Osama and Hussein

[southsider2k5]

How can you vote for Bush after the way he savaged McCain so cruely in the 2000 primaries?  Not asking to fight, asking because I am interested.  What Bush did to McCain, failed to in Michigan, succeeded in South Carolina, was one of the smuttiest dirtiest campaigns I have ever seen.

 

In fact I was reminded of that day in 1988 when Dole grabbed the vice president on the floor of the Senate and said, "stop lying about my record."  You don't often see such physical anger on the Senate floor but Dole was so incensed at Bush the first for what he did to Dole's record in the 1988 campaignn, just as Bush the second did to McCain in 2000, except the 1988 thing was no where near as bad as what was done to McCain.

My vote for Bush is reluctant at best. I have said on many occasions that if there were a sane middle ground canditate I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

 

There are 3 big strikes against Kerry IMO. #1 His admissions of being a war criminal in Vietnam, and then running off of that same war record. #2 He took funds from Chinese nationals during one of his senate campaigns, and even went so far as after recieving these funds, got this same person a hearing with the SEC to try to get his company listed in the US (he was unsuccessful). #3 His roll back of the middle and upper level tax cuts would be a Tonya Harding type attack on a recovering economy, that is seeing inflationary pressures.

 

And the other thing that bugs me on a personal level about Kerry is the lack of investigation or publicity about his history or backround on a critical level. The first two things I talked about have barely gotten any mention in the press, while the Bush/Cheney stuff has been rehashed ad nauseum. It already has a feeling like the Clinton White House, where all of the illegal activities that occured were barely glossed over in the mainstream media. The last thing I want is to go back to that kind of stuff.

[cwsox]

thank you for your answer!

[kapkomet]

thank you for your answer!

Actually, I would like to see your thoughts to those issues when you have a moment.

 

The other thing that I'll add, and I still have not been able to get this clearly defined.

 

I have a hard time with Kerry for what ss2k has down, but I also have a difficult time because his answers seem to change quite often, on some pretty important issues. And, also, whenever the question is asked of what he would do differently then the current Administration, we get the canned "I'll do what's best for America" BS answer. Well, of course he will.

 

HOW will we get out of Iraq? HOW will you balance the budget, in light of all the extra spending for defense? HOW will you cut defense spending, yet make America better prepared defensively?

 

WHY will you raise taxes? How will you keep the economy growing in light of less money flowing through the economy?

 

I hear that all these things are going to be done, but not a lick of why and how.

 

IMO, this hurts the credibility of Kerry. He needs to choose his VeeP, and start defining as to why he's a better candidate. Now what he's going to do but why he's going to do it and how it will make America better. Until then, he has not an ounce of credibility in my book.

[Texsox]

Why did you switch in the first place, Big Jim?

A couple of reasons.

 

1. The GOP attacks on the media. They are calling their guards bias until the public let's them guard themselves. I do not trust politicians that far.

 

2. The GOP attack on "activist Judges". The judicial branch is our check and balance. The GOP wants to enact whatever they want, not have it reported and believed. Two safe guards down the tube. This too gives the politicians too much power.

 

3. Spending. They can fund programs without raising taxes. How nice. I can have my cake and eat it to. In fact, if I eat a lot, the economy will grow so fast, we'll have even more cake! If they had to raise taxes to fund programs, we'd know, and could vote them out.

 

I am also against the dealth penanlty, too much power to the government. I think the GOP has a lousy civil rights record, environmental record, and is too old white male dominated.

 

Now I can also run a list of social issues I'm less than excited about from the Dems. It's a lesser of two evils issue.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You do need some help I'll give you that much.

 

Reagan did more for this country in his 8 years than any other president this century save for Roosevelt and his record of accomplishments speaks for itself.

 

You can try to tarnish his record as much as you like to but as always you dont have a leg to stand on.

Say whatever you want about Reagan, there is one thing we can all agree on. We will forever be in his debt. (Read into that whatever you want. )

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Actually, I would like to see your thoughts to those issues when you have a moment.

 

The other thing that I'll add, and I still have not been able to get this clearly defined.

 

I have a hard time with Kerry for what ss2k has down, but I also have a difficult time because his answers seem to change quite often, on some pretty important issues.  And, also, whenever the question is asked of what he would do differently then the current Administration, we get the canned "I'll do what's best for America" BS answer.  Well, of course he will. 

 

HOW will we get out of Iraq?  HOW will you balance the budget, in light of all the extra spending for defense?  HOW will you cut defense spending, yet make America better prepared defensively?

 

WHY will you raise taxes?  How will you keep the economy growing in light of less money flowing through the economy?

 

I hear that all these things are going to be done, but not a lick of why and how.

 

IMO, this hurts the credibility of Kerry.  He needs to choose his VeeP, and start defining as to why he's a better candidate.  Now what he's going to do but why he's going to do it and how it will make America better.  Until then, he has not an ounce of credibility in my book.

1. Outside of my left liberatarian leanings of "We shouldn't have been in there in the first place..." , the presence of US troops in maintaining the illusion of safety. I was talking to a few people I know who have been over there (including Nuke) and in one instant Nuke told me that on his trips in Fallujah (before the Marines went in) they had no real concrete goals for what needed to be done in the post-war. Republican Congressman Ron Paul (he's more of a libertarian conservative) has written a lot about disengagement plans from Iraq on antiwar.com and other sites. He's become one of the bipartisan critics of the PATRIOT Act, the war in Iraq, the idea of endless war against "terror". He's for attacking terrorists where there actually is a conceivable threat against the US rather than turning the US into a global police chief when it does not have the manpower or the feasibility to succeed. Increased diplomacy will take time because the US sorta just said "f*** Saddam. We're taking him out." (Actual George W. Bush quote as seen in Time magazine in a story about the pre-war meetings) but long lasting allegiances to rebuild Iraq can be forged because it is in everyone's interest to see a non-asshat regime built in. Reagan once said something that would apply to the sacked neoconservatives who ultimately helped push this administration into invading Iraq on false pretenses: "Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root."

 

2. Balanced budgets are a joke. Although Joe Conason does have a lot of evidence in his book "Big Lies: Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts Truth" (Which got through pretty cleanly from the wringer of the non-partisan fact checkers at SpinSanity) discusses that there is more growth during Democratic presidencies than Republican, even if you remove Hoover. People want balanced budgets but in an age of corporate welfare, Congressional pork abound and campaign contributions doing the talking, the wants/needs of the average schmoe aren't too high on the political "To Do" list. We could not raise taxes and end the War on Drugs to increase revenues for the government and the states. Not to mention a 15% cut in Pentagon spending would still keep us more than protected but also allow for adequate funding for NCLB, welfare, education, etc.

 

Bush is not even a conservative and that's from Wayne Madsen, who was in the Nat'l Security Agency during the Reagan administration.

 

He has a very interesting article on Bush and the neo-conservatives that inhabit a lot of positions in his administration. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2624658

 

If there are conservatives on the board, I strongly suggest voting Libertarian because they would be more closely aligned with your political believes than neo-conservatives.

[kapkomet]

Apu, I agree with you, in that liberitarian is more in line with what most "conservatives" view. The problem with that is, unfortunately, we are in a two party system. If we vote our conscience, we basically get a throw away vote. What are your thoughts about that (I know I'm being waaaay general, but I don't have a heck of a lot of time to expand).

 

Contrary to be standing up for Bush, frankly, I don't really like him. But, I really have more issues with Kerry, and so, I'm stuck voting for no-one I really want to.

[Chisoxfn]

Apu, I agree with you, in that liberitarian is more in line with what most "conservatives" view.  The problem with that is, unfortunately, we are in a two party system.  If we vote our conscience, we basically get a throw away vote.  What are your thoughts about that (I know I'm being waaaay general, but I don't have a heck of a lot of time to expand).

 

Contrary to be standing up for Bush, frankly, I don't really like him.  But, I really have more issues with Kerry, and so, I'm stuck voting for no-one I really want to.

For that reason I am voting for Bush. Its not that I'm in love with everything he does, its that I'm scared crapless of some of the things I feel Kerry will do.

[Goldmember]

For that reason I am voting for Bush.  Its not that I'm in love with everything he does, its that I'm scared crapless of some of the things I feel Kerry will do.

agreed.

[southsider2k5]

Hey Apu who is the Libetarian canditate?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I believe the candidate is Gary Nolan for the LP. Their convention was supposed to be held at the end of May in Atlanta but the LP's national web page does not have who was nominated for President on it yet. I just know that Nolan has been leading the pack.

[southsider2k5]

I believe the candidate is Gary Nolan for the LP.  Their convention was supposed to be held at the end of May in Atlanta but the LP's national web page does not have who was nominated for President on it yet.  I just know that Nolan has been leading the pack.

OK stupid question #2, because I have no idea, but where does LaRouche fit into all of this?

[cwsox]

OK stupid question #2, because I have no idea, but where does LaRouche fit into all of this?

he is a loon

 

he is really out there in la la land

 

The major third party candidtaes (Reform, Green, Libertarian) are folks genuinely dedicated to their cause. LaRouche is a felon and a lunatic with a sort of nuke the whales platform (and that indeed was a bumper sticker on the car of the last LaRouche organizer I spoke with).

[southsider2k5]

he is a loon

 

he is really out there in la la land

 

The major third party candidtaes (Reform, Green, Libertarian) are folks genuinely dedicated to their cause.  LaRouche is a felon and a lunatic with a sort of nuke the whales platform (and that indeed was a bumper sticker on the car of the last LaRouche organizer I spoke with).

I am very familiar with the LaRouche supporters. They infest downtown Chicago, and espesially the areas around DePaul and the Board of Trade during election years. I was more trying to connect if Lyndon was indeed a Libertarian, or if I was remembering wrong.

[cwsox]

I am very familiar with the LaRouche supporters.  They infest downtown Chicago, and espesially the areas around DePaul and the Board of Trade during election years.  I was more trying to connect if Lyndon was indeed a Libertarian, or if I was remembering wrong.

oh, sorry -

 

LaRouche is defintely not a Libertarian.

 

I am not sure where he fits in on any spectrum.

 

We have a small libertarian party out here. They are interesting folk (I say that in a very positive way).

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Apu, I agree with you, in that liberitarian is more in line with what most "conservatives" view.  The problem with that is, unfortunately, we are in a two party system.  If we vote our conscience, we basically get a throw away vote.  What are your thoughts about that (I know I'm being waaaay general, but I don't have a heck of a lot of time to expand).

 

Contrary to be standing up for Bush, frankly, I don't really like him.  But, I really have more issues with Kerry, and so, I'm stuck voting for no-one I really want to.

I think there should be more parties. However, a lot of people before elections start say "Well the Republicans or Democrats will win so..." instead of mobilizing in an actual party that agrees more with their personal beliefs if the Rep/Dem candidate is a douchebag (which is true in both cases in this 2004 election)

 

The Republican party has been hijacked more and more by neo-conservatives who are pretty much the antithesis to traditional conservatism. The Democrats and Republicans have become beholden to corporate interests (see books like "Pigs at the Trough" or www.opensecrets.org to find out who gives what to candidates and see how they are all beholden to big corporate interests)

 

Given the cleavages that are growing, I think more traditional conservatives will leave to the Libertarian party and disaffected Democrats will join the Greens. I don't think it's throwing away the vote if you vote for a 3rd (or 4th) party because if they get enough votes, they get matching funds in the next election which is a great boost to helping them establish a bigger party.

 

After Perot made it into the debates, the Democrats and Republican National Committees got together and moved the polling threshhold to get into the debate from 5% to 15%. This made it more difficult for 3rd parties to get into the national spectrum. There was a huge media story about Nader just showing up at a Presidential debate in Boston in 2000 just to watch (he had a ticket to the event) and Boston State Troopers barred him from the building. When he was given a press pass, the Troopers continued to ban him from the building. Hell, I won't even get into a lot of the candidates that get to run unopposed for their government seats in many districts around the US so there is no real accountability for them because its not like they can vote for another candidate.

[BrandoFan]

There was a huge media story about Nader just showing up at a Presidential debate in Boston in 2000 just to watch (he had a ticket to the event) and Boston State Troopers barred him from the building. When he was given a press pass, the Troopers continued to ban him from the building

 

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Apu, I agree with you, in that liberitarian is more in line with what most "conservatives" view.  The problem with that is, unfortunately, we are in a two party system.  If we vote our conscience, we basically get a throw away vote.  What are your thoughts about that (I know I'm being waaaay general, but I don't have a heck of a lot of time to expand).

 

Contrary to be standing up for Bush, frankly, I don't really like him.  But, I really have more issues with Kerry, and so, I'm stuck voting for no-one I really want to.

I largely agree with that. I dont love Bush, i'm only voting for him because I think he'll do a much better job than Kerry and we unfortunately have only 2 candidates with an actual shot at this. I've read up on this Ron Paul guy and he does make a lot of sense

[Kid Gleason]

I don't know, maybe I should stay out of this thing here. I haven't read it at all until today. But ya know what, I am kind of bothered by a bit here. I see that CW is part of the Clergy. I think I knew that, but I get boggled up as to who is what around here. But a few things stike me as wrong here.

 

One thing is that I see CW condeming Reagan for infidelity. Isn't it there something about forgiving in the Bible? Hating the sin and not the sinner? If God can forgive, can't you? Nancy loved the heck out of Reagan, and in the past few years he and his son reconciled, isn't there something to that?

 

In my opinion, I am not the best person who does my job, IMO, but I try pretty damn hard. I know that there are some who like my work, I am also positive that some think I can do better. I'm only a computer operator/Land Surveyor. Not much hangs on my every move. I make errors, and I also make great choices.

 

But at the end of the day, at the end of my life, I hope more than anything I am not judged by the people I know as a computer technician or a Land Surveyor. I hope those words never even come up at my funeral and wake. I hope that instead I am looked at as my duties as a father and a husband. I also hope I am judged on my compassion for the people around me.

 

My point is that no matter what he was to you as a President, to some people he was a human being, and one who loved, and was loved. I would hope a man of the Clergy would understand that. No matter how much time passes, he deserves respect for the people that loved him. I am sure he doesn't care how you speak of him, but I would wager that the people who loved him do, and especially at the time of his burial. A week is also not enough healing time.

 

No President will please everybody, as no garbage collector will. He made mistakes in his job, as I also have done. His were on a larger scale than mine, but I could never do what he did, nor would I care to. He was human, as are we all.

 

As a man of the Clergy, you are one who should be able to show us decency, I would have to hope. Politics and Religion are a terrible mix, as is proven time and time again. In somebodies death is a terrible time to let the two mix.

[cwsox]

Kid, I did not condemn him. Not in the least.

 

I pointed out where other church bodies would label him.

 

And that only because so many people point at Clinton and say "look at Clinton" while overlooking the judgment that Reagan would be under in some church bodies (not mine).

 

If Reagan is a human being under God's grace, and he was, so is Clinton, under God's grace, and my point is the hypocrasy at pointing at Clinton while excusing Reagan. And stop making cheap political points about Clinton's private life when Reagan's - by those same standards - was just as guilty.

 

You are somewhat new here. I kind of wish you had inquired privately. I am usually blasted by some here for extending God's grace totally liberally.

 

The marriage of Ronald and Nancy is one I would have done. Those two certainly loved each other. That was always apparent.

 

We all live totally under God's grace and all of us have reason to cling to it.

 

My point was not a judgment of Reagan but to point out the hypocrasy that goes with mocking a Clinton while excusing a Reagan. The bottom line is: it was none of our business. All of us are under God's grace, or none. And my God opts for all of us receiving grace.

[Kid Gleason]

You are somewhat new here.  I kind of wish you had inquired privately.  I am usually blasted by some here for extending God's grace totally liberally.

I apologize for that. My bad. I am not a fully religious person in that I don't claim any religion my own. I believe they all are somewhat right, and somewhat wrong. But I have nothing but the highest respect for those that give their lives to their Church.

 

See your point there concerning Clinton and Reagan. Personally, I couldn't stand Clinton, and found almost as much to dislike with Gore. Just not sure about your timing in pointing it out. But eh, what ya gonna do? Not like I am losing sleep over this.

[Steff]

See your point there concerning Clinton and Reagan.

Kid.. what point do you see..?

 

One was married and President at the time.. the other was divorced BEFORE he met his second wife..

[mreye]

Kid.. what point do you see..?

 

One was married and President at the time.. the other was divorced BEFORE he met his second wife..

One was having sexual relations with a girl young enough to be his daughter. The other was divorced for almost a year when he met his second wife and was "ashamed" by his own words for having failed in marriage.

[Steff]

One was having sexual relations with a girl young enough to be his daughter..

Quickly on this point....

 

 

As long as they are 2 consenting adults age difference doesn't mean much to me.

[kapkomet]

One was having sexual relations with a girl young enough to be his daughter. The other was divorced for almost a year when he met his second wife and was "ashamed" by his own words for having failed in marriage.

This is where I differ about things with Clinton. I could care less about who he boinked or got a knob polish from. Whatever. It's his business.

 

That he lied about it under oath as a sitting president is what I have an issue with, as that mocks what this country is all about.