Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Cadaver

Did Kerry Cheat?

Recommended Posts

Kerry keeps talking about this big plan of his. Every one of his supporters I've heard from keeps talking about his plan. I have yet to hear anyone specify what his plan is, exactly. It was the same when Hillary Clinton ran for Senate in my state. She kept talking about her grandiose plans to fix everything in upstate New York. She got elected, and no plan has manifested itself. She has done nothing for upstate New York. She's a loser who needs a good swift kick.

 

Also this whole 'Global test' thing of his. I don't understand that at all.

 

As for Bush seeming drained at the debate, well, while Kerry was out tanning and having a manicure done, Bush was in Florida with hurricane victims. Probably not the best idea on debate-day, but my god, could anybody walk among that devastation and not be moved to tears? Could anybody talk to the mothers of those killed in Iraq and not feel torn over whether the right thing was done? People talk about how 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq as part of the War on Terror. Really, the death toll in this war is more along the lines of 4,500. Why? 3,000 American brains splattered across several city blocks on September 11th, 2001. It shocks me that some people are so quick to ignore 9/11 - I'm not talking about anyone here, keep your undies unbunched, but people I know IRL - when, a hair over 60 years ago, when America was attacked on December 7th, 1941, for years people shouted "Remember Pearl Harbor!" and "Avenge us!", yet nowadays that sort of sentiment is gone. Yeah, Iraq likely had nothing at all to do with 9/11, but we deposed Saddam for the same reason we went to war against Hitler. Hitler wanted to be America's friend, but we went to war against him anyways. Saddam considered himself to be the next Suleiman, the great uniter of the Arabic world against the Israeli world. He gave sanctuary to the mastermind behind the 1993 WTC attacks and butchered thousands of his own people. He was a monster who needed to be gotten rid of. And to anybody who would say, "Then we shouldn't have put him in power in the first place", well, hindsight's 20/20, isn't it? I'm sorry, but I'm sick of people saying that to me.

 

Kerry keeps talking about his service in Vietnam, which lasted all of 4 months. He has spent the last 20 years as a Senator. Why doesn't he talk about that? What has he done in those twenty years?

 

Kerry voted in favor of the Gulf War in 1991, and then talked about how he'd done everything he could to oppose it. He's doing the same thing now. He's also complained violently about how unfair it was to bring up Clinton's "service" in Vietnam, that that had no bearing on politics today.

 

I cannot get enthused about either candidate. I prefer Bush to Kerry, but only slightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I'm for Kerry only in order to get Bush out of office.

It always saddens me greatly to see people saying this kind of thing...

The only reason I am voting AGAINST Bush is because as Reaperbryan stated in a post above, there are no decent strong candidates in another party that could win my vote. I would gladly vote FOR another candidate if I felt they had a decent head on their shoulders and were not just playing politics as usual. IF a Third Party in this country were to be strong and actually go with most mainstream American views, they might have a chance, but most are either to far to the right or to far to the left.

 

Last election I gladly voted FOR Gore, and not AGAINST Bush.

 

I've voted for people all across the political spectrum depending on the office they were running for and what their platform was. As a registered independent voter not affiliated with any party, I don't feel loyalty towards any given party. I just vote usually for who I feel will do the best job. In this election it will be for the person is is most likely to remove Bush and get the mess that is our economy, and our foreign policy back under control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some people earlier thought that I was arguing _against_ bush in certain of my responses.

 

Please note, in this thread, I believe that I have limited myself to taking statements of others that seem not to make sense to me and saying forthrightly why they make no sense to me.

 

furthering that ...it was pointed out that the congress holds the purse strings.

 

 

But the President PROPOSES a budget. My point was not whether or not he managed to PASS such a budget (I know that with both houses of congress being republican that his priorities are routinely ignored by congressional leadership! :poke: ).

 

My point is that he's not PROPOSING smaller budgets, OR plans for a smaller total number of government employees.

 

It's not that Bush has been trying to spend less and have fewer employees/programs. It's that he's been trying to spend more (while taking in less revenue) while hiring more, and congress doesn't always follow his desires to the letter.

 

 

The fact that the Patriot passed in the climate of fear and with bi-partisan support is horrible to me. The fact that ANYONE was willing to vote for legislation without knowing what was in it...I mean, what kind of principles are those??

 

But Bush can't dodge responsibility for it on the basis of bi-partisanship or Failure to Read the Act. His administration WROTE it, and contained the only people who actually knew what was in it. Ashcroft supervised that & briefed Bush on what was being done - with Bush having full opportunity to stop it as someone who KNEW what was in it.

 

So - bash Kerry for being so irresponsible he's willing to vote for anything named "Patriot" without even reading.

 

But unless you LIKE the patriot - you should bash Bush for actually knowingly getting it passed.

 

 

As for expectation of privacy at a public library - my post wasn't just: "Aww, someone saw what book I checked out."

 

My post was: "I'm sorry - even tho' we happily took your money and scheduled you for the flight at Gate 13D, the government will not allow us to let you fly...and you now have to go into a small room and answer many questions because you checked out a book."

 

I understand that if pieces of what I say are taken out of context they may seem unimportant or even whiny, but I encourage you to take the whole of my point and disagree - or agree - with it.

 

And then say why. I won't learn anything from you otherwise.

 

Thanks for the good discussion everyone.

 

cd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did bash Bush for passing the Patriot Act. I called it a knee-jerk reaction. :-p More congressmen needed to oppose that, it was crazy that it went through as easily as it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crazy is one word.

 

because it was so deliberately scheduled to avoid the chance for anyone to read and/or debate it while a media campaign was constructed to paint anyone who didn't agree into a corner.

 

So I mostly agree with you...but instead of "crazy", I'd be more into using "sneaky" or "diabolical" or some such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but ultimately Bush is for a smaller government since we're going to either need to raise taxes or cut government spending ... or more likely both, just to pay for what we're doing right now.  He's just taking the long view. :wacko: It's kind of like maxing out all of your credit cards before you die because you know that your kids are going to just spend the money on junk (and actually being able to pass your debt along to them).

and that's conservative???

 

or is that just theft from you kids??

 

and how do you really know he's REALLY for smaller gov't??

 

You believe, apparently, that he'd DELIBERATELY wrecking the entire us economy in order to avoid a public debate on whether or not gov't should be smaller.

 

You believe, apparently, that someone sneaky enough to wreck the entire US economy instead of just following up on his beliefs by, say, proposing a smaller budget...is actually telling you the truth??

 

I'm just curious here - You're saying that you can trust someone who wants to destroy the democratic process along with the economy...because ultimately we won't be able to afford the services that you don't want?

 

You do understand that taxes won't be cut, dont' you? In the scenario you imagine, we can't pay for programs because all our money is going to pay for interest on the debt.

 

Plus - it dramatically increases the chance you will lose your job, since the US economy will be wrecked.

 

And this is the reason you believe you can support Bush? Because you're hoping that someday - in order to get the smaller gov't you wish - that your taxes will increase in order to pay for the train wreck of debt that Bush created?

 

Wow. I'm reading what you're saying - but it's hard to understand how that's an argument for Bush.

 

I mean, this is you, right: "Ultimately...we're going to have to raise taxes or cut gov't spending...or more likely both."

 

Don't you believe in your principles of smaller gov't strongly enough to believe that you can just win a debate - rather than wait for the US gov't to default on loans, thereby driving up the rates on your mortgage, car loan, & credit cards?

Ah, CD? I'm nowhere near a Bush supporter. I think I'm at about 6% agreement with him on issues as opposed to nearly 70% for Kerry. (And I was surprised it was that high. It must've been some gimmes like "I like kittens more than Saddam." ^_^ )

 

Although it wouldn't surprise me if what I outlined was part of Bush's plan, it was meant as sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not a fan of either candidate

 

i too am saddened by those who think a third party vote is a wasted vote. i think we should vote for a candidate who is not beholden to party lines, but who best represents what we want to see in our countries.

 

so whatever happens during this election, and in the four years following, all i have to say is: DONT BLAME ME I VOTED FOR NADER!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im not a fan of either candidate

 

i too am saddened by those who think a third party vote is a wasted vote. i think we should vote for a candidate who is not beholden to party lines, but who best represents what we want to see in our countries.

 

so whatever happens during this election, and in the four years following, all i have to say is: DONT BLAME ME I VOTED FOR NADER!

But a vote for any party that doesn't win IS a wasted vote. THAT is the whole problem. The win takes all. Which is not democratic at all. Theoretically a candidate with only 3 percent of the votes can win 100 percent of the power (if every othe candidate gets less than 3 percent). Which is why america only has two parties (I know there are more parties, but the small ones have much less actual power than they would if the system was representative)

 

Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im not a fan of either candidate

 

i too am saddened by those who think a third party vote is a wasted vote. i think we should vote for a candidate who is not beholden to party lines, but who best represents what we want to see in our countries.

 

so whatever happens during this election, and in the four years following, all i have to say is: DONT BLAME ME I VOTED FOR NADER!

But a vote for any party that doesn't win IS a wasted vote. THAT is the whole problem. The win takes all. Which is not democratic at all. Theoretically a candidate with only 3 percent of the votes can win 100 percent of the power (if every othe candidate gets less than 3 percent). Which is why america only has two parties (I know there are more parties, but the small ones have much less actual power than they would if the system was representative)

 

Kim

youve illustrated my point perfectly.

 

and on a side note-if you want a copy of the Anarchist Recipe Book (i type the name incorrectly, because as you all have stated, big brother now really IS watching... ::P: ) of which i own a hard copy, -downloads are fairly easy to get, but that ALWAYS leaves a trail,or Poor Mans James Bond or the "black books" or any of that series or type, its fairly easy. this is more or less how i got mine:

1. go to your friendly local book store -big chains are the best because they have the best resources for ordering

2. order the book and give a fake name and phone number-(you could even use a cell phone number-they throw the forms away after the book is picked up-i used to work for b. daltons and waldenbooks-the only record of a name and number was kept in the book and thrown away when the book was picked up. however, my employment WAS before 9-11, but i doubt this practice has changed (retail is always slow to respond to political climate unless they stand to gain from it)

3. wait the appropriate amount of time. DONT go pick up your order. drop by the store if you wish-most keep special orders in shelves behind a counter where it is fairly easy to see them-if this is the case you can look and see if your order is in! (as well as browse other peoples special orders-ok maybe this is like literary stalking, but hey, the staff looks at orders that are weird anyway, and makes all kinds of speculations about the person who ordered it-i know i used to be one, and why should they have all the fun? i found several authors i now read that way!)

4. wait a week. return to store, see if book is on special order shelf.if not, (or if you cant see shelf), ask an employee to do a bookcheck for said title. often when special orders are not picked up, they are shelved, and if not (i didnt see alot of shelving of the anarchists baking bible: a guide to home made scooby snacks even back then) they are put in "back" and wait shipping back to distributor. even if book is in the storeroom, it will show up on the computer as being in stock since it was shipped to the store.

5. buy it! (use ca$h) anyplace ive heard of (now keep in mind my employment was before 9-11) will sell special orders if they are not picked up after a certain time-hence they are shelved often.

thats how i got mine-i bought a special order i happened to see that noone had picked up after a month. of course, it was at a store i used to work at, so i had access to the special orders that hadnt been picked up after the requisite amount of time (i.e. i knew where the shelf was-it was not restricted or anything)

and i didnt even have to order it under a fake name

 

disclaimer :i am not a heathen terrorist (or even a non-heathen terrorist), i just have an interest in cool pointy things, cool bangy things, and cool homemade pointy/bangy things, like most of you gamers /mini painters/ ren faire costume owners/sword fighters/jousters/sci fi geeks out there.

 

Disclaimer : if you try this and end up being ahem "grounded" by uncle sam /arrested by men in black / detained in a small room with big suits /engaged in heated conversation about religion and politics on the wrong end of a VERY bright light, remember: YOU DO THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK. :blues:

 

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED POLITICAL DEBATE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im not a fan of either candidate

 

i too am saddened by those who think a third party vote is a wasted vote. i think we should vote for a candidate who is not beholden to party lines, but who best represents what we want to see in our countries.

 

so whatever happens during this election, and in the four years following, all i have to say is: DONT BLAME ME I VOTED FOR NADER!

But a vote for any party that doesn't win IS a wasted vote. THAT is the whole problem. The win takes all. Which is not democratic at all. Theoretically a candidate with only 3 percent of the votes can win 100 percent of the power (if every othe candidate gets less than 3 percent). Which is why america only has two parties (I know there are more parties, but the small ones have much less actual power than they would if the system was representative)

 

Kim

youve illustrated my point perfectly.

 

SNIP

But wan't your point that a third party vote isn't wasted ?

 

If it was then I don't see how my post illustrated your point.

 

Please tell me why a vote which gives you 0 % representation is not wasted ?

 

Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have anyone heard about Patriot Act 2 ? Were Americans born in the USA can get deported if the Homeland Sequirity feels they are a threat.

 

I was for Kerry very much but I must say it feels more and more like the Homer Simpson Episode with the two Aliens taking over both candidates and sayin vote for him no vote for him.

 

I will make a a prediction of my own here next year no matter who is in office we will have a draft that will be for both men and women.

 

And the the war in the middle east will be Extended to one or maybe two more contries.

 

::(:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might ad from observing Bushes responses he paused painfully long several times seeming to listen to something, Could he have had an wireless airpiece reciving information for what to say, or it might be that he just cant think on his feet.

 

Another thing I found very intresting is when bush were getting a turn to speak and the green light came on to talk he burst out "Let me finish" what was that about was her infact refering to sombody blabering in his ear or something else?

 

I think it is scary how they got together to script this thing together they way they wanted telling the media how they were supposed to run it.

 

I feel that the special interest groups have bought kerry just as much as they bought bush but I feel he will lead the war in the middle east that will continue the same much better and will ensure a better handling of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one good reason for always voting Republican over Democrat...

 

SPACE MARINES!!!

 

Yes, with enough time in power I guarantee a Republican government will be able to bring you the wonderful evangelical suicidal holy warriors from warhammer 40K.

Those lousy dems don't have the guts to fuse cybernetic technology and religious imperialism!

 

And what the world needs is semi-indestructible robotic armoured terminators.

 

So keep the vision alive!

 

*Brought to you by the Canadian Geeks who want to see Space Marines Association*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is one good reason for always voting Republican over Democrat...

 

SPACE MARINES!!!

 

Yes, with enough time in power I guarantee a Republican government will be able to bring you the wonderful evangelical suicidal holy warriors from warhammer 40K.

Those lousy dems don't have the guts to fuse cybernetic technology and religious imperialism!

 

And what the world needs is semi-indestructible robotic armoured terminators.

 

So keep the vision alive!

 

*Brought to you by the Canadian Geeks who want to see Space Marines Association*

Oh so that's why people vote republican. It all makes sense now.

:lol:::D:

 

Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×