2 1/2 Days to Go...& Still Undecided
POSTED BY: BrownShirtsRock
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 3, 2004 21:20
VIEWED: 10757
PAGE 4 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by billyuno:
Here's the one I like.
www.factcheck.org
If you happen to like the ads, or watch the debates, this is a great site for finding out just how truthful these are. Both sides are unbiasedly represented. Overall, I've found Kerry to be a bit more honest. Less misleading I should say. But you can read and judge for yourself.
Another thing that it shows is how the votes of each candidate on certain issued is not indicative of their views on that subject. Sometimes bills have clauses that Senators and Congressmen don't agree with, whether the other things in the bill are agreeable. So for example when the Bush campaign says that Kerry voted agains body armor, the body armor was only one third of one percent of the money spent in that bill. Many republicans were also against that particular bill. This is just a little of the kind of information you can find on this site.
Politcal ads are drivvle.
What about the Kerry Sentate record? Have you gone to the Congressional record? He's been all over the map. He was for gay marrage, now he's against it. He's for the 2nd Amendment, as long as it's for "hunting." He voted FOR the war calling Hussein the most dangerous threat, and now says "Wrong war, wrong time" He's a self proclaimed "Internationalist" who will "restore our relations with our allies" Sure, allies who were taking BILLIONS in bribes from the Oil-for-food scandle. Allies who voted with their pocketbooks when it came down to enforcing 17 UN resolutions. The Same UN who let 900,000 Rwandians die in 90 days due to indecisive debates. They actually pulled their troops and refused to call it genocide to avoid triggering the security council reponse. Would the Rwanda genocide passed John Kerry's "Global Test?"
Kerry has been going on about the Draft and Social Security, trying to scare everyone who will listen. How's that for truth.
Look...No offense, but I can't help but feel that John Kerry will say ANYTHING he has to to get elected. Period.
EDITED TO ADD:
The Kerry/Edwards Campaign has been polling all weekend to get a sense of how to respond to the Osama Tapes that aired Friday. Can you believe that??? I'm not talking about the Kerry on the tarmac moment, I'm talking about how the campaign should respond. That's the problem, they keep ripping news from the headlines, seizing on anything, like grasping at straws, just to get a few points. The CBS/NYT "missing explosives" story blew up (no pun intended) in the Kerry camps face. They yanked the commercials, they erased it from their web page, he stopped talking about it. His own Security Advisors had no comment and couldn't verify the UN's claim. It was doing more harm than "good." To think Sixty-Minutes was going to release the story THIS EVENING...and the facts we've learned since it was dropped by the NYT on Monday because it was being leaked by the Drudge report. Thank the Lord we had a week to find out how polticial this was on behalf of the UN (IAEA) and CBS/Sixty Minutes/NYT.
Bernie Goldberg was right!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Blast! Why is the lure of political topics so strong? I swore that I would avoid them.
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Look folks, The Kerry/Edwards camp has been laying down allot of crap. The politics of fear.
Yeah! You'd never catch George W. Bush or Dick Cheney playing on people's fears! Oh, wait a minute. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/20/cheney.wednesday.ap/index.ht
ml
"'The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us . . . biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans,' Cheney said."
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Last I heard, bears aren't flying planes into buildings. Bears aren't supporting an Islamo-fascist agenda and killing free people everywhere.
Then you're obviously not an informed citizen.
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon. Bravo.
Just because something comes from a cartoon doesn't mean it doesn't have a valid point.
Quote:
Originally posted by spacecowgirl:
The most adament pro-choicers don't even condone partial-birth. [...] And the government running health care? No thanks.
It was my understanding that Kerry did not vote for the partial-birth ban because it didn't allow for a case where the mother's life may be in danger? And as for government-run health care, it was my understanding that Kerry was proposing ways to relieve the healthcare burden and "provide all Americans with access to the same coverage that members of Congress give themselves." Of course, if the next spot on our "Jump To Conclusions" mat is "Socialist Healthcare Run By The Government" then I guess we can't go against the mat.
Also, I would also like to recommend FactCheck.org to everyone. It's a good site. Analyzes both sides from a factual standpoint and doesn't let politics intrude.
"You've just gotta go ahead and change the captain of your brainship, because he's drunk at the wheel."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you haven't studeied enough to feel qualified to vote on an issue or public office, please don't. Just leave that part of the ballot blank.
Of course, that would disclude 99.999% of the American public, members of Congress, and humanity in general from voting.
So vote based on your gut feeling, emotional response, or flip a coin, That's what most everyone else will be doing. What the heck, you might get lucky.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon.
Who is mocking your experiences? I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument that the absence of a domestic terrorist attack somehow proves that the administration has been effective.
Talk about a poor argument. You use the tangible result of a policy to argue that the policy is ineffective.
Maybe your just anti-"bear patrol". Maybe your just a bear lover. The French don't want us patrolling for bears either. But the President is responsible for the saftey of Homer and Lisa and so he sends our brave cartoon young people into the "woods" to make the world safe from bears and tigers too.
The Simpson's might be legitimate social commentary, but I think your example is as full of holes as the argument you are opposing.
We might get attacked today or tomorrow in three weeks. Does such an attack signal a failure in policy? No. We are better able to detect and deter incoming attacks and we are better able to respond to such attacks should we fail to stop them AND we are aggressively pursuing avenues to stop new attacks from coming. That is the policy we are talking about. Its a war policy.
I suppose that the German Counter-offensive the Belgium in December of 1944 signaled a failure of FDR's war policy. Might as well pull are troops home and come up with a new approach. No. Thats how wars work. They attack us, we attack them. The policy must be judged by the ultimate outcome, not the wavering fortunes of the global battlefield.
Afganistan is no longer a safe haven for Al Queda. The Taliban (an Al Queda ally) has been deposed and free elections held in its place. Sure, the wars not over, but the Afgan front goes well.
In Iraq Saddam is gone. Sure the battle continues, but the war goes well and our enemies are reduced to scattered fugitives waging a desperate campaign to achieve their last best chance for victory (by influencing the American election). I doubt they can sustain the current pace of operations longer in a few more weeks. If Bush wins and Iraqi elections are held (even if imperfect) then the Iraqi resistance will begin to falter.
Worldwide we have neutralized 75% of Al Queda. Their camps are in ruins, their arms and money networks are disrupted. Their allies in France and the UN are being discredited. The war seems to be going well.
But I expect to be attacked again. The bear patrol will be there to try and stop it, but if they can't, then we might just have to fend for ourselves for a few hours until the full might of the United States of America can respond to help us recover, rebuild, mourn, and move on.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
QUOTE: You use the tangible result of a policy to argue that the policy is ineffective.
How do you know it was the result of a policy? Maybe it's dumb luck. Maybe Al Qaida LIKES Bush because he's such an effective recruiting tool. Maybe Putin is holding al Qaida at bay because HE like Bush because Bush is driving up oil prices and improving the Russian trade balance. It's like saying that NASA has been really good at keeping us from being hit by a meteor because we haven't been hit by one ever since they starting tracking them. That's what the cartoon is pointing out: specious reasoning.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My response is in ITALICS
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Look folks, The Kerry/Edwards camp has been laying down allot of crap. The politics of fear.
Yeah! You'd never catch George W. Bush or Dick Cheney playing on people's fears! Oh, wait a minute. . .
Okay. Lets clear this up please. Proclaiming that the DRAFT is coming back if Bush wins is nonsense. 2 Democrates sponsered the legislation and it was shot down. NO DRAFT IS COMING. That's a fact. Kerry/Edwards IS STILL stoking the imagination of uninformed 18 year olds that they are going to war via a draft.
Social Security. Kerry/Edwards are saying that a 2nd Bush term would mean they lose their Social Security check. Al Gore said THE VERY SAME THING in 2000. Didn't happen. The President said he won't do it...but Kerry/Edwards are still saying "You'll lose benefits" because they want Florida votes.
As far as the Dick Cheney comment:
"'The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us . . . biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans,' Cheney said."
So YOU'RE SAYING THAT the above scenario can't happen? Because Dick Cheney stated a possible terror scenario, a desirable scenario for the terrorists, it's a load of "Fear mongering" and we should ignore it as POLITICAL. HOWEVER, being afraid of a NON-EXISTANT DRAFT (since it was voted DOWN) and NON-EXISTANT CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY (goes against Bush policy) are REALLY SCARY charges and AREN'T POLITICAL AT ALL.
The Terrorists would love to do exactly what the Vice President outlined. Just because he reminded folks about it doesn't mean he "made it up."
Last I heard, bears aren't flying planes into buildings. Bears aren't supporting an Islamo-fascist agenda and killing free people everywhere.
Then you're obviously not an informed citizen.
Wow. That was a great point. You really proved me wrong. "I'm not an informed citizen" Wow, how can I recover? Please lord help me, I'm at a loss for words, the Mother of All points has been made. Oh, the sting of your retort...can I ever leave my bed again? See, I can be snarky to. Back to the point - Please illuminate how I'm misinformed on making a statement of fact about the terrorists. Is your point that Islamo-fascists AREN'T killing people? The Wahabists are all about kittens and sunshine and flying kites?
Quote:
Originally posted by WaddleDoodle:
Mock me all you want, but you're not me and know nothing about my experiences. I'm disappointed that the best you can post to contradict my reasoning is a cartoon. Bravo.
Just because something comes from a cartoon doesn't mean it doesn't have a valid point.
True. But if the point of this thread is to discuss politics, the weakest way to do that is to simply say someone is wrong. That analogy did exactly that. My point was we weren't hit by terrorists since 9/11 because of Bush administration policy. The counter point was "Just because you say it's the Bush Administration that kept us safe, that doesn't make it so" I'm able to offer evidnece to support my point. The Taliban regime was, despite the wailing of the left, michael moore and political wonks and the media, taken down in weeks. It wasn't Vietnam. They just held an election, first ever. THAT WAS THE POLICY AND GOAL OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, AND IT CAME TO PASS. The realignment of internal resources, The Patriot Act, increased funding to Intelligence, despite Senator Kerry's attempt to cut 7 billion AFTER the first World Trade Center bombing, the entire resources of the Unites States military on the march....all of these changes were to increase Amrica's survival, decrease the chance of another 9/11, these are the stated goals of the Bush Administration. So you're telling me that all of the above have nothing to d
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
QUOTE: You use the tangible result of a policy to argue that the policy is ineffective.
How do you know it was the result of a policy? Maybe it's dumb luck. Maybe Al Qaida LIKES Bush because he's such an effective recruiting tool. Maybe Putin is holding al Qaida at bay because HE like Bush because Bush is driving up oil prices and improving the Russian trade balance. It's like saying that NASA has been really good at keeping us from being hit by a meteor because we haven't been hit by one ever since they starting tracking them. That's what the cartoon is pointing out: specious reasoning.
Read my previous post as to the explaination of policy.
In my experience there is no such thing as luck ~ Ben Kenobi
The recruiting tool nonsense didn't take long to appear. From Gov. Ed Rendell's lips to your ears.
So Kerry is a better choice since it will reduce terror recruiting. ??????? By what percentage? 10% 50% 95% How is that? Because the terrorists like John Kerry's Hair? They want healthcare? Why does it matter what who will do for recruiting, as long as that who is KILLING THE TERRORISTS.
While my postion above as to why the the Bush Administration policy is working in the war on terror is laid out, you're claiming it's NOT at all responsible for the 3 years of no terror attacks on our shores because of Luck. "Maybe it's dumb luck" you said. So you'd feel THE SAME if NO CHANGES WERE MADE since 9/11 because we're lucky? If policy was the same now as it was on Sept. 10th, 2001, we would STILL NOT have had any further attacks? Correct? Was it luck that took down the Taliban? Okay, let me get this straight. The millions deployed at home and abroad can lay down their arms since we have some sort of "dumb luck" to protect us.
Specious reasoning is that nothing the Adminstration is doing is having an effect. Despite Afghanistan, a terror harbor, was taken down. Despite our troops in Iraq killing terrorists, SINCE THE FIST DAYS OF THE WAR, who had passports from all over the world. Fact.
As to your NASA/Meteor analogy, it's off for the same reasons the Simpsons analogy is off. Maybe if the meteor WAS ALIVE and steering itself. If that same piece of space rock hated us because of our ties to Israel, hated us because we're Christian, hated us since we're wrestling away their Wahabist/Islamo Fascist control on their own people. The bear and meteor are random...they aren't trying to wipe us out due to ideology. Bears kill out of defense, Meteors kill out of physics, TERRORSTS kill out of HATE.
Seriously...is that the best you've got?
Meteors, Simpsons and Bears, oh my!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, I have to chime in on the no terrorist attack thing.
There was an eight year gap between the bombing in 93 and the attacks on 9/11. By the reasoning that we haven't been attacked, therefore Bush is protecting us... Clinton protected us for most of his terms, as well.
It is ENTIRELY possible that there hasn't been a domestic attack because the Bin Laden has not tried. Attacks take time to plan.
What Bush HAS done, however, is take his eye off the ball. How long have we been at the "75%" [How do we know that number is even accurate?] of AQ captured/killed? How many OTHER terrorist organizations have we dismantled?
How many NEW terrorists were created by the invasion of Iraq?
"FOX! Where the shit hits the fans." - Tim Minear
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
QUOTE: You use the tangible result of a policy to argue that the policy is ineffective.
How do you know it was the result of a policy? Maybe it's dumb luck. Maybe Al Qaida LIKES Bush because he's such an effective recruiting tool. Maybe Putin is holding al Qaida at bay because HE like Bush because Bush is driving up oil prices and improving the Russian trade balance. It's like saying that NASA has been really good at keeping us from being hit by a meteor because we haven't been hit by one ever since they starting tracking them. That's what the cartoon is pointing out: specious reasoning.
Your NASA example is flawed. A closer analogy is we get hit by a meteor, we know more are out there and headed this way. NASA adopts a meteor policy. No more hits. NASA policy or dumb luck? In your world we cannot effect the world around us, our actions have no consequence.
Terrorists attacked us throughout the nineties. After 9/11 we change our approach. Now they can only hit us with videos. Thats good policy. Now if only Bush would do something about reality TV.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
QUOTE: A closer analogy is we get hit by a meteor, we know more are out there and headed this way. NASA adopts a meteor policy. No more hits. NASA policy or dumb luck?
Actually, we HAVE been hit by large meteors many times, even within this century. NASA HAS adopted a meteor policy (they track them) and we haven't been hit since.
Did you know that there was a perfect correlation between the number of babies born in the USA in the '50s, and the amount of imported bananas? Ergo- bananas cause babies! The point is that just because events are sequenced in time does not necessarily mean they're causally related. It's a good place to start looking for a connection, but it doesn't mean there is one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME