Just to show you...

[kapkomet]

Here's a small list compiled for GWB (I can see both sides, thank you):

 

Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission. Then, he turns around and supports it.

 

Bush said Condleeza Rice wouldn't testify before the 9/11 commission, then orders her to testify.

 

Bush opposed the Department of Homeland Security, then he supports.

 

Bush vows to go after Osama and bring him in dead or alive, then he goes after Saddam Hussein, saying, "I truly am not that concerned about him".

 

Bush says gay marriage is the state's right to decide, then calls for a constitutional amendment barring them.

 

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

 

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it and, in fact, wants to ease border restrictions.

 

Bush first says he'll provide money for emergency first responders, then he doesn't.

 

Bush first says that "help is on the way" to the military, then he cuts benefits.

 

Then there's No Child Left Behind, Patients' Bill of Rights, the enviroment, carbon dioxide transmissions and a whole gaggle of other things.

 

The point is, there's so many facets of this election, and people saying what everyone wants to hear. They both suck, but what can we do?

[Be Good]

See Bush flip flops too.

[kapkomet]

Yea, hence my point from another thread, THEY ALL DO IT.

 

(I think I'm going to change my name to theyalldoit.)

[LowerCaseRepublican]

They're most all insane. There were a few good Congressmen like Paul Wellstone (RIP), Pon Paul...There some that aren't already purchased and sold.

 

I know not a lot of people here like Michael Moore but has has an absolutely hilarious bit in his TV show "The Awful Truth" where he hires a pimp to go to the GOP Committee and the Dem Committee and demands that he get a share of campaign contributions to candidates from companies and the such. Really when you think about it, the company is a John who gives money to the ho in return for a trick. That's really what so much of Congress is. It gets amusing when the pimp calls Congressmen a "bunch of ho's" and asks them to put on stilletto heels.

 

And one more for you Kap, he was behind putting Kissenger in as chairman of the 9/11 commission. Then he turned around and decided to not install him.

[kapkomet]

That was hardly talked about. Kissenger would have been a good one IMO to head that up.

 

Politics is in shambles. No one is represented without money. No one. I have several examples from where I work. Both parties, both ways, both sides, up and down, fowards and backwards, the modus appredus is how much money can you give me, and we'll fix your problem.

 

:puke

 

:fyou government.

[southsider2k5]

Yea, hence my point from another thread, THEY ALL DO IT.

 

(I think I'm going to change my name to theyalldoit.)

Now I would be curious to see some reciprocity on Kerry.

[kapkomet]

It'll be noted by some, but others, he's the perfect politician.

[Rex Kickass]

Kap:

 

Given that these flip-flops are actual policies, doesn't that trouble you some? Why would the President oppose an independent commission to investigate the terror attacks on our country? And when you ask the military to sacrifice in a way that nobody else has been asked to sacrifice since the 1970s, how can you justify cutting their benefits?

 

How can you justify your support for Bush?

 

You can also add Bush saying he won't play nuclear blackmail with the North Koreans and negotiate a nuke programs freeze a couple years ago and then coming to the table last month with a deal nearly identical to the one that the Clinton administration proposed in 1994 and the Bush administration scuttled in 2001-02?

[kapkomet]

Good question.

 

I really can't stand either candidate.

 

But, this "reach out to the world so all our problems will be solved" platform that Kerry is running on (yea, the UN is sooooooooo helpful), not to mention, he and Mr. Edwards are the richest Democratic ticket in HISTORY while talking about how they're going to help the "poor, helpless middle class American" BY RAISING OUR TAXES is enough to make me want to completely upchuck my Wheaties.

 

With Bush (well, really, his administration, because the dude has not had an original idea in his life), you know what you get. He tells us what's going to happen, and he does it. I disagree with much of his policy, but you generally know what he stands for, even if wrong.

 

There's 1,000 more things I can pile on here, but Bush (or what he represents) to me is a lesser of two terrible candidates. In fact, I will add some more to this later.

[Heads22]

On a side note:

 

Do you guys think that if Joe Liebermann (ugh) had won the dem nomination, there would be many more third party voters?

[Rex Kickass]

Good question.

 

I really can't stand either candidate. 

 

But, this "reach out to the world so all our problems will be solved" platform that Kerry is running on (yea, the UN is sooooooooo helpful), not to mention, he and Mr. Edwards are the richest Democratic ticket in HISTORY while talking about how they're going to help the "poor, helpless middle class American" BY RAISING OUR TAXES is enough to make me want to completely upchuck my Wheaties.

 

With Bush (well, really, his administration, because the dude has not had an original idea in his life), you know what you get.  He tells us what's going to happen, and he does it.  I disagree with much of his policy, but you generally know what he stands for, even if wrong.

 

There's 1,000 more things I can pile on here, but Bush (or what he represents) to me is a lesser of two terrible candidates.  In fact, I will add some more to this later.

Kap: a couple things here.

 

Reaching out to the world community is what a lot of political thinkers who have studied how to fight non-governmental enemies say is the best defense against a war against terrorists. Bush and Kerry represent two different tacts of acheiving the same goal.

 

Bush wants to "drain the swamp" so to speak. This has a lot of risks though, overextending your military, increasing anger towards the U.S. in a palpable, less latent and more active and violent form and diverting your own resources and ultimately running the risks of changing your way of life to preserve your way of life (e.g. reduction of civil liberties to protect freedom). Some of these have been fully realized and there is anecdotal evidence to support many of the risks this doctrine has.

 

On the other hand, Kerry's approach is more moderate. Using force when necessary to protect the homeland and focusing on improving our image to the rest of the world. This has its risks too, namely that these actions could be seen as cultural imperialism, and that our intelligence may not be intelligent enough to protect our citizens - although that's a risk that the Bush administration's policy carries as well, however with our soldiers abroad and actively fighting, it makes them sadly a much more accessible target. The idea behind this approach is that if the United States is able to seem more even handed towards muslim relations (actual policy notwithstanding) the general Muslim street won't lean towards a jihadist point of view. Part of why the occupation in Germany post World War II was so peaceful was because the relationship between once the war was over, the Americans bombed them with butter. Doing the same here, and showing support for the people of states with humanitarian action and aid may stem the tide of terrorism as a viable force against western ideals.

 

Secondly, although tax hikes are never fun, they are sometimes necessary. In fact, Reagan hiked taxes in his first and second term because it became apparent that the government could not cover the costs involved from his previous tax breaks. The Kerry administration has asked the wealthier members of our society to shoulder a burden equivalent to what they carried a couple years ago. He isn't advocating taxes for everyone - and to be honest, hes asking to tax himself more and not the middle class. In otherwords, he's asking rich Americans including himself to sacrifice in order to pay the bills for our security costs, both socially and politically. How is this irresponsible?

[Rex Kickass]

On a side note:

 

Do you guys think that if Joe Liebermann (ugh) had won the dem nomination, there would be many more third party voters?

I think Bush would beat Lieberman in a walk.

[southsider2k5]

I think Bush would beat Lieberman in a walk.

I hate to say this, becuase I like to think as a people we have gotten past this as a nation, but there are way to many people who won't vote for a Jew. There is still way too much racism in this country, and people who fear the unknown. You'd mobilize all of the little hate groups who think that Israel already runs the US.

[CrimsonWeltall]

In 1999, when voters were polled if they would vote for a reasonably well-qualified candidate with attribute X...

 

92% of people would vote for a Jewish president

84% for Mormon

59% for a homosexual

49% for an atheist

 

The more traditional denominations of Christianity are all in the high 90s. Opinions on an Islamic candidate were not taken.

 

Slate

[southsider2k5]

In 1999, when voters were polled if they would vote for a reasonably well-qualified candidate with attribute X...

 

92% of people would vote for a Jewish president

84% for Mormon

59% for a homosexual

49% for an atheist

 

The more traditional denominations of Christianity are all in the high 90s.  Opinions on an Islamic candidate were not taken.

 

Slate

Well that makes me feel better, well at least the Jewish part. I think this country could benefit from more diversity in public office. We are so stuck in the straight Christian White Male pattern, it is sick.

[Rex Kickass]

Leiberman wouldn't lose because he's a jew. He'd lose cause he's a boring twit who's only contribution to the democratic primaries was coming up with the word "Joementum" I was all excited when he left and said Joe Revoir.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The gay marriage ammendment issue was hit upon here, so I figure it can go here. No suprise George is leading the charge...

 

Bush Push for marriage ammendment

[kapkomet]

Bush is DEAD WRONG here.

 

And I'm not a "for gay marriage person".

 

The government has no bearing to tell us what to do with this issue.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bush is DEAD WRONG here.

 

And I'm not a "for gay marriage person".

 

The government has no bearing to tell us what to do with this issue.

 

Agreed. And it not about being for or against gay marriage like you say. It has everything to do with the ploiticizing the US Constitution in a waaay too casual manner. It would be a very scary test case to see just how much you can wipe your ass with the Constitution before the public bothers to notice.

[Rex Kickass]

Its beyond the politics of this. If the Federal Government wants to not allow gay marriage, that's fine. The difference here is that the President wants to codify discrimination for the first time in the constitution since it was drafted in 1787.

 

If the Bush administration supports the notion of limited government, why isn't an issue like this left to the states in the first place? The issue of cousins marrying is a state one.

 

So Kap, you've seen these issues that you have problems with. And many of them don't seem that small. What makes Bush deserve reelection?

[kapkomet]

There are two issues of which I select Bush for.

 

1) Taxes. Not enough people truly understand the economy of the United States. Lower taxes, even for the rich, over the last 30 years have stimulated the economy (the WHOLE economy, not just the "rich"). I could go into the 10,000 word essay about why this is true, but I won't bore you.

 

It frightens me when Hillary Clinton (aka repeating the Democratic Stance) stands in front of a group of people (Dem fundraiser) and says, (paraphrasing) you all have benefitted from these tax cuts, but you need to pay more so we can pay for the rest who are less fortunate. We will raise your taxes for this purpose. (Hellooooooooo, McFly. USSR anyone?)

 

Democrats believe (loosely) that the government should take care of the people, because they are not capable of taking care of themselves. I don't want the government to have any more then they have right now, because in my opinion, they can't do right with what they have now. It should be up to the every day American to take care of themselves. How many rags to riches stories do you need to know? It happens ALL THE TIME. It's the "American Dream". But the Democratic tendancy is to GIVE people stuff. That creates a huge complacency in our society, and therefore less economic growth.

 

2) More important, the security of this country and the "war on terror". Bluntly put, I do not trust John Kerry on this issue. Now, many Democrats will say that this war stuff is out of line, we shouldn't be in Iraq, blub blub blub blub. There is more then enough proof that Saddam had this stuff in the past, had the programs, has gone on television saying "down with America," etc etc etc. But no, if the Democratic party had their way, we shouldn't be over there. I think it is a sham how they convinced us to be over there, but it still needed to be done. I think we're there for a bigger purpose, and that was to draw "terrorists" out of Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc into Iraq, and fight them there, instad of HERE.

 

Next, Dems will come up with that we will flame the desires of making MORE terrorists because we have taken the fight over there. Look, they hit US and killed 3,000 innocent lives. GAME ON, is what I say. And I don't say that recklessly. Our policy should be to protect the people of this country and if that means opening up another front, so be it.

 

The main reason I don't trust Kerry on this issue (among others), is because now that he is the candidate, he DOES know the full story as to why things are happening they way they are, and he's politicizing it like mad (I know, Bush is too), and talking about letting the UN handle everything, etc... the UN has not done ANYTHING, and I have a real issue with that. What will change? Nothing. And, so, we would sit, because the UN told us no. Ummm, NO, we shouldn't sit and let the corruption of the UN lead us. France and Germany was against this war because they were making BILLIONS off of the old regime, illegaly. And they knew when we got there we would know all the dirty secrets. And Kerry knows it too, yet, he's saying "we need nation building, blub blub"... uh huh...

 

There's more, personality reasons, that I won't go into now.

 

There's still a lot of time before the election. I'm 90% sure where my vote will go, but there's a lot that can happen to make me think about that 10% a little more.

[Rex Kickass]

There are two issues of which I select Bush for.

 

1)  Taxes.  Not enough people truly understand the economy of the United States.  Lower taxes, even for the rich, over the last 30 years have stimulated the economy (the WHOLE economy, not just the "rich").  I could go into the 10,000 word essay about why this is true, but I won't bore you. 

 

It frightens me when Hillary Clinton (aka repeating the Democratic Stance) stands in front of a group of people (Dem fundraiser) and says, (paraphrasing) you all have benefitted from these tax cuts, but you need to pay more so we can pay for the rest who are less fortunate.  We will raise your taxes for this purpose. (Hellooooooooo, McFly.  USSR anyone?)

 

Democrats believe (loosely) that the government should take care of the people, because they are not capable of taking care of themselves.  I don't want the government to have any more then they have right now, because in my opinion, they can't do right with what they have now.  It should be up to the every day American to take care of themselves.  How many rags to riches stories do you need to know?  It happens ALL THE TIME.  It's the "American Dream".  But the Democratic tendancy is to GIVE people stuff.  That creates a huge complacency in our society, and therefore less economic growth.

 

2) More important, the security of this country and the "war on terror".  Bluntly put, I do not trust John Kerry on this issue.  Now, many Democrats will say that this war stuff is out of line, we shouldn't be in Iraq, blub blub blub blub.  There is more then enough proof that Saddam had this stuff in the past, had the programs, has gone on television saying "down with America," etc etc etc.  But no, if the Democratic party had their way, we shouldn't be over there.  I think it is a sham how they convinced us to be over there, but it still needed to be done.  I think we're there for a bigger purpose, and that was to draw "terrorists" out of Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc into Iraq, and fight them there, instad of HERE. 

 

Next, Dems will come up with that we will flame the desires of making MORE terrorists because we have taken the fight over there.  Look, they hit US and killed 3,000 innocent lives.  GAME ON, is what I say.  And I don't say that recklessly.  Our policy should be to protect the people of this country and if that means opening up another front, so be it.

 

The main reason I don't trust Kerry on this issue (among others), is because now that he is the candidate, he DOES know the full story as to why things are happening they way they are, and he's politicizing it like mad (I know, Bush is too), and talking about letting the UN handle everything, etc... the UN has not done ANYTHING, and I have a real issue with that.  What will change?  Nothing.  And, so, we would sit, because the UN told us no.  Ummm, NO, we shouldn't sit and let the corruption of the UN lead us.  France and Germany was against this war because they were making BILLIONS off of the old regime, illegaly.  And they knew when we got there we would know all the dirty secrets.  And Kerry knows it too, yet, he's saying "we need nation building, blub blub"... uh huh...

 

There's more, personality reasons, that I won't go into now.

 

There's still a lot of time before the election.  I'm 90% sure where my vote will go, but there's a lot that can happen to make me think about that 10% a little more.

Kap,

 

Here is where I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Tax cuts are beneficial to the economy, I'll grant you that. However, the debate is what kind of tax cuts are necessary to stimulate the economy and when is it appropriate to cut taxes. Reagan knew this well - he agreed to two tax HIKES in his presidency including one in his second term that he proposed. What Hillary Clinton said was stupid - but then again, the proposal on the table is to bring taxes for the richest 1 percent up to where it was in 2000. Judging by the massive growth of wealth in the 1990s, I think its safe to say we weren't exactly in an oppressive tax regime. Also the tax hikes they speak of are temporary as well. And taxpayers pay this money elsewhere. Reduced revenue to the US government means increased unfunded mandates for the states. Which means cuts in programs like education, roads, etc. It means state deficits requiring states to raise income taxes or, in the case of California, borrow like crazy. It means that Universities like Michigan State University are required to hike their tuition 20 some percent over 3 years so that they can stay afloat.

 

Speaking as a democrat, I believe that the government is responsible for its people and needs to do everything in its perview necessary to make the average citizen able to compete in a world that is changing. What we needed to provide 40 years ago as a country is not what we need now. Times have changed and so have needs. The reason the rags to riches stories are so exceptional is that they are generally the exception. I also know people who can't get a job because they can't afford the education they need to make a decent living. If the concept is equal opportunity and not equal result, the government needs to make sure that the poorest 5% have at least some degree of opportunity. Period. That is not what the constitution requires, but its what an enlightened society requires.

 

On the war on terror, you can say you don't trust Kerry, but who let counterterrorism sit on the shelf for nine months because they still had cold war glasses on and were desperate to be the UnClinton? (Clinton spoke often of the threat of terror in 99/2000) It wasn't Kerry. I don't think that could have necessarily stopped Sept. 11, but it didn't help. Here's a question for you, how can you trust a president on the war on terror when the number one terrorist in Iraq (Zarqawi) could have been taken out three times before the Iraqi war started but the Bush administration said no - three times - mostly because it would shift the focus from Iraq. I think we gotta stay in Iraq and clean up our mess - this place is our responsibility now. But Iraq was a contained state to begin with. We were bombing the place every five days since 1991. Any kind of significant weapons program would be difficult to produce to say the least, and we had entered into a sort of MAD pact with Saddam - you f*** with us, you die. Iraq was a managable problem, a little pin prick if you will. However, there is Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, where we have lots of problems. and 3 of these folks are supposed to be our allies. We're doing very little there.

 

France and Germany were making illegal cash from the Oil for Food program. But one company in America did also contract work in Iraq during the embargo, against federal law. It was done through a French intermediary firm owned by Halliburton whose CEO at the time was the current Vice President.

 

Sure you still trust this administration?

[israel4ever]

I hate to say this, becuase I like to think as a people we have gotten past this as a nation, but there are way to many people who won't vote for a Jew.  There is still way too much racism in this country, and people who fear the unknown.  You'd mobilize all of the little hate groups who think that Israel already runs the US.

Sad but true.

 

I don't think you'll see an African-American, a female, a homosexual, or a hispanic president for a LONNNNNGG time either.