Support NeoGAF

[Socreges]

I'm still laughing about his "Sensitive" war comment.

Are you? When Bush or Kerry said it? Yes, that's right. Bush said the exact same thing a day later. Don't buy everything Dick Cheney tells you, no matter how charming his smirk may be.

[edit] whoops, already covered

[edit2]

Spin it how you wish. I thought the comment was funny.

Spin? Are you slow?

 

[Zaptruder]

but he's honest.
Kerry is a total fake and a liar, a huge question mark to what he really believes IMO.

I'm voting Bush

So... you're basing these of gut feelings huh? I guess it's really too much effort to study up on the candidates to decide which one would be best... because really, complex issues don't really appeal to people like you well; if there isn't a catchy hardline phrase to deal with the issue, it becomes a question mark doesn't it?

If you wanted to know what he really believes in, then head to his website and read the stuff. Sure it's alot of propaganda, but if you spent the time you could disemminate that easily from what actually mattered. Right now, you're just another diehard republican; using popular, specious reasoning to not even bother examining what the rival candidate is about. Flipflopping? So I guess a person that doesn't ever change his views, never admits to wrong, despite the wanton proof otherwise, is a better candidate?
It's really true... republicans win because they're uncompromising SOBs.


As for Josh Slone's comment; Note the site that was linked to; it would be unbeneficial (and stupid) for them to say anything otherwise. Moreover, Bush was still seen as a dumbass back then... but he was still seen as relatively moderate. 4 years on, and he's become some sort of nightmarish political caricature; things change. I will stand by the idea that more votes that would otherwise go Kerry then Bush would goto Nader.

He's honest... Iraq war; primary reason that he used to convince people to go to war: WMDs. Did he really believe Iraq had them? maybe. Did he have evidence? weak evidence. Was that evidence enough justification for multibillion war that has cost over 900 US lives and countless civilian lives and a whole lot more general backlash (economic, regional instability, etc, etc)? No. Was his primary reason for going to Iraq WMDs? NO. He had always intended to revisit Iraq; using the justification of terrorist links and terrorist attacks due to Iraq (which to this day, many americans believe is true) he was able to initiate a costly campaign for his neandelithic glory. Then he has retarded photo-ops... getting flown onto an aircraft carrier so he could be saddled up into a jet-fighter, so... what? he can pretend to be a fighter pilot? waste tax payers money? Fool stupid people into believing he was actively 'part of the war'?

 

[hooo]

Getting right down to it, both major candidates obscure and modify their opinions according to the audience, just in different degrees. This election isn't about which is the greater scum bag or which has been caught more with a twisted tongue. For a lot of people it's about Iraq, whether our choice to go was right or not (though now, both candidates agree it was the right choice), and the rest it's about domestic policy (do you want a tax and spend democrat who wants to shift the government costs further on the wealthy, or do you want someone who wants to just spend more and depend on a healthy economy to pick up the slack). All this mud-slinging is pretty sad. I don't know if all this muck-racking is depressing or disgusting.

As for voting 3rd party, If you feel that a compromise on either candidate isn't right, then while a third party vote won't do much for getting that candidate into office now, it'll show support and help with future publicity.

 

[CrimsonSkies]

I want a sensitive console war next gen.

"Spin? Are you slow?"

That's very childish. But at least you're consistent.

 

[hooo]

He's honest... Iraq war; primary reason that he used to convince people to go to war: WMDs. Did he really believe Iraq had them? maybe. Did he have evidence? weak evidence. Was that evidence enough justification for multibillion war that has cost over 900 US lives and countless civilian lives and a whole lot more general backlash (economic, regional instability, etc, etc)? No.

Considering at the time that EVERY intelligence agency said Iraq had WMD's and that we as well as others (Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam) believed they were going to use them on us, I prefer the choice of us acting on the strong possibility instead of waiting for more citizens to die on US soil. For all intents and purposes, at the time the Bush administration did rely too heavily on WMD's and the implication of a connection directly to 9/11, but to say that what we've done till now is a waste of lives and money is a grievous insult to our accomplishments. Not only have we gotten rid of an oppressive dictator that ruled with terror, but we've also spent time and money rebuilding what was lost and making it better. If you want to disagree about whether our actions will benefit our war on terror down the road, fine, that's a matter of opinion and your perspective on human nature, but I don't understand at all how you can say it's a waste.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Bush isn't very bright, but he's honest.

One of my favorite bits of honest Bush is how he's always bagging on Kerry for voting against one form of the $87 billion for Iraq, while he threatened to veto an alternate form.

As for voting 3rd party, If you feel that a compromise on either candidate isn't right, then while a third party vote won't do much for getting that candidate into office now, it'll show support and help with future publicity.

This is pretty much it. I know that, barring some sort of Two Party Rapture no third party candidate will win this year. But it's not a vote for this year, it's a vote for the hundreds of years that can be better when everyone's votes are made to count more and there aren't just two major voices.

I want a sensitive console war next gen.

Well sure. If that was to be taken analogously to the political statements, a sensitive console war would have a manufacturer wooing developers and releasing appropriate titles for each territory. As opposed to, say, forcing releases to contain exclusives and be at a certain price point.

 

[Zaptruder]

Those 'achievements' were a hugely inefficient way of achieving those kinds of objectives.

The money spent on war and recuperating Iraq could have been better spend domestically; on social programs that could have bettered as many if not more lives on home soil, without creating additional problems.

The justification through saying he was an 'evil dictator' is extremely weak; considering there have been many and still are many evil dictators of a similar or worse ilk. Moreover they have been and still are many evil dictators left in the world, with much more power and capability than Saddam Hussein. If America is able to; they should get rid of these dictators. But IMHO, they're far far from been able to achieve such things.... hell, they can't even do it with Iraq right. And to do it correctly would also include successfully navigating through international opinion.

And although 'every intelligence agency said that Iraq had a possibility of possessing WMDs', the evidence was weak; moreover the position Iraq was in, meant that we could have spent the time to more thoroughly inspect Iraq. Without giving the inspectors enough time, or just been thoroughly unsatisfied with the lack of findings, Bush pressed on hard for invasion, without having found solid evidence for WMDs.... and in the end, we know why the inspectors didn't find anything; because there was nothing to be found.

But again, back to the first point... if that money spent on war had instead been spent on identifying real problems and methods for fixing those problems within the american social fabric, the benefits would not only be extensive for Americans, but the world, to which americans so readily propogate their culture.

But as it is... with the future looking bleak... it looks like the last country able to strongly affect world opinion and change the world... maybe for the better, will only be led on a road of decline if Bush is elected. Not only has international opinion turned against them, making such a grand task even more difficult to achieve, the social and economic security of the country threatened in the long term.

 

[brooklyngooner]

You know it's pretty funny when you say Bush flipflops, but Kerry hasn't, it must one of those things where people see what they want (not saying you, but everyone, including me), because the entire time Kerry's flipflopped over almost everything before he finally made his decisions on what his beliefs were (after getting poll results no doubt).

His site with his views (at this point mean nothing to me, when he's already proven to be whatever you want him to be to get the vote, his flipflopping was the first thing to turn me off)

As for my distaste with the demo party, sure I dislike thier pushy pouty ways, but that's not going to make me totally disregard a candidate, Kerry did that on his own.

You and those of you who keep trotting out this cliche that Kerry "flip-flops", provide concrete examples of how he's done this.

 

[Incognito]

You know it's pretty funny when you say Bush flipflops, but Kerry hasn't, it must one of those things where people see what they want (not saying you, but everyone, including me), because the entire time Kerry's flipflopped over almost everything before he finally made his decisions on what his beliefs were (after getting poll results no doubt).

His site with his views (at this point mean nothing to me, when he's already proven to be whatever you want him to be to get the vote, his flipflopping was the first thing to turn me off)

As for my distaste with the demo party, sure I dislike thier pushy pouty ways, but that's not going to make me totally disregard a candidate, Kerry did that on his own.

Terrible post. Needless to say, I agree with Santo on his assessement of you. Your post, however, could use a little more "flip-flop" in it, though.

And I don't think Drinky Cow ever said Kerry hasn't "flip flopped", he just said Bush does, too. Something the media never picks up on.

 

[Incognito]

I'm sure you've been to JohnKerry.com and read his views, DJ. I'm absolutely positive...


...*cough*

 

[Socreges]

"Spin? Are you slow?"

That's very childish. But at least you're consistent.

It was an honest question. You dismissed several posters presenting facts as "spin". Initially my question was "can you read?", but given that you can type, I doubt that's the case.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

Terrible post. Needless to say, I agree with Santo on his assessement of you. Your post, however, could use a little more "flip-flop" in it, though.

And I don't think Drinky Cow ever said Kerry hasn't "flip flopped", he just said Bush does, too. Something the media never picks up on.

New reply with 100% more flipflop

Well I wasn't 'argueing with Drinky, just small talk really. I don't get into political views trying to express everything I like/dislike about any particular politician, I spoke out about Kerry because most everyone already knows Bush is an ignorant ass, but speak on behalf of Kerry as if he's a saint.

I agreed with a post above saying if there was a better democrat candidate, it would be a clear easy victory, one who I'd probably vote for as well.
I'm not republican or democrat, I vote on each candidate's views, negatives positives and thier charachter.

I have no beef with Drinky and certainly wasn't meaning it to sound like it either, but I know sometimes my posts come off as a little bland.

No offense, but I'm not going to get 100% into a political thread about all my oppinions are views mainly because I don't have the free time to post here much anymore, and I hate leaving in the middle of a discussion (not arguement)

But as for a few of Kerrys negatives, since people want proof (which I can't believe anyone can miss this with it all over the airwaves, here are a few things.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39017

# Kerry claims he has "never taken a dime" of political action committee money, but he has taken millions of dollars in special interest funds.

# Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for pursuing economic policies which encourage corporations to send jobs overseas, while his wife's own Heinz Corp. has done the same thing – but he's remained silent about that.

# Kerry intervened in the Senate to keep open a major loophole that allowed an insurance company to divert millions from the nation's most expensive construction project – then received tens of thousand of dollars in donations from the same company.

# Kerry managed to secure an early political endorsement from a major conservation group after the organization received a substantial donation from the Heinz Family Foundation, headed by Kerry's wife.

# Kerry decries "special interest" politics and the influence of lobbyists, but he himself has had more than 200 contacts with lobbyists since 1989, many of which had business before his Senate committees.

# Kerry has championed his Vietnam service and belittled President Bush for getting an early discharge from the Texas Air National Guard to pursue politics, but Kerry also requested – and received – an early discharge from the U.S. Navy so he could run for Congress on an "anti-war platform."

# Kerry has supported nearly every tax increase or piece of legislation that would repeal tax cuts during his 20-plus years in the Senate, and is vowing to scale back tax cuts passed by the Bush administration.

And here comes some Kerry flipflopping............

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088214/

http://www.flipflopper.com/Flipflops.asp

 

[Slurpy]

Wow, what objective sites DJ.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

Does that make it any less truthfull in your opinion ?

 

[hooo]

Zaptruder,

The intelligence was weak? Is that in hindsight per chance? If I thought Iraq was going to strike us one way or another, and I had the chance to take care of the problem AND do the country some good, then I'd fight. Would you wait till we have thousands dead and undeniable proof to act? The evil dictator reason isn't one by itself as there are way too many opportunities to act for that reason alone, but given the other reasons we had at the time and considering the aftermath, it still stands as a positive outcome. It doesn't hurt either that Iraq, if it does set up a stable government that's accountable to its people and gives them freedoms, will become a strong ally, and fight the war on terror from a cultural front.

Saying that money would be better spent on social programs is such an ambiguous idea. What are we going to do? Spend billions on a nationalized health care program because fixing our overly litigious nature is too difficult? or is it because we can't trust anyone to actually take care of themselves if they can afford it? Should we throw more money into our educational system (we already spend the most of all industrialized nations) that's not broken because of lack of funding, but instead because of the lack of parental involvement, and an educational system that places importance in the seniority of a teacher instead of the results that they produce.

Where would that money be better spent?

EDIT:

Wow, what objective sites DJ.

lol, I'd mostly agree with you about slate, but probably in the opposite reasoning.

 

[Dan]

As for voting 3rd party, If you feel that a compromise on either candidate isn't right, then while a third party vote won't do much for getting that candidate into office now, it'll show support and help with future publicity.

You rock. But someone always brings this up, and most people here don't listen to reason or truly understand the concepts behind this logic. Hell, most people don't know that one of the two current major parties was once a third party.

 

[hooo]

You rock. But someone always brings this up, and most people here don't listen to reason or truly understand the concepts behind this logic. Hell, most people don't know that one of the two current major parties was once a third party.

Good to know that there are other voices of reason out there on issues where there shouldn't be any argument.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I spoke out about Kerry because most everyone already knows Bush is an ignorant ass, but speak on behalf of Kerry as if he's a saint.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!

Someone else thinks like me. This forum is so one sided for Kerry, it's sickening. Sure, Bush might be a moron, but putting Kerry up like he's the man is ridiculous.

 

[maharg]

Could you please quote this so called sainting of Kerry? I don't think I've ever seen him painted as anything but the least bad option in all of these threads.

 

[Socreges]

Could you please quote this so called sainting of Kerry? I don't think I've ever seen him painted as anything but the least bad option in all of these threads.

Seconded.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

# Kerry has criticized the Bush administration for pursuing economic policies which encourage corporations to send jobs overseas, while his wife's own Heinz Corp. has done the same thing--but he's remained silent about that.

http://snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp

Teresa Heinz Kerry does not "own the Heinz Corporation" — she has no involvement whatsoever with the management or operations of the H.J. Heinz Company, nor does she own anything close to a controlling interest of the company's stock. According to Heinz itself, the Heinz family trust which Mrs. Kerry inherited sold most of its shares of Heinz stock back in 1995 and currently holds less than a 4% interest in the company:

Moreover, the Heinz Company's operations are not an example of the type of outsourcing that is currently a hot political issue (i.e., sending out work to offshore companies to provide services which a company might otherwise have employed its own staff to perform). Heinz is a U.S.-based global business which sells its products in dozens of other countries, and like other food companies it has to localize some of its production at factories located in its foreign market areas. (It makes little sense from either an economic or a freshness standpoint to be shipping fruits and vegetables and/or finished food products halfway around the world rather than producing them locally.) One wouldn't expect, for example, every can and bottle of Coca-Cola sold anywhere in the world — whether it be Australia, China, or Portugal — to be produced by U.S. bottlers.)

 

[hooo]

When did buying/owning stocks in a company (ie giving them a loan contigent on some of the profits/dividends) become not supporting a company? If they didn't like the way the company is run they'd sell their stocks and not make more money off of them.

 

[Azih]

Yeah this whole 'Kerry as saint' deal is pulled out of thin air. Pretty much everybody on this forum would have preferred Dean, Edwards, and in one case, Kucinich, to Kerry. The argument isn't that Kerry is perfect, it has always been that Kerry is better than Bush.

 

[Journeywalker]

hooo-"Considering at the time that EVERY intelligence agency said Iraq had WMD's and that we as well as others (Putin Says Russia Warned U.S. on Saddam) believed they were going to use them on us, I prefer the choice of us acting on the strong possibility instead of waiting for more citizens to die on US soil. For all intents and purposes, at the time the Bush administration did rely too heavily on WMD's and the implication of a connection directly to 9/11, but to say that what we've done till now is a waste of lives and money is a grievous insult to our accomplishments. Not only have we gotten rid of an oppressive dictator that ruled with terror, but we've also spent time and money rebuilding what was lost and making it better. If you want to disagree about whether our actions will benefit our war on terror down the road, fine, that's a matter of opinion and your perspective on human nature, but I don't understand at all how you can say it's a waste."

Not quite. In the wake of Colin Powell's UN testimony and before the beginning of combat, I distinctly remember several of his intelligence claims being discredited. It was barely a blip in the news, but it was there. There's also the fact that Saddam Hussein had no way of launching a missile that could reach the United States. The threat we were concerned about was the possibility of Saddam giving WMDs to terrorists or other covert operatives that could infiltrate the United States with these weapons. Yet this theory conflicts with everything we knew about Saddam--he was quite paranoid about the concept of control, and it would be unlikely for him to give control over his weapons programs to people he did not trust. For a deeper understanding, I suggest watching "Uncovered: the whole truth about the Iraq War." It is by no means "the whole truth," but it provides a balance to the Bush administration's reports.

I do no disagree with the notion that we removed a tyrant from power, yet I am concerned with the justification and means of that removal. Considering the fact that the United States has propped up dictatorships just as violent, brutal, and corrupt as Saddam Hussein's, I'm missing the moral clarity argument. I mean, the United States has openly supported both Saddam Hussein (anthrax, weapons against Iran) and Osama bin Laden (Mujahidin's weapons and training against Soviets) in the past 20 years, yet now, without any explanation, we can ignore our history and claim the moral high road? That's simply disingenuous.

There's also the faulty logic of assuming Iraq will celebrate American troops as liberators. Before you invade a country, you should know something about its political, cultural, and religious makeup. The country has been run by the minority Sunni Ba'ath party, which hasn't been a religious party, but has forcefully repressed the religious Shiite majority. There's a very good chance that if the United States provided a democratic process similar to that of the United States, Iraq would be ruled by a religious Shiite leader. This is something that the United States will not allow. It is democracy only on the surface--democracy as long as the leadership agrees with the United States. And that is not true democracy.

 

[Zaptruder]

Zaptruder,
Where would that money be better spent?

Personally if I was looking to spend money on social reforms... I would do so by examining the education system; yes throwing money at a problem doesn't really help it... and saying something like you spend the most out of it compared to any industrial nation, ignores the fact that the US has the largest population of any industrial nation in the world.
If you were to spend money on education, it would be in a critical look at the curriculum, at inner city schools; then try to pump up funding to inner city schools...

I'd also look into how it would be possible to affect cultural change for the better, within the limits of liberty. Maybe this means subsidising groups that affect positive cultural change. What kinda posititive cultural change? A continued better understanding on things like racism... media consumption, attitudes towards sex/relationships/family/etc... maybe try to tone down an explosive but ultimately unsatisfying drive towards materialism.

Or you could spend that money on fixing social services, making sure there's enough money in the right areas so that people aren't dying through poor health care conditions, etc, etc.

There are plenty of ways that you could see the money been better spent than in sending troops to their deaths to cause more deaths overseas, that in turn incite more people to kill of other people, including your own troops.
Hell, you could dump all that money into bettering traffic conditions, driver education, drink driving crack downs, better road conditions, etc, etc... and you would have made a better, more positive effect, saved more lives and created less problems then going into Iraq and destabilizing the region, over weak and ultimately poor justification.

At the level of the president: I'm sorry, I fucked up, is just completely unacceptable. Directly dealing with the lives of thousands of americans and affecting the lives of all of them... over rushed, ill-considered action...
At this point, he still hasn't even come to apologizing over his obvious fuckup... but I guess that's what keeps him in the running; as long as he doesn't admit wrong, the people stuck up his ass won't think anything's wrong at all.

 

[hooo]

yes throwing money at a problem doesn't really help it... and saying something like you spend the most out of it compared to any industrial nation, ignores the fact that the US has the largest population of any industrial nation in the world.

Okay, let me rephrase that. The US spends more money per student than any other industrialized nation. The data's a bit on the old side (1998), but I don't expect that it changed in any direction but up. If you want more stats, look at this pdf. It has the same data as the previous link, and a lot more on the effectiveness and how the money's spent.

You've got good intentions with your desire for social reform, but I don't see how the government, much less a private group can do anything about reforming social injustice. Racism is dying a quick death IMO. Given another generation, I expect most everyone to be as clueless about true racism as me. I don't know if you heard Bill Cosby's comments about the black education gap, but he was dead on. He blamed Black America's current position not on current social injustice from the "white man", but on cultural issues such as apathetic parenting and modern ebonics. Making our culture a better one is a great idea, but it doesn't have an easy governmental solution.

President Bush at no time sent American soldiers anywhere to die. He sent them there to fight, and as much as you dislike it, he gave them the money to do it. The President has nothing to apologize concerning the war because it's still not over and a lot of good could still come of it. While by killing the trained terrorists, it only fuels the expansion of such organizations, but it takes out talent that has to be replaced with less qualified terrorists. It's a relatively short term solution, and that's a problem. IMHO, I think that in every group of people, there will be those that crave freedom and what to better themselves for themselves and the others that they care about. If Iraq becomes stable, it'll no doubt become a prosperous nation and I'm sure a center of immigration for the region because of it's freedoms. The question is, will the Jihadists declare war on an Arabic people, and how much support will they lose for attacking someone other than Western and Jewish Infidels? I don't think our efforts till now have been wasted and could really be a solution for the long term. Ignore the opposing opinions and decide on disaster for yourself. I'll still hold out for a positive outcome.

Journeywalker,

This country NEVER does any military actions for humanitarian purposes alone. Look at the situation in Somalia famous from the movie Black Hawk Down, or the Rwandan genocide that Clinton ignored, or the Sudan genocide that the UN is ignoring and Bush and Colin Powell are only giving lip service to. This country never uses force to make another country better unless it makes our situation better. The public won't support it, and no part of the government or political party will support it either.

I certainly hope the Suni or Shitte minority doesn't take over the majority, and I certainly hope that Iraq never sets itself up as a democracy as mob rule sucks and ignores the minorities. A representative democracy that gives the minorities some extra power would be better. Atm, I'm taking a wait and see. Certainly, neither government is having an easy time, but progress is being made. Certainly they have the best of intentions and I hope they're able to bring them to fruition.

 

[Azih]

Shitte minority

Shiite's make up 60% of Iraq's population.

 

[Journeywalker]

hooo-"This country NEVER does any military actions for humanitarian purposes alone."

That was part of my point. Conservatives and hawks have been justifying the war despite the phantom WMDs, continued violence, and lack of cooperative tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda because, "liberating an oppressed country is worthwhile." While I believe that there should be some political force protecting humanitarian purposes, the United States is not that force, nor can we claim to be saintly liberators. The United States goes to war when a clear and present danger exists. Iraq did not pose an immediate threat.