Dan said:All I know is that whomever I end up voting for on election day, I will feel guilty for doing so. All of these candidates suck, and the entire political process has been reduced to a popularity contest. It's like a high school student council election, but instead of pledging to get a snack machine in the cafeteria or lower lunch prices, it's entitlements and tax relief. There's no such thing as long term goals anymore. It's all about just giving people stuff to please them in the short term in order to ensure their votes.
Yuck. I don't want to support any of these guys, but I think voting for anyone would make more of an impact than voting for no one.
akascream said:I think of what would have happened if Gore had to deal with 911.
oh lolololWell, its just titled differently.
I didn't use the word unilateral by accident. I, as well as many others, consider this a unilateral war, regardless of the "coalition of the willing". It's interesting to see the circumstances surrounding them. America not only provides far and away the most troops (besides the UK, each country has given relative pittance), but determines everything that happens. The coalition are puppets and given little choice of otherwise. France, for instance, was punished by the US in a few ways after resisting. Hell, if you're not neutral like Switzerland, chances are you got a slap on the wrist from the US if you weren't "willing".efralope said:It wasn't unilateral. Really, it was basically France. Even if you say Europe opposed us, it was basically France. And it's probably for the better that countries benefiting from Saddam's Oil-For-Food corruption and selling weapons to Iraq weren't part of the coalition.
Really, Britain, Japan, and Australia are heavyweight enough in terms of stature. I would have like Russia as well, but France wouldn't have gone along as long as their officials were part of the Oil-For-Food scandal. Even if Clinton or Kerry had been President, France wasn't going to help, and Joe Lieberman and John McCain pretty much laid out how disappointing it was that they would choose to move against the US.
I wasn't talking about the UN.I'm not concerned at all about outrage from the UN. They made money off Saddam's "Oil-For-Food" program and haven't allowed for a public, transparent investigation of where all the funds ended up.
It's always a matter of self-interest. Blame the Perm 5.Even RIGHT NOW with current situations you can see the absolute turtle-speed of the UN. While Annan is offering condolences for what happened in Russia, NOTHING is happening. They may have good intentions, but their record on human rights is outrageous. They do so much talking and conferences, but rarely act or back up their threats or concerns. It's just sad. Not to mention they fail to denounce human rights violations by some member countries.
Attacking Iraq probably got Libya to shape up. That one I can give you. Though I'm not convinced that other measures could have been taken to achieve the same result.Things that occured after the Iraq invastion:
-China sealed off oil supplies for 3 days to North Korea and reminded them or where their lifeline is.
-Palestinian suicide attacks have subsided greatly from where they were back in 2000-2001.
-Libya is wanting to become an international player and allowed for disclosure on it's former weapons programs.
Afghanistan did that. All Iraq did was show some countries that the US is capable of anything. The policy of "preventive" war has aggravated relations with many countries.Yes. He event went into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam may have not being a threat to the US, but installing a pseudo-democracy is going to give us leverage, stop Hussien payment to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and at least serves to show some countries that the US keeps it word.
First off, you're a horrible person for saying that. I hope that you just worded that poorly.Also, I'd rather Al-Qaida and this so-called "War on Terror" move the sphere of fighting to the streets of Iraq and not more planning for here on the US.
Cuteness.... huh.... anyway...I mean, sure it's cute to think of the possibilities that could be without the invasion, with Saddam declaring victory over the US on the moral front, France and Russia opening up more business (and some of their corrupt officals getting Saddam money for covering up Oil-For-Food corruption), and Tony Blair a little weirded out that now both Clinton and Bush had ignored his calls for doing something about the decade-old UN-defiance situation.
But I'd rather have aggression than cuteness.
Right now, he's trying to win an election. Not run the country. He'll do as much as "I am strong on terror" until afterwards. Such as Bush is doing. What is Bush's plan? Who the hell knows.I mean, I'd seriously consider supporting him if he were to come out and say that Syria and Iran need to stop their terrorist support and than a Kerry administration would move to make sure terrorist-sponsoring countries are held to account. Also, if he would annouce a plan to push for reform to root corruption in the UN would help. Even Bush hasn't gone this far. If Kerry would, I might consider him viable (probably not considering how most of what he says/voted on Iraq has been politically motivated). I mean, I wouldn't mind the "politicaly motivated" part if he was still supporting Bush on this and just focusing on domestic policy (like Joe Lieberman), but he's really been all over the map on this.
Lyte Edge said:It will be interesting to see if Bush actually gets elected for real this time around.
:::runs:::
akascream said:I think of what would have happened if Gore had to deal with 911.
efralope said:Also, it may be a stereo-type, but I honestly don't know what he'd do in office. He hasn't laid out any exact plans.
In these times of change, Americans are looking for steady leadership. Indeed. Steady leadership... in times of change. But there are those who would doubt the steadiness of our present leadership. And perhaps the Medium Lobster cannot entirely blame them for doing so. With an Iraqi torture scandal growing larger by the day, threatening to engulf the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House itself, with mounting American and civilian casualties in Iraq and the war on terror, with a radical Shiite cleric still at large in the nation's holiest cities, it is understandable how those with linear vision could question George Bush's leadership, and even consider John Kerry's as an alternative.
But what would a Kerry administration look like? Would John Kerry offer a "multilateral" solution to the war on terror - or a terrifying new failure? Let us look once again, my friends, into the Lobsterscope of the possible future of...
...PRESIDENT KERRY! In his first act as commander-in-chief, "internationalist" Kerry issues an executive order placing all United States military operations under the command of the United Nations! American troops are soon scattered across the globe, defending America-hating governments, propping up the new Islamist regime in Iraq, and serving as the private "honor guard" of the corrupt Kofi Annan, forced out of duty to fan him with hundred-dollar bills and anoint his naked flesh with oil made from the fat of impoverished and exploited third-world youths!
In the meantime al Qaeda becomes emboldened by the abandonment of George Bush's "war" approach to terror, and founds its own Islamofascist state, Islamofascistan, complete with its own military and ballistic missile program! When Islamofascistan forces invade Turkey, Kerry can only respond with "police and intelligence operations" - which are helpless against the al Qaeda terror-state juggernaut!
In March of 2006, Kerry's "police operation against terror" finally captures Osama bin Laden and the rest of his top lieutenants. But bin Laden's case is dismissed in court when it turns out that he wasn't properly Mirandized upon his arrest! Exiting the court room, bin Laden flips a middle finger towards a visibly perturbed Kerry, mouthing the words "F**k you, copper!"
As al Qaeda test-launches its first submarine-based nuclear missiles, Kerry considers "flip-flopping" on his policy of gutting vital military projects such as the missile defense screen. But a corrupt UN Security Council stays his hand, reminding the whipped and ineffectual Francophile of his 2005 Delegation of Pentagon Budget to Unsavory Foreign Powers Act. "You are my bitch, Mister President, and you will always be my bitch!" laughs Kofi Annan in his rich Ghanan accent.
In August of 2007, Kerry finally and officially surrenders to the forces of Islamofascist terror in the new Islamofascist capital of MeccaMunich. The Treaty of Terror decrees that America's constitution will be replaced with a "Jihadstitution," which abolishes Freedom in the West and establishes a militant Terrorocracy of the Proletariat! Kerry, weeping on his knees, begs history for forgiveness - but his words are too riddled with shameful caveats and self-serving rhetoric for the ordinary plainspoken George W. Bushes of the world to follow.
As for what happens next - ah, even the Medium Lobster dare look no further. Those horrors are stories for another time, my friends...
With the money, he'll be pouring into Florida after the Hurricanes (unless he doesn't want to win) I wouldn't be surprised if he runs away with the state.Lyte Edge said:It will be interesting to see if Bush actually gets elected for real this time around.
:::runs:::
Who are you voting for?Yossarian said:Jeezus. This whole fucking thread is pathetic.
Dan said:All I know is that whomever I end up voting for on election day, I will feel guilty for doing so. All of these candidates suck, and the entire political process has been reduced to a popularity contest. It's like a high school student council election, but instead of pledging to get a snack machine in the cafeteria or lower lunch prices, it's entitlements and tax relief. There's no such thing as long term goals anymore. It's all about just giving people stuff to please them in the short term in order to ensure their votes.
Yuck. I don't want to support any of these guys, but I think voting for anyone would make more of an impact than voting for no one.
KingV said:Mostly, I agree with Dan above. I don't particularly like any of the candidates.... I like Kerry the least though. I'm not so much a Bush supporter, as a Kerry detractor. Kerry, to me, embodies everything bad and slimy about a politician. The only thing positive I can say about him is that he served his country in Vietnam. Even if the medal allegations turn out to be 100% true (unlikely, I'd say there's probably embellishment on both sides), he still put his life on the line in Vietnam, and I have to give him some respect for that. Apart from that though, I can't say there's a single action from Kerry that I truly approve of. I dislike the way he handled himself after Vietnam, and I dislike what I've seen of his 20 year Senate voting record. I don't think he'd be the worst President this country's ever had, but neither is Bush. I'm not even sure he'd be much worse or even different than Bush, due to checks and balances within the government. I find the man so truly despicable, however, that there's no way I'd vote for him.
One of the only things I do like about Bush is that he's straightforward, and he's got the balls to go through with what he thinks is right regardless of world opinion. As the most powerful country in the world, I think it's important to lead rather than follow and take a stand that you think it's important. I can say that I'm mixed on some of the stands that Bush has taken, but at least he has the balls to take them, which is not something I've seen in a President since Reagan.
Azih said:dude wasn't even the 'Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet' joke debunked?
deadlifter said:I wouldn't say that Bush has balls for any of the things he has done. To me he has shown his cowardice. If he had balls he would have led the charge into Baghdad. I know it's something that a president would never do, but this "Bush has balls" stance is just bullshit.
You can say you like him for his being straightforward, but i think that's his downfall. You must be flexible when you are the leader of the freeworld, otherwise you come off as being a tyrant. Plus the international and environmental bridges he has burned are rediculous.
KingV said:There's no absolute proof that global warming is occurring on a large scale,
xsarien said:It's because contrary to what is often the popular take on the issue, global warming happens very slowly. Kyoto was a load of crap, huh? I'd like to see you back that up.
KingV said:Faulting him for not being on the front lines in Baghdad is ridiculous. At the very least, he was willing to engage in an unpopular war, that potentially may lose the election for him because he thought it was the right thing to do. I would have a very, very hard time seeing Clinton or even Bush, Sr. doing this (their foreign policy was very similar in practice). Essentially risking his next go at President on the Iraq War took balls, this election would likely not be nearly as close had he played to the status quo after Afghanistan.
The second issue, I think is merely a difference of personal opinion. I couldn't give a crap about what other countries think about us, or citizens of those countries think about us. They don't live or vote here, and are more interested in their interests than our interests. Kyoto was a load of crap (I assume that's what you're talking about), and Bush saw right through it. Globabl Warming is the brain child of Paul Ehrlich, who's been predicting the end of the world for damn near 50 years now due to various environmental phenomena. There's no absolute proof that global warming is occurring on a large scale, and if it is, no one is certain that the human input is enough to even minutely affect it. There's not a climate model out there that has proven reliable, and the data on climate change doesn't go back far enough to claim any trends definitely. There's some good science going on about climate change, but there's lots and lots of bad science going on. I'm not an expert, but I've researched enough to know that the topic of globabl warming is still hotly debated.
Cool said:It's so easy to dislike Bush, simply because he wants to re-enstate the draft. Bull-shit.
xsarien said:It's because contrary to what is often the popular take on the issue, global warming happens very slowly. Kyoto was a load of crap, huh? I'd like to see you back that up.
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem. Unlike the current Administration, John Kerry and John Edwards will offer an alternative to the Kyoto process that leads the world toward a more equitable and effective answer, while preserving coal miners jobs.
KingV said:You've already proven it for me! You want to undertake serious financial burdens, country wide over something that MIGHT be happening, to an UNKNOWN degree, when the human effect is further UNKNOWN? I'm sorry that's too many what-if's for me. There's no reliable predictions as to what will happen without the Kyoto Treaty and how that contrasts with what will happen with the Kyoto Treaty.
KingV said:You've already proven it for me! You want to undertake serious financial burdens, country wide over something that MIGHT be happening, to an UNKNOWN degree, when the human effect is further UNKNOWN? I'm sorry that's too many what-if's for me. There's no reliable predictions as to what will happen without the Kyoto Treaty and how that contrasts with what will happen with the Kyoto Treaty.
It's further flawed because it only takes industrialized nations to task while allowing developing nations to pollute to their heart's content, which is probably my biggest beef with it. Even John Kerry does not support it in its current form:
source: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/pr_2004_0819g.pdf
Look at how much it's costing Canada: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13694
A number of nations look like they will not even be able to meet their Kyoto obligations.
You shouldn't be asking why shouldn't we sign it, you should be asking why we should. It's based on unproven science, to fight an environmental concern with unknown consequences, that will take place an unknown time from now. Even if we did reduce emissions, we wouldn't even know that what we did had an effect. It's an absurdly high amount of money to spend on something so uncertain.
LuckyBrand said:i thought it was democrats that wanted to re-instate the draft (and not really, but brought it up to make a political point).. as far as i know, bush has never said anything about re-instating the draft.
The Draft*
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.
The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
http://www.informationclearinghouse...article5146.htm
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
eggplant said:Most scientists agree that there is climate change and it is due to human influences. The conservatives tend to argue that the climate change is due to natural causes, not because of the humans. I suggest kingv do more research into climate change.
Cerebral Palsy said:Because democrats are sheep. Vote party over president is their mantra. Who cares how the guy performs as long as we have a card carrying democrat in office?
deadlifter said:Not just global warming, but it doesn't bother Bushies that he is going to have the worst environmental record EVER, of any president?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=5939345&rnd=1094612627857&has-player=unknownRobert F. Kennedy said:In a ferocious three-year attack, the Bush administration has initiated more than 200 major rollbacks of America's environmental laws, weakening the protection of our country's air, water, public lands and wildlife.
deadlifter said:Ha, no problem...
It's basically their actions on environmental policies. Whether they pushed saving the environment forward, or cutback. This administration cutback. Bigtime.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=5939345&rnd=1094612627857&has-player=unknown
Some more info
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/
And some more
http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/
DCharlie said:just a question : if there is a draft, will all Bush supporters happily go along and do their duty?
DCharlie said:just a question : if there is a draft, will all Bush supporters happily go along and do their duty?
(this is hyperthetical and not suggesting that the draft would happen - although would it be that massive of a shock if there was a draft??)
Celicar said:there. fixed.
Disco Stu said:Why?
Why are you asking the question? It's certainly not to understand someone else's position -- you've made your disdain perfectly clear.
Disco Stu said:Why?
Why are you asking the question? It's certainly not to understand someone else's position -- you've made your disdain perfectly clear.
Here's an idea -- grow up. Explore the notion of tolerance and exercise your political rights where it will do some good: on the bumper of your car and in the voting hall.
Because I want to understand their position. efralope has been the only one so far to actually give a thought-out reply, and though I disagreed with him on several things (I'm not just going to say "OK" to everything - I think some of what he said was simply untrue), I said that I appreciate how he is mostly reasonable and understand where he's coming from. And though you can look at just two massive replies and infer what you'd like, very little of what I said was even in opposition to Bush.Disco Stu said:Why?
Why are you asking the question? It's certainly not to understand someone else's position -- you've made your disdain perfectly clear.
Here's an idea -- grow up. Explore the notion of tolerance and exercise your political rights where it will do some good: on the bumper of your car and in the voting hall.
Thank you.deadlifter said:Right, because there have been verbal attacks, and no good discussion throughout the thread!
There's an obvious bias on the forum, and the question was brought up because most here do not know why people support George W. Bush. KingV has brought up some good points so i don't see why you're bitching. This is a forum, things will be discussed, if you don't want to look in a thread, you don't have to.
deadlifter said:Right, because there have been verbal attacks, and no good discussion throughout the thread!
There's an obvious bias on the forum, and the question was brought up because most here do not know why people support George W. Bush. KingV has brought up some good points so i don't see why you're bitching. This is a forum, things will be discussed, if you don't want to look in a thread, you don't have to. Anyway, I think wearing you're political affiliation on your sleeve is not a good idea (bumperstickers). I really don't see what they accomplish.
Oh shit...It's frightening to see there is people that think THIS. It reminded me about one of the members of the government from this film:The second issue, I think is merely a difference of personal opinion. I couldn't give a crap about what other countries think about us, or citizens of those countries think about us. They don't live or vote here, and are more interested in their interests than our interests. Kyoto was a load of crap (I assume that's what you're talking about), and Bush saw right through it. Globabl Warming is the brain child of Paul Ehrlich, who's been predicting the end of the world for damn near 50 years now due to various environmental phenomena. There's no absolute proof that global warming is occurring on a large scale, and if it is, no one is certain that the human input is enough to even minutely affect it. There's not a climate model out there that has proven reliable, and the data on climate change doesn't go back far enough to claim any trends definitely. There's some good science going on about climate change, but there's lots and lots of bad science going on. I'm not an expert, but I've researched enough to know that the topic of globabl warming is still hotly debated.
Disco Stu said:Oh, really? I don't have to look in a thread if I don't want to?
Be honest. This thread isn't about explanation or understanding.