|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 8, 2004 23:03:45 GMT -5
Come back Perot!!!!  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisR155 on Mar 9, 2004 2:04:22 GMT -5
I will promise to uphold and defend my country against those who threaten it regardless of who the commander-in-cheif may be. I will do the duty I'm called upon to do, however, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't dispute that Sadaam Hussien was/is an evil man who needed to be removed from power. However, that does not change the reason why we went to war. The cheif purpose behind the war, at least before it began, was not that Sadaam Hussien was an evil dictator. There are dozens more around the world, at least one in our own hemispere. The reason we went to war was because we were told with 100% certainty that Iraq had produced and was continuing to produce weapons of mass destruction capable of harming the United States and its allies. However, after the war we're allowed to say, "Well it's OK that they didn't have WMD, because we removed an evil man from power." I don't approve of such Machavellian ideas. That's not a good way to go about things IMO. Some may choose to believe that the Bush administration completely lied to and mislead the American people, while others may say it was an intelligence mishap. I believe it was a little bit of both. I think they perhaps cherry-picked a little info, but were about 50% sure there were WMD. But that's irrelevant, doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration was incorrect. I'm not saying those people died for no reason, however, I am saying they died for a reason other than the one their commander-in-cheif told them. I will have to disagree with you on our purpose for going to war. Yes, a prime stated reason for going to War was that we thought that they had WMD. But you know what...A lot of your liberal politicians that are slamming Bush now, saying he knew they didn't have WMD and shouldn't have gone to war...we have tapes of those politicians saying "We Know that Saddam Has Weapons of Mass Destruction." They are changing with the scenery. They feel they can go with the flow of some of the public...so why not change their opinion now...who is gonna remember what they said before anyways? As to the purpose of the war...I believe you have to look deeper than just did they have WMD. You have to answer the question...Did they have the capability to develop WMD? How about this example: I bet if we found out about plans of Bin Laden to attack us as they did on 9/11 before it happened...and we used troops and force to attack him before it ever happened....Much of the liberal nation would be in an uproar for the unjustified actions. But after 9/11 they complained about us not preventing the acts and catching it before hand. What the hell do you think Bush was doing with Iraq? Preventative maintanance...now if we did nothing now and 2 years later they attacked us...all you liberals would be screaming...WHY DIDN'T YOU DO ANYTHING BUSH? Can everything go both ways? Bush could never do anything right in your eyes from the beginning. |
|
|
|
Post by kyblueintenn on Mar 9, 2004 10:54:57 GMT -5
Exactly my point earlier chris, the Congress was briefed on alot of the intel that we had, and THE Biggest part of them beleived it as well, they saw the same thing the President saw, and now because its election time, they seem to be changing their stories.  BTW, dont you love how Clinton lobbed a bomb or 2 into Osama's camp during his term, and then not even go after him, when their are proof they could have gotten him then,and it was just enough to PO him and very possibly was the reason behind 911. Now for Kerry he is running against his own record -- he's against NAFTA but voted for it, he's against the USA Patriot Act but voted for it, he's against Operation Iraqi Freedom but voted for it. Concerning the authorization for the use of force against Iraq last year, however, Senator Kerry had this to say on 23 January 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...."
On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote 'I share your concerns' and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, 'I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis.' Did you have a third position?... "I think it is entirely possible [the extramarital affair by Clinton] was a distraction that kept him from performing his duty as president." --John Kerry, September 2001 "If anything, there may now be a greater appreciation for the trouble you can get into for certain behavior. More parents are teaching their children about lying, about humiliation, about family hurt, about public responsibility, than before we ever heard the name of Monica Lewinsky." --John Kerry, February, 1999 Massachusetts's most liberal senator -- check that, America's most liberal senator -- has, over the years, voted against defense-appropriations bills funding weapons that have proved essential to U.S. national security, including the Patriot Missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber. Kerry's voting record also shows his support for cutting funding or altogether canceling existing weapons systems such as the M-1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Apache helicopter, B-1 Bomber, F-14, F-15, F-16 and AV-8B Harrier. Kerry also voted against the Navy's Aegis Air Defense Cruiser and Trident Missile System for U.S. submarines. |
|
|
|
Post by KY Kid on Mar 9, 2004 20:10:15 GMT -5
First, John Kerry has nothing to do with this. I don't support John Kerry (but he voted correctly by voting against the B-One Bomber, but that's it.  ) I do not support John Kerry, nor have I in the past. My guy was John Edwards. I cannot get excited about John Kerry, George Bush, Ralph Nader. or anyone else for that matter. I will probably skip electing MY Commander-in-Cheif in November. Second, I'm not a liberal. No need to call me things I am not. I haven't slammed anyone (including the president) All I have done on this board is disagree with his economic policies, condemn his accepting lobbyists money, and find his sudden change of position on war disconcerting. I have however, stood up for his ammendment against gay marriage, his stance on abortion (but I was upset that he didn't cancel stem cell research). You want to talk about liberals, George Bush is very liberal with his over-the-top spending. A lot of members of the Republican party would agree with that statement as well. My criticisms of the president are on monetary issues. The only other thing I've criticized him on was for his changing the reasons behind a war. Third, I never changed my position on the war. I was always opposed to a unilateral war without the support of the UN. So I could really care less what Congressman_______ (D) voted, because it's not my voting record, and I don't have to uphold it. Finally, I AM NOT condemning the war in Iraq. Nowhere did I defend Sadaam Hussien or criticize that he was removed from power. All I am saying is that it is my belief that the Intelligence people and the Bush administration cherry-picked information to make a weak case for going to war much much stronger. And after, it was discovered that there was no WMD, the administration conviently forgot about telling the world that we were sure that Iraq had WMD. That is very much a Machavellian way of leading, which I personally am not a fan of. That's all I've said. |
|
|
|
Post by Tummygoat on Mar 9, 2004 20:13:19 GMT -5
This will be an interesting race. I was somewhat invested in the Democratic primary because I had a favorite candidate (John Edwards). Like my previous favorite (John McCain) he just came up short.
I think America would be the greatest country in the world economically, morally, and physically if these two men were running the country united together. They are the finest men IMO to have run for the office of President in the last 20 years. Edwards is probably the morally ethical and sound candidate I've ever seen and he's motivation was awesome. Unfortunately he didn't have the money or help that Kerry and Dean possessed.
So now, who to vote for. Kerry or Bush. It's a tough choice. I'm an independent so I usually go for the candidate that meets MY needs. I like politics, but at the same time I hate politics. What drives me nuts is how members of the Republican party will usuall back their people to the end and the Democrats will never budge. It's sad really. I think Republicans right now are pretty bad just because the climate of America economically is pretty awful and as an educator, its heading in a direction that we haven't seen in decades. Why Republicans don't see this and continue to support Bush is beyond me. But it's politics and that's why in the realm of things, like every election it's up the independents. Call us whoosies cause we don't pick a party but I believe that when I vote for a candidate Im truly voting for who I think is the best candidate, not who belongs to my party.
I voted Ernie Fletcher for governor and it was the biggest mistake I've made in my voting life. I love Ernie, he's a great man, but I went against KEA (Kentucky Education Asso) and chose him for his morality and humbleness. In just 3 short months, his outlook on schools in Kentucky is pretty bad, but when you couple it with the worst legislation EVER passed (No Child Left Behind) Kentucky is going to go from top 15 education to near the bottom....again. Just watch. It's already beginning in Fayette Co.
If you ever want to talk or debate with No Child Left Behind, I'll write you a book because it's awful and though I'm not a big fan of Kerry's yet, I'm voting for the candidate who says it doesn't work and who's ready to fix it or trash it. Most democrats voted for it and all republicans. Thankfully all the Dems want it gone. Now we just have to convince the Republicans. Someone call Bush and tell him its a miserable failure and he'll get my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by kyblueintenn on Mar 9, 2004 22:05:23 GMT -5
First, John Kerry has nothing to do with this. I don't support John Kerry (but he voted correctly by voting against the B-One Bomber, but that's it. ) I do not support John Kerry, nor have I in the past. Second, I'm not a liberal. No need to call me things I am not. about liberals, George Bush is very liberal with his over-the-top spending. A lot of members of the Republican party would agree with that statement as well. My criticisms of the president are on monetary issues. The only other thing I've criticized him on was for his changing the reasons behind a war. Finally, I AM NOT condemning the war in Iraq. Kidd, first of all, this is not against YOU I was trying to make a point, I would never attack ANYONE individually, that IMO is not right. The point I was making was as a whole,(Party) this is the way the democrats are attacking Bush and his stances, just as their nominee, (JOHN KERRY)who represents that party now, is trying to do. Many of them attack him on his stances in the war, yet just awhile back when it was so popular, many of them voted FOR IT and are now duck tail and changing their stories. I NEVER said, and I sincerely apologize if you took it in that manner that I was attacking you, because I assure you, I was and am not. I also never accused you of being liberal, again, these comments are made at the DEMOCRATIC party as a whole unity, as we have been discussing previously. That is again why I changed my party affiliation, was that the PARTY as a whole I feel has gone to far left, and to far liberal, not you ! Next, I also said I understood your concerns about the REAl Reasons we went to war, and I just think the President erred on the safe side, myself personally. My whole point behind this topic was to point out though, that although the Democratic party want to now push Bush as a Warmonger that many of THEM saw the same intel he did, ask questions among themselves, and voted to go to war, and now they act like it is and was all George W's fault. Again, Kidd I would never attack you or anyone personally, and I think if you re-read my post, you will see it was not meant to be intended for that. |
|
|
|
Post by kyblueintenn on Mar 9, 2004 22:47:41 GMT -5
Oh and TG,I almost went Independent myself, it was close when I changed my party affiliation, but I ended up going Republican. Let me tell you a quick story;I was a Democrat all my life, told by my family I had to be, could'nt be a D-- Republican if I wanted to be. Our county was like 3/4 Democrat, I am a former Young Democratic President of our County where I was from. Until several years back, about 6-7 to be honest. I saw the light !  Not to be a Republican, but to VOTE for the Best MAN runningh for the Job, be he Democrat,Republican, or Independent. I may be a Republican now, but I say nonesence to the old saying of "Dont you dare cross party lines !". If their was A Democrat, that I knew was a good man, and would stand up for what was right against his own party on the left, yes sir I would vote for him, IF I felt he was and would do a good job for our Country and follow principles I think should be followed. I how-ever vote a little different in that I beleive in voting a President who will follow the principles that God has set forth in the Bible, and not for how it will benefit me.I dont care about money, I'm gonna be rich in the life to come, I just need to worry about doing whats right now that Christ would find acceptable. I fall short of that many times, I know, but he's forgiving, and that is one thing, I most definetly thank God For ! |
|
|
|
Post by KY Kid on Mar 9, 2004 22:55:35 GMT -5
Didn't think you were personally attacking me, KBIT. Just wanted people to know I'm not a liberal. I'm not mad or anything.  |
|
|
|
Post by kyblueintenn on Mar 9, 2004 23:10:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisR155 on Mar 10, 2004 0:52:38 GMT -5
George Bush is very liberal with his over-the-top spending. We are in a recession in America right now...or at least coming out of a recession somewhat. His "over the top spending" is actually important to our economy rebounding. He gets enough grief for not creating enough jobs...but I think if he doesn't win the election then Kerry will get the credit when the Economy stabalizes even more...although from what I understand the economy is usually lagging a few years from policies placed. But...if you look at his over the top spending from an economic standpoint...then you would realize that an Increase in government spending stimulates the economy...which is what we need. |
|
|
|
Post by KY Kid on Mar 11, 2004 0:01:42 GMT -5
I personally don't think trips to Mars and 7% tax decreases for the wealthiest 2% of Americans stimulates the econonmy. Govt. spending does stimulate the economy, however, spending must be rational. A 1/2 trillion dollar deficit for ONE year is never good. I know plenty of Republicans (including ones in congress) who are not happy with the presidents excessive spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueCat on Mar 30, 2004 19:26:13 GMT -5
|
|
