Tweet
Why thank you, but I'm not interested in that kind of authority!
-
-
Well. I'm not gonna lead you by the nose, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but, hey, one candidate is now at this moment for this second in time against the war. The other declared it, and is for it, including the building of long-term infrastructure in Iraq. His administration is linked to Haliburton. With Kerry, there is some outside chance, at least.Comment
-
does chance know this?
I agree that at this point that which is unknown [Kerry's possible presidency] has better odds of being microscopically less disasterous than that which is known [Bush's presidency].
But the (far too many) similarities still scare me. Like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car with its high beams on.Comment
-
-
Woofnah,
All you're doing is repeating Republican party talking points. They have recently been accusing Kerry of "changing position to seek popular approval" (in order to explain his CLEAR victory over Bush in the debate).
Ok, first off, for a politician to make his policy parallel with popular approval is the WHOLE POINT to representational democracy. We elect officials who will represent what WE the PEOPLE want. We don't elect people so they can fulfill their own ambitions (like starting a war because "this guy wanted to kill my dad") at the expense of the American people and innocents from other countries.
Politicians in today's world are career politicians. They are no longer the "private citizens who will do their duty to country for 2-8 years" like the founding fathers were. Therefore, our leaders will tend to change their views and positions several times over the course of their 30+ year careers. I don't have my sources in front of me, but Dick Cheney has made some VERY interesting flip flops (particularly about Iraq) since he was secretary of defense for Bush the first. Oh, let me add that when he was SoD, this was BEFORE he became the CEO of Haliburton.
Just a few obvious flip-flops of this administration...
Bush & Co. on the War:
1) It's about imminent threat
(proven untrue. No emminent threat.)
Flip
2) It's about Al Quaida - Iraq connection
(unsubstantiated / non-existant)
Flop
3) It's about WMD
(None found EVER. Saddam didn't even have WMDs before the 1st war in 1991. His country has since been contained by sanctions & no fly zones)
Flippity
4) It's about weapon's programs and the POTENTIAL to create WMD's
(programs all innert since 1992)
Floppity
5) It's about liberating the Iraqi people
(puppet regime is installed and elections will be held even if 1/3 or more of the country is not represented)
Floop
It's one thing to stay the course, and that's great if you are correct or at least have a plan. Bush & co were wrong to begin with and to make matters worse they have been making it all up as they go along without listening to anyone on the ground. They take their advice from ideologues and not from people on the ground or from those have any kind of realistic perspectives. They make the evidence fit their case instead of their case fit the evidence.
I think it is fairly safe to say that if Gore was president we would not be in Iraq right now. I think it is also safe to say that if Kerry were president back in 2000 we wouldn't be there either.
Kerry is pensive and weighs the issues. His stance changes as more info becomes available. I see nothing wrong with this. More evidence has become available about Iraq and the mistake it all was since 2001. Thus, a change in position is NECESSARY.
What Kerry has said is this:
At the time the he voted to give the president the authority to use military force on threats that, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE the administration provided, were perceived to be real. The "crime" that he is being accused is trusting his president.
George Bush LIED to the American people. PERIOD. George Bush MUST go. It is as simple as that.
etienneComment
-
"All you're doing is repeating Republican party talking points"
No I'm not. I'm merely stating what I witnessed the man doing. I am excedingly anti-Bush, for your information. And, as I stated below, Bush DOES THE SAME THING.
"for a politician to make his policy parallel with popular approval is the WHOLE POINT to representational democracy."
Sure, if he's making it his policy. But what IS his policy versus what he's saying his opinion is? That's where the facts seem to get lost in his own translation. A person can't run on a platform which is diametrically opposed to itself and with his own words, it would have to be.
It's quite apparent that you are extremely pro-Kerry. And that's fine. I'm not backing Bush so stop throwing anti-Bush things at me cuz it does no good; I'm already a believer. I'm just not convinced that Kerry is the best candidate. As I stated previously, I am not comfortable choosing the "lesser of 2 evils", especially if the line of demarcation is so fuzzy and faint.
If you feel that you can see it. Good for you! But no matter how much Bush-bashing you post here, it won't help me see it.Comment
-
www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc5378.html
Etienne, here is a truly excellent article on Kerry's policies, from people who hate Bush as much as you do.
To which I would like to again add my earlier concerns, which seem to agree with that article:
Will Kerry undo the Patriot Act?
Will he un-invade Iraq?
Or Afghanistan?
Will he try and convict Bush, or any of his cabinet, for war crimes?
Will he rebuild Iraq to it former ancient glory?
Will he reveal all the govt. knows about 9/11?
(Just to mention a few...)
I would also like to ask your opinion of this: Both Kerry and Edwards are Senators, right? Remember the part of F-9/11 where those black House members are trying to get a bill in front of the Senate, but can't get even a single Senator to sign it first, as required by Senate Rules? So, in your opinion, why didn't either of these guys help out with that? Seems like an awfully big discrepancy to me.
Please take the time to read that article before you respond.
http://www.guerrillanews.com/war_on_terrorism/doc5378.htmlLast edited by Chance; Oct-06-2004, 05:28 PM.Comment
-
time to jump off the grid
Chance is right ... it's a lose/lose situation ... but I'm voting anyway ... I don't want to not be part of not being a part to it.
btw this is the first time I have voted. I’m ashamed to admit it because I've been eligible to vote for thirty-six years.
... let's hope there's a lot more me's out there.Comment
-
-
-
VOTE!
Every American should definitely vote this year, ESPECIALLY this year. At least then you can bitch about politics and be somewhat justified.Comment
-
-
Sadly, John Howard has just been re-elected in Australia.
I am seriously thinking of emigrating to New Zealand.Every-one should watch their drawers!
http://www.chalkcircle.com.au/Comment
-
Craig,
Actually, if you accept the system as it is and vote, you know that your vote counts for very little and then you're part of the game.
I'm tired but, I'm right.
ScotComment
-
martin,
this is the best one:
Comment
Comment