trend of election

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by ExoticGlass1, Oct 31, 2004.

  1. LSUGradin99

    LSUGradin99 I Bleedeth Purple 'N Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    15,579
    Likes Received:
    475
    Unlike some other people, I don't care to copy and paste from websites. :wink: :hihi: Here is a link to a written version fo Kerry's plan for Iraq in particular though, for instance.

    Click Here

    I am sure your roommate finds it frustrating and disheartening that he does not have eveyrthing he needs to do his job effectively and safely. I love how republicans try to blame the democrats for this as of late. It's as if they want the public to totally ignore the fact that republicans maintain a majority in both houses right now. It is up to them to get such funding passed and approved - majority vote rules after all.
     
  2. ashgeaux

    ashgeaux Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe the Democrats should stop complaing about the price? And everytime Bush proposes more spending for it they complain about that too. Every spending bill has been passed easily.
     
  3. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    Well, I went to John kerry's website and read all about his plans. Sounds very similar to Bush's plan. The problem is implimentation. Things don't always go the way you want them to and its alot easier for Kerry to say what Bush has done wrong when he has the advantage of looking at it after it has happened.
    I did not blame democrats for not funding our troops - I blamed Senator John Kerry. He is the one who directly voted against their funding. So what if the republicans are majority and didn't pass it? I'm not voting for those people. I'm voting for a President. And John Kerry's record speaks for itself.
     
  4. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    46,792
    Likes Received:
    20,833

    yes, it does and its the true John Kerry. Those who think otherwise are simply oblivious to who and what he really is.
     
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    True. George Bush's record also speaks for itself. And we have his dismal record as President to go by.
     
  6. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    There is a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacking going on in assessing the war on terrorism. It's kind of like criticism of a team's performance in a football game and blaming the coaches. First off, I completely agreee with the tactical decision to send in the Special Forces to track down OBL after (and this is important) our troops disemboweled the Taliban. On the decision to go after Saddam, the Bush detractors conveniently forget that Saddam was literally and figuratively telling the whole world to take their sanctions, imposed post Kuwait, and shove them up their ass. This, at a time when we had recently been viciously attacked on our own shores. To bring to bear the entire might of the US in order to hunt down one man would be akin to setting the woods on fire to flush out a squirrel, while at the same time a pack of wolves is attacking your house. Bush and his advisors made the decision to invade Iraq, not for oil...not to avenge any attempt on his father's life...but to quash a very real threat to the safety of the United States. Saddam was a brutal dictator who ruled a country infested with democracy hating radicals (now euphemistically referred to as "insurgents") and was stockpiling WMDs at a time when we were perceived to be under attack. Bush tried to enlist allied support, only to find that some who pretended to be our friends were in fact not. He did not "alienate" our allies. He exposed those nations as hypocritical, self serving ingrates. To denigrate Bush's plan as insufficient to ensure victory is just plain ignorant. Like a football game, you have an opponent who is going to try and counter anything you do. The process is a fluid and evolving one and you attack and respond accordingly. For Kerry to say that he would have done it better is purely and simply, Bullsh!t.

    As far as jobs and the economy go, Kerry feels that if he does away with tax incentives for those same "rich people" who create all the jobs that somehow, jobs will be created. Well, that's just plain stupid.
     
  7. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    46,792
    Likes Received:
    20,833
    yes but there was no "direct" attack on us by Iraq. it was Saudis who we are in bed with plus there were no WMD's.


    ----devil's advocate.
     
  8. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    There was no direct attack on us by Afghanistan either. We were attacked by Radical Muslim Terrorists. They were not all marching in formation behind OBL. They are all over the freakin place. If you think Saddam was not stockpiling weapons, then you're not paying attention. While Bush wasted time trying to enlist UN support, Saddam was getting rid of the stuff and it's all coming back across the borders now in the hands of the enemy. Saddam should have been taken out years before but there was no push to do so because, even though he was flaunting the sanctions, no harm to Americans in America was perceived. 9/11 changed all of that. It acceleratedthe schedule, so to speak. We could no longer afford to let Terrorist sympathizers continue unchecked. Don't forget, Saddam had a long history of using WMDs to kill his enemies in mass quantities. Thank God that George W. Bush had the nads to do something about it. We'll never know if Saddam would have initiated or (more likely) assisted in another attack on our people. Fortunately for us, Bush wasn't going to wait around and find out.
     
  9. tirk

    tirk im the lyrical jessie james

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    46,792
    Likes Received:
    20,833
    the fact is Kerry has voted against everything military from the persian gulf war to the aid in afghanistan. His entire record since his Tour has been anti-military and its no secret. He was anti-reagan/military during the cold war as USSR collapsed. on and on.

    gotta love those who trust their freedom with this dude. opimistic at best. oblivious, more likely.
     
  10. rickyd

    rickyd Founding Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is the kind of crap that scares the bejeezus out of me, not the content, because I agree with what Saban Fan said 100%, but the fact that Red, crawdad, rex and LSUGradin99, in my eyes anyway, fail to see what I perceive as obvious. I can't understand why it's not obvious to them. :confused:
    I'm not saying this to be cute, funny or argumentative, but I truly can't phathom anyone voting for Kerry. :dis:
    Based on his 20 year record he has accomplished nothing, and has stood for nothing. When asked about his not voting to supply the troops(did before he didn't) his reply was, he wasn't comfortable with some of the language, so his no vote was a form of "protest". (rage engage) Are you F--king kidding me, kids over there (mine included) putting their lives on the line, and this a$zhole wants to protest. This P.O.S., S.O.B. isn't even a decent American, much less Presidential material. :cuss:
     

Share This Page