Who to vote for? (for US President)

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Wolf Dog, Sep 8, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bandit LOAF

    Bandit LOAF Long Live the Confederation!

    Messages:
    28,627
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    69,485
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ashton, MD, USA
    The UN charter doesn't prevent countries from going to war - you're confusing the preamble (lots of flowery stuff about how we should all lieve in peace) and the actual legal document. It has very specific requirements for how a war like the recent conflict in Iraq needs to be reported to the Security Council - but it absolutely does not say that signatories cannot wage war (no country in the world would agree to such a requirement).

    Again, I don't think you understand - the legal issue is not that he recieved a blowjob, it's that he lied to a grand jury. It's the same distinction you've failed to make with regards to Iraq - the president is within his legal right to have sex with whoever he wants... but he's not allowed to lie about it under oath.

    I'm not sure what this means - the investigation would be judicial in nature.

    All caps -- it's an acronym. I'm not personally familiar with anyone who's been patronized or fear-induced by it (off of college campuses, at least)... but that's how the US system of government works. Congress can pass any stupid law it wants - if it violates the constitution, the supreme court will negate it. If the USA PATRIOT act is two percent as insane as the internet would like us to think, the court will rule against it when it's challenged.

    I don't especially like the idea of having to fight a war (I don't even think we need to be fighting a war), but the whole "ahh, this is so horrible!" crap is pretty stupid too - we have an all volunteer army, no one is forcing young men to go do their deaths.

    Quoted together for irony.

    Are you seriously claiming that George Bush is responsible for conflict with the middle east? He's the guy who happens to be president right now - the United States has been in conflict with Muslim nations for more than two hundred years (Tripoli!)

    Age and capacity for reasonable thought do not go hand in hand.
     
  2. ck9791

    ck9791 Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    27,885
    Location:
    Ottumwa, IA
    My personal opinion of the United Nations is that they can't even decide where to cater lunch from tomorrow much less solve real world problems.

    I do believe the Iraq war was just and for good reason. And I disagree with your opinion that the US and Bush "illegally" declared war based on "manipulated" intelligence. Since the first Gulf War the United Nations has passed numerous resolutions and tried to get inspectors into Iraq to confirm or deny if Saddam had weapons of Mass Distruction. During this time Saddam would let inspectors in for a short time and then kick them out. The US and world responded through limited airstrikes and harsh words from the UN. In the end this solved nothing, Saddam continued to play games with everyone while his people suffered. Then George Bush goes to the United Nations and gets Resolution 1441 to pass, which was to make Saddam comply and truely let the inspectors go everywhere or face military action. Saddam started playing his old games again, and Bush decided that enough was enough it was time to take action. People have criticized Bush for not giving the inspectors enough time, or not getting enough allies on board.

    Now I ask you; how long should we have waited for the inspectors??? Remember, Saddam has been playing games for years, how much longer would you give him. It would have been nice if we would have had more allies sending troops with ours, but that didn't happen. We can't make other countries send troops. How long would you have negotiated with other countries to try to get them to participate? I am proud that George Bush stood up took action because he thought it was what was best for the country. I want a president who acts on what he/she believes is in the best interests of the United States and to protect the United States. I do not want a president who will bow to what Kofi Annan thinks or to Chriac in France or Shroeder in Germany. In my opinion the number one job of the president is to protect the interests of United States and its citizens, which is what Bush believed he was doing.

    This brings me to your second point, that this war was based on manipulated intelligence. The intelligence may have been incorrect, but it was not manipulated. Bush had our intelligence, the CIA telling him that Saddam had WMDs. British Intelligence said he had the WMDs, Putin has stated that the Russian intelligence thought he had WMDs. And other countries such as France also thought he had the weapons, which is why they supported resolution 1441. Based on that, Bush decided to use military force. Now, if you were president and you were told that a dictator had WMDs, not only by your own intelligence, but also by the British, French, and the Russians, wouldn't you think that he had those weapons?

    Even without finding the WMDs, the Iraq war still got rid of a dictator who had his own people tortured and killed and also gave money to other terrorist organizations in the region. To me, that was enough of a reason to get rid of Saddam, even without the WMDs. If you disagree, I would like to know where you were when NATO was bombing Slobodan Milosovic in Bosnia? Everyone who is against the Iraq War should have protested our military action in Bosnia too. Milosovic posed no threat to the rest of Europe or any other country. He was just killing ethnic groups in his own country.
     
  3. MetalSiren

    MetalSiren Spaceman

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bush jr LOL

    While i agree,that kerrys on and off way of deciding is off.Bush way of zionist thinking is going to get us all dead or hurt in this century or the next.I hope some day independants can cut off the republicans hold on our great country.
     
  4. MetalSiren

    MetalSiren Spaceman

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    oh i forgot!

    WTF did saddam have to do with osama any ways ive seen no god damm proof of a connection to osama.Plus we were fighting a just war against the taliban,not the iraqi scum that is beheading my fellow country men.I know what your thinking,iam just some libral punk.Well let me just tell you would be in the marines if it wasnt for my "chronic Eczema",I would be ground pounding with the next guy but i have a legitamate reason for not being accepted.Now the impression ive been getting these pass few months is most bush supporters are christians.Now how are yhou guys any better then the fools who fallow muqtada?
     
  5. Bandit LOAF

    Bandit LOAF Long Live the Confederation!

    Messages:
    28,627
    Likes Received:
    550
    Trophy Points:
    69,485
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ashton, MD, USA
    Overmortal?

    If you actually had that impression, why did you just accuse him of being "zionist"? (I learned a word! On the internet!) People like this poster here are why it's impossible to have an intelligent political debate anywhere, ever. (To make the mistake of taking this idiocy seriously, the majority of Bush supporters are Christians for the same reason that the majority of Kerry supporters are Christian - the vast majority of American citizens are Christians. That said, Bush attracted a higher percentage of Muslim voters than Gore did in the last election - make what you will of that.)
     
  6. ck9791

    ck9791 Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    27,885
    Location:
    Ottumwa, IA
    Bush is a strong supporter of Israel, if that's what you mean by zionist thinking.

    I don't think its fair to completely blame Israel for all of the problems between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I don't think its wrong to support Israel, they are certainly more democratic and have more freedom than their neighbors. It was a UN resolution that created Israel in 1947. Since its creation Israel was attacked by five of its neighbors only months after its creation. It had to fight to protect its interests again in 1967 during the Six Day War, and was attacked a third time in 1973 in the Yom Kippur War. Israel has also had to face repeated attacks by Hamas, Al-Aqsa, and other organizations that use suicide bombers (including women and children as the bombers).

    The connection between Saddam and Osama is tentative at best. It was believed that because of Saddam's hatred for the US, he would give/sell some of the WMDs he was believed to have to Osama and Al Queda. There were also supposed contacts between Osama's lieutenants and Saddam's regime. Other than that there is little that is currently known connecting Saddam to Osama. However, Iraq was named in the "Axis of Evil" speach as posing a threat to US interests along with Iran and North Korea. All of these countries are direct sponsors of terrorism. It has long been known that Saddam donates money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    The difference between Bush supporters and Al Sadr is that Bush is not using Christianity as a reason for the Iraq war. Al Sadr is using his to justify the attacks on American soldiers, contractors, and our allies in Iraq. The militants are also intentially attacking noncombatants, such as religious leaders and Iraqi citizens who support the US, as well as foreigners who are trying to help the Iraqis. The US military, is not intentionally targeting and killing noncombatants.
     
  7. Puck

    Puck Spaceman

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Look, I have argued both sides of this political debate, both for and against Bush Simply to center my thinking. Over the last several months I have come to this conclusion.

    I like Bush. I voted for him in the first election with the hope of giving us some dignity back in the presidencey. as well as balls. I was worried in the begining, when he said he was going to focus less on foriegn policy.

    Good things Bush has done:

    Cut taxes.
    Create Jobs by expanding and enhancing a once weakend military
    Created and also infused funds into americorps and the freedomcorps (Demostic orginizations that mobolize people to rebuild and work in inner cities as volunteers)
    kept a stagnant economy from collapsing by extending benefits to those in need
    5.9% unemployment isn't bad considering the turnover rate of new jobs vs old Jobs closing down
    If you need further proof of the good economy 62 new billionares were announced by forbes magazine this year

    Every democrat says the economy is really awful, I don't see it.

    bad things bush has done

    Launched a war in iraq using WMDs as the reasoning to get democrats to go.
    I have to say, I waited for Clinton in disappointment, to actually grow balls and stand up to saddam and knowing that bush would cerntainly makes me happy.
    Though I look at the WMDs thing as a mistake He should not have said that intellingence knew where they were. He should have said that the possibillity is to great to ignore that he has them or has the ability to produce them quickly. However, democrats may not have been so eager then. However, in the wake of not finding them for a year he should have sat down with the nation and just opened up about what happened. This would difuse tension in enough sane clear thinking people to aleast calm down the anti-war sentiment.

    Overspent money.

    There's gotta be a way to cut costs so that the elderly can retire at 65 still or maybe I'm completely blind in that sense and there isn't

    I don't get the view point that things are so awful in this nation because of bush. Have any of us really felt the patriot act? and prison scandal really isn't his fault, I bet under extreme stress anger and hatred some of us would do the same thing. (Nothing is wrong with expecting better, let's just be realistic here, they are human too.)

    Many people don't like bush because he thumps his bible and quotes scripture and all that, but I still don't see how this qualifies him as a bad president (even though I don't like it, I'm not requiring he not do that as a means of his qaulification)

    I don't really see how people are painting this as an awful situation, my biggest worry was his foreign policy but in realizing the UN couldn't even negotiate a cup of coffee let alone world peace I only as up to the US to fight and deal with terror properly, it's us against them.

    My hope is that bush can privately meet and iniate talks with some muslim nations and come to good terms, something I don't see kerry as able to do.

    I sincerely hope that this Anyone is better than Bush thing fades out, because as my grandpa says, "It's stinkin' thinkin'" I am not completely against a democrat's way of thinking, but logical and smart democrats are hard to come by since it seems they are obsessed with hating bush instead of coming up with a good counter argument they're saying we'll do better than bush, bush is evil blah blah blah.

    Bush is big bussiness is a good argument except for one thing, Who do you think creates the jobs and makes it so a vast military that defends us possible. if you guessed big bussiness you are correct. Who do you think makes medincine advancement and technology for the crippled possible? Hand it to big bussiness. Is big bussiness bad? No. Was Enron bad? Yes. Does this mean all bussiness is bad? No. Then why are democrats so opposed to bush going to the heart beat of our fine capitalist nation? I have no clue.

    I have a few more disagreements with bush that I must state before I close.

    Opposed to gay marrige introducing the FMA. I won't go into detail because I don't think this even a reason to vote for a president. Though Christians will disagree and more power to them.

    Healthcare. This became an issue long before bush was in office anyway so why take a chance on an unproven and very scary John Kerry, who might have the same policy of pretending to care about it and not doing a thing about it?


    In closing, those of you voting for Kerry over bush because anyone is better than bush please take a hard look what really is going on before you make a descion based soley on that. I've heard many democrats say Kerry scares them but anyone is better than bush. Even a worse president?

    -Josh-
     
  8. Wolf Dog

    Wolf Dog Spaceman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Irving, TX
    Wow, now I want to respond in the mudslinging before the thread is closed (I give it 10 more posts, 20 max).

    I don't think any politicians have integrity. Its simple, all you have to do is take responsibility for both the good and the bad, and admit your mistakes. I can understand Clinton wanting to lie about an affair, its a question that I don't think should be asked in the first place, so why even answer it? Then, at least give an "apology" that actually makes you sound sincerely sorry, because you should be sorry for having an affair, for lying, and playing a very large part in dragging the country through that mess. Bush didn't lie, but he misled the American people in going to war with Iraq by presenting intelligence which turned out to be false. Personally, I think if you tell someone something and later learn what you told them was false, you fess up and apologize, especially when people die as a result. It might not have been the only reason, but WMDs were one of the major reasons we went there.

    This coward thing is pretty pointless. Now if they willfully sent other people in their place to die, thats bad, but it simply didn't happen. Add to that that things happen when these men were very young. Clinton may actually be a coward, cause he really did run from serving, but Bush's case if different. Bush I think was given an opprotunity to be in the national guard likely becuase of his father but I really doubt he or his family asked for it. How many people, even those who became hero's in Vietnam after being drafted and we would not dare call cowards, would've rejected an opportunity like Bush got to not go over there? Furthermore, what does that really have to do with skill to lead the country 20 or 30 years later when they are much different, grown-up people? The biggest coward 30 years ago could also be the best president, there need be no correlation.
     
  9. Puck

    Puck Spaceman

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can agree with that completely bravo for some solid logic. The problem with that is people always look at the past to see what a man might do in the future, this is why people with hefty criminal records have a hard time finding work. If we always judge based on the past and not closer to the present we always have a distorted picture, because who I am now is not who I was 5 years ago. My core constantly evovles and changes based on the challenges I faced.

    You could make this argument for both candidates in the sense that no one twenty years ago is the same man he is today. I think the present counts for much more than the past.
     
  10. Ripper

    Ripper Peace Through Superior Firepower

    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Which makes Bush clearly the best choice.

    Just what are Kerry's positions on the various issues?



    Oh, wait... I have to specify which day.... :rolleyes:
     
  11. Puck

    Puck Spaceman

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd have to argue that since he started campaigning he hasn't really changed his tune. So I don't know where that remark comes from. Yes, it's true, he switched his policy when he decided to run, but don't we all have a right to change our opinions? My argument is not whether he has a right to change his mind contrary to his voting record, because he does, just like I do. My argument simply is, things aren't like he's describing, it's not a starving, poverty stricken nation needing to be rescued. And his stance on Iraq is very valid in some respect, it's just not gonna have me convinced he's good for the big job.

    -Josh-
     
  12. Ripper

    Ripper Peace Through Superior Firepower

    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    50
    "I actually voted for the $87 billion. Before I voted against it."

    John Kerry
     
  13. Wolf Dog

    Wolf Dog Spaceman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Irving, TX
    Well, if its what day that's really bad. I'm not sure what to make of him, I think you'd probably have to study him a lot. He doesn't do the best job of expressing his positions susinctly in the style needed when all that most people hear are the sound bites. Is that because his positions always change, he doesn't have clear positions, his clarity simply stinks, or because he talks about all sides of complex issues in such a way that his sound bites can betray him? As such, I'm not neccessarily sure where he stands and when and if he flip flops on an issues. I hope to get a better idea during the debates when I will actually get an opportunity to hear him talk about issues in detail.

    That said, I don't like this "flip-flopper" stuff. A lot of the time people accuse him of being a "flip flopper" for reasons totally lacking in logic and most of the time they call him that without backing it up at all. It seems to be an insult (one of many) just thrown out there too much in hopes that it will stick, like coward (among many others) with Bush. I can't imagine winning something using the means politicians do and being able to look at myself in the mirror. Assuming they can, it scares me about the people we let run our country.
     
  14. Wolf Dog

    Wolf Dog Spaceman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Irving, TX
    From what I understand, there was a conflict over how to fund the $87 billion. Kerry and other democrats wanted to repeal the tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% (when doesn't he) instead of putting it to deficit spending and were supporting an ammendment to the bill to do so. Not an economist myself, I prefer less taxes for everyone and no deficit spending, when you have to choose between the two I don't know how you make that decision to best bennefit the country so I'm not sure which side's plan would have been better. However, everyone wanted the $87 billion if it was going to be funded their way, so it was a fight over an ammendment. Kerry pledged to vote against it without the ammendment for repealing the tax cuts, Bush pledged to veto to it if it got to him with the ammendment. Aren't they both doing the same thing then?

    Please let me know where I am mistaken as I don't follow these things close enough.
     
  15. Maj.Striker

    Maj.Striker Swabbie
    Banned

    Messages:
    2,067
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Des Moines
    There's a lot of things I'd like to say here but I'm going to keep it brief because about the only long posts I typically read are Loaf's and Quarto's as they are well stated and backed by good sound reasoning. But just one point on the whole "bloodbath" that is Iraq, it's extremely sad. Our boys and girls are dying everyday in this thing...but, they're soldiers! What the hell did they think they would be doing in the army, making tea????!!! I'll borrow a quote from Maestro in Wing Commander Prophecy, "When you signed up didn't anyone tell that getting shot at was part of deal?!" I know that's cruel and you can argue the merits of the war and the politics behind it, but as someone else mentioned (I think it was Loaf) this is a volunteer army no one has been drafted into our military and forced over there. In World War 2 we lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers and no one was saying we shouldn't have been in that war... Oh sure, you say, well they attacked us first! Germany never attacked us...what the heck were we doing in Normandy? Just a couple of random thoughts...
     
  16. Ripper

    Ripper Peace Through Superior Firepower

    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    50
    "...those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgement to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

    John Kerry, Dec. 16 2003

    I would have to say that I agree with John Kerry.
     
  17. ck9791

    ck9791 Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    27,885
    Location:
    Ottumwa, IA
    Kerry has been a flip-flopper since he came back from Vietnam. He went to Vietnam on his second tour and served on a patrol boat. When he came back he joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and gave a speach before the senate stating that Americans were committing war crimes over there reminicent of Ghengis Khan. He also supposedly threw his medals over the fence of the White House in protest, although he has later said he he threw over another veteran's medals, or he threw his ribbons. Now Kerry touts his Vietnam experience as making him a hero and he proudly displays his medals and citations on his website.

    In 1991 Kerry voted against the use of force to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. At this time there were two resolutions, one authorizing the deployment of forces to the Gulf, Desert Shield, and a second authorizing the use of force to remove saddam, Desert Storm. The coalition also included France and Germany, as well as Middle Eastern nations such as Egypt. Kerry voted against the use of force to expel Saddam from Kuwait even when we had that large international coalition. Now he says that we should have those before undertaking military actions.

    He has flip-flopped on the Iraq war numerous times. He's been for it and against it. He criticizes Bush for going to war based on what turned out to be innacurate intelligence, but then last month says that he would have still gone to war even knowing that Iraq did not have WMDs.
     
  18. Ripper

    Ripper Peace Through Superior Firepower

    Messages:
    2,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    50
    I think I'll vote for John Kerry.


    After I vote against him.
     
  19. Wolf Dog

    Wolf Dog Spaceman

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Irving, TX
    I don't see a problem with going to Vietnam and then returning to the US wanting to pull forces out and speaking against the war. Serving in a war and being proud of your service to your country doesn't mean you have to support the war. He used some inexcusable words (like the Ghengis Khan stuff) when testifying and recounting the war testimonials of others. Once again, stuff that was done when they people were young men and different people. However, its still a case where an actual sincere apology should be in order even though he didn't lie, for the testimonials he repeated that would turn out to be false and to his fellow soldiers who were hurt by what he said.

    I don't know anything about voting records on the first Gulf War, but if Kerry never supported the first Gulf War then how did he "flip-flop." (Not that not supporting that war wouldn't be a bad thing, its just not a "flip-flop") As for the second, he opposes what Bush has done but I'm not sure what he would have done differently. I'm not sure there are necessarily "flip-flops" in there, but there sure could be. So, educate me and point them out where they are instead of simply saying he flip-flopped, which gives me nothing but your opinion.
     
  20. ck9791

    ck9791 Rear Admiral

    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    27,885
    Location:
    Ottumwa, IA
    If Kerry was proud of his service, why did he supposedly throw his medals over the fence around the White House?

    Kerry supported UN resolution 1441 allowing the use of force if Saddam did not comply with demands that he fully disclose his WMDs. And in the first democratic debate Kerry stated that while he would have preferred giving the inspectors more time he supported President Bush's decision to disarm Saddam.

    Then he flips to being against the war. Kerry later states that he voted to "threaten" the use of force against Saddam. And during the past spring and summer, Kerry has said repeatedly that he opposes President Bush's use of military force in Iraq and would have done things differently.

    However, last month, responding to a question from Bush, Kerry said that he still would have sent troops to Iraq even knowing that there were no WMDs. Flopping back to supporting the war.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page