confirmed that the company has ordered its 62 stations - many of them in the swing states of Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa - to air Stolen Honour: Wounds that Never Heal, during primetime slots next week.

 

The documentary, by a small production company in Pennsylvania, focuses on Mr Kerry's anti-war testimony to Congress in 1971 and actively links him to the anti-war campaigner Jane Fonda. The documentary includes a number of interviews with former PoWs who claim that their Vietnamese captors used Mr Kerry's comments to demoralise them.

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=571225

[kipperthefrog]

My mom is voting for Bu$h because the church wants her to! they say Bu$h is going to get someone in to overthrow abortion! she REFUSES to beleive anything bad about bush!

 

My dad and i watched F-911 last night! we saw how Bu$h is sending our boys to die so he can get billions of dollars from the oil feilds!

 

My mom didn't watch this, she is blind and brainwashed! she refused to watch anything bad about Bu$h! My dad say "you know whats scary? millions of people just like her!" I think he's right! If pressing the nuclear bomb would earn him a few million dollars, he'd DO it!

 

Dad says "No way i'm voting for Bu$h" Neither am I!

[primalunderdog]

I can't vote yet but i am 15 and i have talked to just about 50 students which are the future generation by the way, and 98% are republicans,they all wanted Bush to be Prez!I don't mean to "flame" anyone but ,just my opinion so don't go sending complants.(exuse my spelling)I think you demecrats are full of crap.I believe Kerry did lie on his war records.Don't even get me started because i could fill a whole page of stuff.

[ET Warrior]

What a surprise...you poll republicans, you find out that they want to vote republican.

 

Weird.

 

 

And I tire of hearing the "future generation" talk. I mean honestly, the future generation of what? future generation of college kids? Working class? Retired people? Dead guys? Everyone is the future generation of something.

[El Sitherino]

primalunderdog,

care to give a reason for your obviously baseless generalization?

 

 

also, try to keep down on the harsh remarks/flamatory comments.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by primalunderdog

I can't vote yet but i am 15 and i have talked to just about 50 students which are the future generation by the way, and 98% are republicans,they all wanted Bush to be Prez!I don't mean to "flame" anyone but ,just my opinion so don't go sending complants.(exuse my spelling)I think you demecrats are full of crap.I believe Kerry did lie on his war records.Don't even get me started because i could fill a whole page of stuff.

 

I polled a hundred college students recently, which are the future generation btw, and 100% of them voted for Kerry.

 

...'course, I had hand-picked each student and each one happend to be a regestered democrat, but this obviously means the new generation wants Kerry, not Bush.

 

 

And now in complete schizophrenia, I'll say that I had asked three kids who sat in my group in Science whom they would vote for if they could, and all three opted for Bush.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by primalunderdog

I can't vote yet but i am 15 and i have talked to just about 50 students which are the future generation by the way, and 98% are republicans,they all wanted Bush to be Prez!

 

It's called confirmation bias. When you're a little older and go to college, take a statistics or research class and you can learn all about it

 

Originally posted by primalunderdog

Don't even get me started because i could fill a whole page of stuff.

 

I dare you.

 

But before you do, you might want to look at some of the "whole pages" that have already been filled by both sides in this and other threads. Between myself, noxrepare, rccar328, and a few others, I think there's a small book that could be written.

[Master_Ginn]

I can't vote yet but i am 15 and i have talked to just about 50 students which are the future generation by the way, and 98% are republicans,they all wanted Bush to be Prez!I don't mean to "flame" anyone but ,just my opinion so don't go sending complants.(exuse my spelling)I think you demecrats are full of crap.I believe Kerry did lie on his war records.Don't even get me started because i could fill a whole page of stuff.

I bet your parents are republicans aren't they? YOu'll find that most kids your age side with their parents because they are the only ones who give you your info. So i think your judgement is a little hasty. When you grow up and get out on your own you'll see what i mean. I mean everyone does it, and it's alright if you side with your parents, it's just important that you get your own opinions. I know i was the same way. And ther are some things i disagree with and things i agree with my parents.

[Shok_Tinoktin]

I am still a little undecided about who I will vote for. I agree with Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarak on most of the issues, but his plan to remove all the troops from Iraq is enough to make me not want him as president, but since he has no chance of winning, I am tempted to vote for him to show my support of the Libertarian party. I feel my vote will have more meaning going towards a third party, as I am not in a battleground state. George Bush is the one I definitely want to see as president. I also don't like the idea of being a person who doesn't vote for the candidate they want to win, just because they assume that it wont help at all. I fear that if all other Californians have that same mentality, then the opinions of the majority of the state could become aligned behind the Republican party, without the voting record reflecting that. Nonetheless, I am tending towards Badnarak, so I chose other.

 

 

http://www.lp.org

[toms]

as far as i can tell, the best thing that could happen in the election would be if a high percentage of voters voted for non democrat/republican candidates. Anything to shake up the system and point out that you are basically selecting between two right-wing candidates with very similar views on most issues. And whichever you choose there will be little change to anything that matters.

 

I agree with about 1/2 of the libertarian platform, but disagree with the other half. I actually agree with a lot of what Ralph Nader said in the recent Youth Debate. (never heard of anything he said before, assumed he was full of rubbish).

 

Unfortunately everyone who might vote for independents will probably vote mainstream so that they don't "waste their vote" and therefore waste their votes.

That said, nader probably cost Gore the last election (well, if you ignore the fixing and the judges at least )

[Jdome83]

Anyone but Bush? It's really sad how pliable we as American people have become. America will vote for what they want, and America wishes to become more liberal. I truly hope that Senator Kerry doesn't win this election, because all of the progress gained subsequent to the recession will be undone. I am a Christian, but I am not an obnoxious, rich bigot who thinks he is 'holier then thou'. Which is often what I am stereotyped as.President George Bush represents my beliefs more completely then John Kerry. I see abortion as a far more of a problem in this country then the death penalty. Why?WARNING GRAPHIC MATERIAL click here if you need convincing that abortion is murder and wrong.