debate breakdown [Archive] - Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile

PDA

View Full Version : debate breakdown


tileguytodd
10-02-2004, 08:29 AM
Heres an article from washington posts columnist's regarding errors,stretched truths or ommissions .
Just a little added fuel for the political fire.

I would like to see more of this type thing here as it surfaces.
The more information we can gather,the more intelligent our decisions become.





By Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus

Updated: 11:20 a.m. ET Oct. 1, 2004President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry made few major factual errors in last night’s debate, though on occasion they stretched the truth or left out inconvenient facts — or may have confused viewers as they spoke in policy shorthand.


Bush, for instance, hailed the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, saying that the fact that 10 million people had registered to vote was a “phenomenal statistic.” But Human Rights Watch this week said that figure was inaccurate because of the multiple registrations of many voters. In a lengthy report, the respected organization also documented how human rights abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country, with voters in those areas having little faith in the secrecy of the balloting and often facing threats and bribes from militia factions.

Kerry repeatedly stated that U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape during the battle at Tora Bora in 2001 because the administration, he said, “outsourced” the task to Afghan militia leaders. This probably overstates the case — it is unclear whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora — but it is true that the Pentagon relied on Afghan proxy forces in an effort to minimize the potential loss of U.S. military lives. Kerry said bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but the intelligence community has always said he was somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistani border.


After the Tora Bora fight, as local Afghan militias began withdrawing, considering their part of the war over, top Pentagon officials appeared ready to send hundreds of conventional ground troops into the White Mountains to press the search for bin Laden and his associates. That plan was dropped in favor of offers of money, weapons and cold-weather clothing to sustain Afghan cooperation.

On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry’s proposal to have direct talks with that country would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well. Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.

But each of the other four countries in the talks has held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process — and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly with North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer.

In a fierce debate over nuclear proliferation, Bush asserted: “Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.” He was referring to a nuclear smuggling ring based in Pakistan.

But many experts also credit the patient diplomacy started in the Clinton administration for persuading Libya to cooperate. Moreover, Khan, a national hero in Pakistan, was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf, and not a single person involved in his network has been prosecuted anywhere. Yesterday, in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency complained that it had been prevented from interviewing Khan.

Bush said he has increased spending on curbing nuclear proliferation by “about 35 percent” since he took office. But in his first budget, he proposed a 13 percent cut — about $116 million — and much of the increases since then have been added by Congress.

Kerry misspoke when he asserted that Bush is spending “hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons.” In fact, the budget for research on that weapon is less that $35 million. The administration has set aside almost $500 million for future budgets in case the president and Congress agree to go ahead with the production of such a weapon.

Leap of faith
The two men also disputed whether Saddam Hussein would have been stronger if the United States had not launched an invasion. This is a question that will be debated by historians, and the answer may never be clear.

Bush said “Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming.” Yet Iraq asserted in its filing with the United Nations in December 2002 that it had no such weapons, and none has been found.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq because it believed Hussein was concealing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Some post-invasion reports have argued that Hussein retained the capability to restart his weapons programs, but many experts consider that doubtful as long as he remained under U.N. sanctions and inspections.

However, when Kerry said Hussein would have been continually weakened, he was making a leap of faith that the U.N. Security Council would have been willing to continue sanctions that were increasingly unpopular with key nations.

Kerry suggested that the United States has spent $200 billion on Iraq, largely because it supplied the bulk of the troops. This was an exaggeration because it combined the amount already spent — about $120 billion — with money that is expected to be spent in the coming year or requested by the administration.

But Bush also overstated the case when he corrected Kerry by saying that the senator forgot to mention that Poland supplied forces when the invasion began. Kerry said there were three countries that did — Britain, Australia and the United States — and Bush said, “actually he forgot Poland.”

Poland later supplied troops and commanded a zone in Iraq. But, except for a few commandos, Polish troops were not part of the original ground invasion. And though Bush said there are 30 countries in the coalition, he neglected to say that about a half-dozen have recently withdrawn their troops.

Kerry was correct when he said that the number of U.S. troops killed in June, July, August and September increased month by month. But he left out that the highest number killed in any month was 150 in April and that the total dropped to 88 in May and to 42 in June before it started climbing again to September’s 92.

‘Pottery Barn rule’
At another point, Kerry said that Powell “told this president the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it.” This anecdote comes from Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack,” but Woodward actually reported that Powell privately talked with aides about the rule that if “you break it, you own it.” He did not say this to the president — and it turns out Pottery Barn has no such rule.

As part of his case that Kerry has sent mixed messages, Bush asserted that “he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it.”

While Bush meant it as a jab, this was an accurate description of the Senate process. Kerry supported a different version of the bill, which was opposed by the administration. At the time, many Republicans were uncomfortable with the administration’s plans and the White House had to threaten a veto against the congressional version to bring reluctant lawmakers in line. In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground, but he faulted the administration’s $20 billion request for reconstruction.

Staff writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Sponsored Links


Bill Vincent
10-02-2004, 12:47 PM
We won't talk about Kerry "supporting our troops on the ground", and then voting against allocations to give them equipment they needed.

Davestone
10-02-2004, 04:51 PM
But are these guys accurate? :)

muskymike
10-02-2004, 05:03 PM
One of the two will win. Either way were screwed. But to me, better to have someone in there that "thinks" he knows what's going on than to have someone that's a green horn and won't have a clue.

Bill Vincent
10-02-2004, 08:02 PM
I agree 100%

Chris McNeal
10-02-2004, 10:21 PM
Our country is founded on God and Biblical principals. We might ought to consider voteing for the man that realizes these things, and has some morals and grit to to back them up.Personally I couldn't vote for a leader who is for queer marriages, or murdering babies. Actuallty he wouldn't be much of a leader. Chris.

cx
10-02-2004, 11:42 PM
Our country was founded upon principles that pre-date your bible, Chris. Some of the Founders were deists, some were not. Some were Christian, some were not. None intended that any religious beliefs or prejudices ever be fostered by, nor restricted by the Federal government. They'd already been there, done that, and were not inclined to wear the tee shirt.

What we should vote for is a President who recognizes that the office has absolutely no business becoming involved in any issue not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Issues such a gay marriage and abortion are just a couple of those used every election year to take your mind off the real issues facing the administrative and legislative branches of government. And, unfortunately, it works pretty effectively.

Those who profess to be of any particular religious bent should be the first ones to vote for Libertarian candidates. They are the only ones who will ensure that the government has no power to inflict one person's values upon another. That would make the Christians safe from those with alien values, while reassuring others that Christians won't impose their values by force. That was the original intent, and it's still a very good plan.

I prefer to be spared the enforcement of the alleged moral values of any candidate. I have my own, thank you.

vero
10-03-2004, 04:23 AM
Thanks Todd for posting some very informative information.

One of the things I find most interesting about our current administration is that they keep talking about disarming other countries of weapons of mass destruction, all the while continuing to fund the research and manufacturing of these weapons for America!
Kerry addressed this issue and recognized the need to change it by cutting funding to create more.

Working together with other countries is extremely important as we move into the future, and all the current president has done is alienate them. I travel quite a bit and most people I have talked to in other countries are extremely negative about America right now....it's embarassing to show an American passport anymore. :(

So there's my 2 cents... :shades:

Veronika

tileguytodd
10-03-2004, 08:46 AM
Veronika,bear with me cause I am going to tell a little story.

I had a siameese cat once.Gorgeous cat but persnickity as hell. We had another cat at the time also, a barn cat.The siameese would use the litter box only if the other cat hadnt used it.We got 2 litter boxes.the barn cat didnt differentiaite,a sand pile was a sand pile to him so he would use both.
This left me with a siameese pissing in the house etc.
I told the wife to find it a home ,we cant have this going on.
she didnt and the cat kept doing the same thing.I kept reminding her.

Finally one morning I came down and sat in my morning spot.and sure enough,the cat had pissed in my chair.
I went ballistic.I told her you get rid of this cat today or i am going to shoot it.

She said fine go ahead(she didnt think i would)
I went upstairs grabbed my 357 took the cat outside and shot it!!
Grabbed a shovel dug a hole and buried it.
End of problem right? Wrong.
Now the wife wont talk to me.

The one who is left to make the hard decisions are never the most popular.It doesnt change the fact that someone had to make the decision.

Do you now understand??

3 days after with the wife glaring at me daily,i finally told her flat out.
You have no right to be mad at me.You leave me to make the hard decisions and when i make them you get indignant.
You have no right!!

She thought about it for less time than i would have believed and then apologized to me

Do you now Understand??

We are always left to make the hard decisions and end up not being popular.Those who dont make the decisions or dont get involved in making the tough decisions have no right to judge.

I am adding this as an afterthought because it seemed i made the Story too realistic and some believed it to be true.I did say i was going to tell a Story but that wasnt enough i guess.Its a fabrication based on decision making events that had nothing to do with animals.
This is a story,it is based on tough decisions that I have made in the past but this is only an analogy to make a point.the actual events are of a personal nature and none of your business ;).
No animals were actually hurt during the making of this movie.er story !!

LGB
10-03-2004, 10:18 AM
Great post Todd! The US is in a no win situation in this world. If we do what is necessary we are the bad guy and if we don't do it they'll blame the results on us too...

cx
10-03-2004, 10:48 AM
There's a difference between making hard decisions and making dumb decision, Todd.

Your analogy would be better suited to our situation if you'd said the Siamese cat pissed in your chair but you shot the barn cat because he was easier to find and nobody liked him anyway.

A bunch of radicals, most from Saudi Arabia, pissed in our chair. We shot Iraq. This was a difficult decision showing great character?

LadyGodiva
10-03-2004, 12:14 PM
Veronika,

Thank goodness I am the proud owner of two passports :D

Steven Hauser
10-03-2004, 12:41 PM
:eek:

You shot a cat?

:wtf: and you made your wife apologize.

More n' likely she wuz scared shifless.

;)

Davestone
10-03-2004, 12:55 PM
This seems like an appropriate time to remember this-In any moment of decision, the best thing to do is the right thing,the next best thing is the wrong thing,and the worst thing is nothing. Teddy Roosevelt

Shaughnn
10-03-2004, 01:08 PM
I dunno. I'm a little confussed about why Todd's wife had to find it a home. She didn't have a problem with it pissing, right? Seems to me that it might have been just as easy to take the cat along to a jobsite and given it to a local shelter on the way? Or, just put it outside and let it pee in the barn. But, I'm a cat person and the whole story just struck me as strange.
Shaughnn
PS: What was the cat's name?

muskymike
10-03-2004, 01:33 PM
Yeah me too. We have 15 inside no one pisses anywhere except in the box, if the do else where they get the blue juice treatment from the vet. I couldn't shoot 'em. Use them for musky bait well.......... maybe. :laugh2:

sdaniels7114
10-03-2004, 02:12 PM
As to the war in Iraq being a tough but 'right' decision, I have serious trouble with it. To me the people who took over Iran in the '80's were very similar to OBL and co. I could see the Ayatola and OBL getting along nicely. Didn't Saddam fight a war with these same Muslim Radicals for 10 years? Wasn't he considered a hero by the moderates in the ME for having stopped the wave of Fundamentalism that seemed to sweeping over the entire area? How could he have patched things up with the Fundamentalists so fast? I think Saddam reads his Koran everyday in jail thinking: "What is this crap?"

btw CX, I happen to think that the separation between church and state was more about protecting the our newly created nation from the influence of organised religion, rather than the other way around. One had been around for centuries and the other was really just an experiment at the time.

cx
10-03-2004, 03:30 PM
btw CX, I happen to think that the separation between church and state was more about protecting the our newly created nation from the influence of organised religion, rather than the other way around. One had been around for centuries and the other was really just an experiment at the time. I think you are mostly correct, Steve, but you'll note that they had the foresight to word that doccument such that it protected all sides in that issue. And I think the nation needs the same protection from the influence of organized religion today as it did in th late 1700s. I think the intent of the framers was that the federal government has no business involving itself in religion, neither pro nor con. Period. I think it would be nice to get back to that concept, among some others clearly set out in that wonderful doccument.

tileguytodd
10-04-2004, 05:51 AM
Shaughn, Its a story.Sorry if i made it sound real.A story = a fabrication told to make a point.
My siameese got run over by a truck :(
My Barn cats smarter than that :)

I had a similar decision making experiance with the wife but that my friend is none of your business :D

vero
10-04-2004, 09:34 PM
"There's a difference between making hard decisions and making dumb decision, Todd." quote from CX

Very interesting story Todd ??!? :rolleyes:

I agree with CX, there is a difference in the kind of decision one makes, and more importantly, HOW they go about doing it!

Bombing the sh@# out of Afghanistan which was already rubble, then Iraq which had NO weapons of mass destruction and NO real ties with AL Quaida was motivated purely by self interest- i.e. oil. There have been several politicians that have left their positions because they just couldn't sit back and watch what was happening. The plan for the US to get some oil power in the mid east has been in the plans for a long time.. the recent situation with Sadam worked as a good excuse.

A sincere attempt to aid Iraq would have included working with other countries to make multilateral decisions with a long term plan that included before, during and after. :nod:

Just like what Shaughnn said "seems to me that it might have been just as easy to take the cat along to a jobsite and given it to a local shelter on the way...Or, just put it outside and let it pee in the barn." A much more skillful way of dealing with the situation rather than shooting the cat!

I'm a cat person too, and I knew the story had to be made up when she forgave you so quickly! That would have meant divorce for me!! :shades:

tileguytodd
10-04-2004, 10:47 PM
I happen to like my cat thank you very much.:)

bbcamp
10-05-2004, 07:27 AM
Todd, are you flip-flopping on the cat issue? :D

tileguytodd
10-05-2004, 07:41 AM
Bob, wait till i tell the one about the goldfish and the blender :D :D :D

Shaughnn
10-05-2004, 07:49 AM
Naw, Don't much care about goldfish. :)
Shaughnn

Bill Vincent
10-05-2004, 10:56 AM
Ya know, I love all these arm chair monday morning quarterbacks, who have the luxury of being able to look back and say "we SHOULD have done this or that". At the time, the intell that we had said that Saddam DID have WMD's... and that there WERE ties. I still have yet to see evidence that there AREN'T ties to terrorism. Hindsight being 20/20, I agree-- we shouldn't have gone in.....YET. But with the information that was at hand, Bush did what had to be done, whether or not it was the popular decision. He did what had to be done. PERIOD. I found it very peculiar how all these doves were no where to be found at first-- everyone was waiting to see if WMD's would be found, and if they had, everyone would be right behind Bush now. If they truly believed the garbage they're spewing now, they would have been spewing the same garbage then (STARTING WITH KERRY, who was right behind Bush when we first went in). Kerry reminds me of a football fan who switches his favorite team every year to the one that's in first place, because he wants to ride the gravy train. Bush does what he believes in his heart is the right thing to do, whether it's popular or not.

DougB
10-05-2004, 01:19 PM
Bush, for instance, hailed the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, saying that the fact that 10 million people had registered to vote was a “phenomenal statistic.” But Human Rights Watch this week said that figure was inaccurate because of the multiple registrations of many voters<

Sounds like Chicago - vote early - and often. <G>

Maybe Daly will give them a lesson - they can also register folks who are in the cemetary!

vero
10-05-2004, 03:30 PM
Hey Bill, I appreciate your perspective.
2 things:
There were millions of doves protesting a war with Iraq world wide before the war....the biggest protest in history. It's actually listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest mass protest movement in history. Check out this link:
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/gl/global_protests_against_war_on_iraq__pre_war_.html
If the link doesn't work do a google search on pre war protests Iraq...that's how I found it. It's pretty awesome to see the numbers of protesters around the world. :wtf:


Also, it's not the decision to get Saddam out, but HOW it was done. A little more patience, a little more thorough investigation to be SURE the claims against him were valid before dropping bombs, plus a lot more diplomacy working together with other countries...this is what I have issue with. Just like shooting the cat, was that what had to be done period?? I don't think so....
(sorry to bring that up again Todd, I know you love your cat ;) )

Bill Vincent
10-05-2004, 04:23 PM
A little more patience, a little more thorough investigation to be SURE the claims against him were valid before dropping bombs, plus a lot more diplomacy working together with other countries...this is what I have issue with.

Vero-- How much more investigation do you want? You had 3 of the top four intelligence agencies in the world (ours, British, and Russian-- the only one we didn't consult for obvious reasons was the Israelies) telling him that yes, Saddam has the weapons, and he will either use them himnself if given the chance, or dole them out to terrorists who will use them. Would you rather he wait till someone gasses a New York Subway? AS for the demonstrators, that means nothing to me. These are the same people who would be looking to put daisies down the barrels of AK's-- just before the get shot. I'm talking about people in Congress and the Senate, and specifically, as I mentioned before, Kerry.

As for working with other countries, we TRIED that. How many times did the UN impose sanctions that Saddam just laughed at? The four biggest countries that opposed the war-- France, Germany, Russia, and China-- ALL had HUGE debts owed to them by the Saddam Regime-- in the BILLIONS of dollars that they all stood to lose by having him removed from power. Now, it's even being brought out that two of them-- France and China-- were even selling him arms LONG AFTER the embargo was put in place by the UN. Now, what cooperation would you like to wait for?????

YOU AIN'T GONNA GET IT FROM THOSE FOUR....... EVER.

Scooter
10-05-2004, 04:29 PM
Bill Said:
Ya know, I love all these arm chair monday morning quarterbacks, who have the luxury of being able to look back and say "we SHOULD have done this or that". At the time, the intell that we had said that Saddam DID have WMD's... and that there WERE ties.
However, the fact remains that most nations and a considerable percentage of persons in the USA were saying wait, slow down, and let the inspectors do their job. To rush to judgment and to rush to war, to destroy valuable political good will with other nations, and to abandon the UN made no sense.

I agreed with you, I was dead set against that stupid war until I heard Colin Powell make the case for war. I trusted him. Ultimately the question for me was who ya gonna believe: Sadaam or Bush. Sadly, it turns out that Sadaam was telling the truth and George was lying. Ya'all don't like Dan Rather because he lied and got tricked, and I honestly expect more from elected officials.

Bill also said:
But with the information that was at hand, Bush did what had to be done, whether or not it was the popular decision. He did what had to be done. PERIOD.

Well first, it didn't HAVE to be done. There was no imminent threat, and many administration insiders and outsiders have testified before Congress that the case for war was overstated, reasons against war were not included in the analysis, and the President was fixated on war, not on peace. Bush went against logic, diplomacy, and facts. He made that tough decision, and now has to take responsibility. As you Republicans know, part of taking responsibility includes taking the consequences, which is the fallout for being WRONG. Dead (no pun intended) wrong.

So lets face it. This clown was WRONG. He made an error in judgment. Do we reward someone who killed 1,000 men and women, wounded another 5,000 American men, and needlessly spent 200 Billion (thats with a "B") dollars and ran up a record deficit in the process?

Bill also said:
Kerry reminds me of a football fan who switches his favorite team every year to the one that's in first place, because he wants to ride the gravy train.
Well, yeah. The season is over, and its time to take stock of the elected officials and the decisions they have made in the past 4 years. And yes, some people feel its time to change "football teams" . I can only go on what the guy has done in the last 4 years. If the decisions he made were stupid, no matter how innocent they were, then he deserves to go.

Your estimator bids a tile job for your company. Stupidly, perhaps innocently, he ignored some signs as to the existing conditions and underbid the job. Your company loses thousands of dollars. Its time for bonus and a new estimator applies for the job. Do you keep the clown that lost you thousands? You would say yes, if the mistake was an "honest" one. How warm and fuzzy of you.

You would probably say "Poor George. He trusted his advisors, made the wrong decision, killed thousands, spent like a drunken sailor, but its OK because it was an honest mistake."

He sounds like Justin Timberlake. Matter of fact here is a picture of George in a Justin Timberlake pose:

Westie
10-05-2004, 04:42 PM
Vero-- How much more investigation do you want? You had 3 of the top four intelligence agencies in the world (ours, British, and Russian-- the only one we didn't consult for obvious reasons was the Israelies) telling him that yes, Saddam has the weapons, and he will either use them himnself if given the chance, or dole them out to terrorists who will use them. .


Russia never agreed with the US intel on Iraqs WMD program. In fact on Russian TV Putin said that the US was basically making up the intel to justify the invasion of Iraq.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/030217.htm

Bill Vincent
10-05-2004, 05:12 PM
Right. Now Bush has enough pull with the leaders throughout the world to be able to make up intell, and then cover it up. Give it a rest. Don't you think if he was making it up, this would have been found out and TOUTED by both Kerry's camp AND the liberal biased media?? As John Stossel says, GIMME A BREAK!!

Your estimator bids a tile job for your company. Stupidly, perhaps innocently, he ignored some signs as to the existing conditions and underbid the job. Your company loses thousands of dollars. Its time for bonus and a new estimator applies for the job. Do you keep the clown that lost you thousands? You would say yes, if the mistake was an "honest" one. How warm and fuzzy of you.

I MOST CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HIRE THE OTHER GUY IF HE WAS ONLY TRYIN TO BLOW SMOKE UP MY ASS!!

Bri
10-05-2004, 05:30 PM
the liberal biased media??


Why is that by the way?...I mean it's true and all...but what does the majority of media have to gain by being left?

Bill Vincent
10-05-2004, 05:35 PM
That's one I've never been able to figure out. But it's never mattered who was president, or how good or bad they were doing. The media has historically always been liberal.

John Bridge
10-05-2004, 05:56 PM
Speaking of AKs. Here's my little cutomized version. I'm ready for the REAL war on terrorism. ;)

Bill Vincent
10-05-2004, 06:48 PM
I used to have one like it-- excepty mine had what's known as a "thumbstock"-- One that has a hole in the stock for the thumb to go thru-- supposedly gives you a steadier grip. I never saw any difference, though. Personally, for 7.62 mm, I prefer an M-1A1 (semi auto M-14). ALot more accurate. I used to use it for 200 meter flag shoots. You have 200 meters between you and the target, which consists of a 3 foot high 1/2" wooden dowl with an orange penant on top, and you have two rounds to hit it. Lets see ya do THAT with an AK!! :D

For what you're talking about, though, I'll go with my 5.56 AR. :)

Bri
10-05-2004, 06:53 PM
John Bridge for President!! :)

Scooter
10-05-2004, 07:15 PM
Bill, not even Dumbsfeld, your beloved Secy of Defense is buying in to the argument that there was a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq.

Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: ''To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.''


http://www.boston.com/dailynews/279/nation/Donald_Rumsfeld_says_no_hard_e:.shtml

If you are going to tow the Bush pack of lies about Iraq, then at least get up to speed with what happened today. For the 1st time in many months Dumbsfeld actually spoke the truth.

Bill Vincent
10-05-2004, 07:24 PM
I saw it. As for him being my "beloved", He's probably the BIGGEST mistake that Bush made. The guy's a moron. Personally, I think that would have been alot better position for Colin Powell.

Never once, in all the political discussions we've had in here, has anyone ever seen me speak in favor or Dumsfeld (I like that! :D ).

Scooter
10-05-2004, 07:40 PM
Golly Bill. You and I agree on something. I like and respect Colin Powell. I wish he was President, or had some real power, but alas......

Bear in mind where this leads you, however. Powell was on the record as wanting and requiring UN approval to wage war (is that an "International Veto"? Hmmm), or absent such approval a smoking gun. Of course, there was no smoking gun, only distorted data from intelligence sources that was filtered by Wolkowitz, Dumbsfeld and Cheney, so that the only logical conclusion was war was enivitable and Iraq was an iminent threat. Powell couldn't sign on for that and was quickly off the white house "A" list. We haven't heard much from him and I suspect he is history after the election.

So if you wanna back your President on this stupid war, better get off Colin Powell's bandwagon, and hitch yourself to the Cheney, Wolkowitz, Rove, and Dumbsfeld bandwagon. They are more up your alley on this issue.

As for Cheney he stated in 1992 that "capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time, made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.

Talk about a flip flop.

Bill Vincent
10-05-2004, 07:54 PM
As far as being on any "bandwagon", the only one I'm hitched to is Bush's. Cheney has backed his president, and I'd have no respect for him, considering his position, if he didn't. As for the others, THEY'RE the ones I blame for this whole mess. They're responsible for making sure that the president is informed with the most accurate and up to date information, and then he has to make what he feels is the best decision based on that information. I believe the only thing Bush did wrong was to listen to bad info provided by unqualified subordinates, and I have a feeling that THEY'LL be the ones gone after the elections, not Powell. Powell's been way to valuable to this administration.

Matter of fact, I'd even be willing to bet that (God forbid) Kerry WERE to win the election, that Powell would STILL be atleast asked to be part of the cabinet (atleast if Kerry has a brain in his head....... oh well :D )

I'll be back after the debate. :)

Bill Vincent
10-05-2004, 10:34 PM
I dunno-- Edwards made some good points, but overall, it looked to me like he got SPANKED.

tileguytodd
10-06-2004, 07:17 AM
Funny you mentioned Cheney.
My brother and my Dad hed thier pictures on the front page of the Duluth news with him last week.
My brother is running for congress(on the republican ticket of course)
He is running against an incumbant who has been in office since..........hell i think he signed the decleration of independance.He doesnt hear so good anymore ;)
The biggest problem for him is being a republican in predominantly democrat country.republicans dont do well up here and never have.I wish him well though and spent some time putting up some signs for him earlier in the week.My little contribution to his campaign ;)

Shaughnn
10-06-2004, 07:50 AM
Mr. Cheney scored some points last night with his statement about never having met Mr. Edwards in all his time at the Senate. Not only did they sit next to one another at a SEnate Prayer Breakfast but Mr. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole to Mr. Cheney when Mrs. Dole was sworn in. I suppose that Mr. Cheney just didn't remember the occasions?
Shaughnn

muskymike
10-06-2004, 07:54 AM
I was going to ask you about that Todd, when I went to the Cities last week I saw a sign with your last name on it. Nice, bro in congress.

Bill Vincent
10-06-2004, 10:00 AM
Mr. Cheney scored some points last night with his statement about never having met Mr. Edwards in all his time at the Senate. Not only did they sit next to one another at a SEnate Prayer Breakfast but Mr. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole to Mr. Cheney when Mrs. Dole was sworn in. I suppose that Mr. Cheney just didn't remember the occasions?
Shaughnn


Shaughnn-- I heard that during the after debate "analysis", and my first reaction was I'm sure Senator Edwards did a mountain of good for this country at that prayer breakfast. :) That completely misses the whole point Cheney was trying to make.

Shaughnn
10-06-2004, 08:13 PM
Bill,
If Mr. Cheney makes his "point" by using eroneous information or out-right lies, then his point is invalid and his arguement flawed. He was trying to illustrate Mr. Edwards' absentesim from the Senate, and in I agree that it's a very good point worth some discussion. But by couching it in an anecdote of deceit, Mr. Cheney lost credibility and fed into the "point" which Mr. Edwards drove home time and time again. The Bush administration will stoop to any level and manipulate data to any extent to support their arguements, no matter how flawed or destructive.
The next time a United States President tells the country that "war is immenent" and that "all avenues have been exhausted", history will drag us back to this sorrid episode and we, as a nation, will doubt our leaders. President Bush has cashed in every last meassure of "faith' we might have had in the office he has so continueously abused, for this dim-witted fiasco. And Mr. Cheney's reliance on deciet to illustrate an otherwise noteworthy point compounds the evidence that "these boys just don't get it".
Shaughnn

vero
10-06-2004, 09:14 PM
Right on Shaugnn!! Couldn't have said it better myself :nod:

Steven Hauser
10-07-2004, 08:14 AM
Here is an ironic observation.

So far I understand things as follows:

Everything these guys say is OK and correct to some because they represent a party line. Thus "the other guys" are absolutely subject to dismissal because they represent the "opposing" party. They are all right when they compliment each others children.

Is that correct?

tileguytodd
10-07-2004, 08:37 AM
Kerry does not oppose
Same Sex Marriages
Abortions
Gun Control
Extending Social Programs

So, Gays will no longer be able to tote guns ,but they can get married and live happily everafter on Welfare,or,
They can Join the New Army.;)

Hey dont get me wrong, Kerry had some good idea's given to him(which he rejected as being too right wing)
His Stance on Gun Control is Inane,
His Disregard for the human lives of infants unable to defend themselves is horrific,
And His disregard for the fundamental truths this country were founded on are irresponsible.
In other words,he aint perfect so quit making him out to be.
Hell Bush aint perfect either but at least he has done the job,a damn hard job considering the fact that we were attacked for the first time in 50+ years and hard decisions had to be made.These decisions werent optional,they were necessary.
How quickly we forget what the Iraqi regime stood for or do we just conveniantly forget the atrocities committed to the kuwait people?

Granted,mistakes were made and hindsight is 20/20.
If you knew everything he knew(had all the intelligence in front of you that was made available to him to base his decisions on)What decisions would you have made that may have been deemed poor with that 20/20 hindsight?

So tell me, how do you think he handled the first week after 9/11???
Do you remember when his popularity was in the 80+ percentile because of how he handled that first week?

We were a flag waving nation again,brought together by a common enemy and now He's just not good enough???

Damn you people are fickle!!

jvcstone
10-07-2004, 11:13 AM
Do you remember when his popularity was in the 80+ percentile because of how he handled that first week?

We were a flag waving nation again,brought together by a common enemy and now He's just not good enough???

Damn you people are fickle!!

Well Todd,
Very few can dispute what you say about the time period immediately after 9/11. Had the administration maintained focus and discipline going after Al quida and Bin Laden, finished the job and came home with a total and complete success, Bush would be on top of the world, and unbeatable. But they screwed up, lost focus, confused what needed to be done with what some of the players had been wanting to do, and now are showing themselves to be unsuccessful on two fronts thousands of miles away, and many domestic issues of importance here at home. So we should reelect the guy based on what he did for a week 3 years ago??? I'd rather look at the entire 4 year record, and in my opinion it isn't very good.
JVC

Bill Vincent
10-07-2004, 11:39 AM
Had the administration maintained focus and discipline going after Al quida and Bin Laden, finished the job and came home with a total and complete success, Bush would be on top of the world, and unbeatable.

This is a very common misconception that the liberals like to put out. Focus was NEVER taken off Bin Laden and his crew-- EXCEPT by the media. It seems like every other week, you hear a tail end news clip that alqueda members have been caught or killed. Troops were never diverted from Afganistan to go to Iraq-- they're still there going thru the caves looking for Bin Laden. I'll agree that it WAS a mistake allowing the war lords to go in after him when he was cornered, but what kind of outrage do you think the left wing would have raised if we sent our guys into a fire fight that ended with dozens of casualties when there were Afganis right there to do the job? It was a no win situation for Bush, no matter what he did.

As for "errant" or "misguiding" information. KERRY would never do that! :bang:

Varo and Shaughnn-- Yes, Cheney exaggerated. Yes, there's been misinformation on BOTH sides. Yes, Bush has made mistakes. He's human. He's also experienced. Kerry's only experience is trying to weaken our intellegence and defense by voting against it EVERY DAMN TIME. As a commander and Chief, I'd expect to see another Carter type, and as a sailor in the navy when Carter was president, I can't TELL you how much I hated that man for turning chicken when Iran took the hostages. I CERTAINLY don't want to see that again. I'd vote for HILLARY before I voted for Kerry.

On Hannity and Colmes last night, a very good point was brought up, in which case, my vote most likely would have been different. Why didn't the democrats nominate a strong leader like Joe Leiberman? This guy has been active in congress since day one, and shone himself to be a leader worthy of leading this country. But instead, they nominated a know nothing, DO nothing, TRAITOR, along with some ambulance chaser who's still wet behind the ears. I'll vote for Bush-- he's still the better of the two evils.

vero
10-07-2004, 04:49 PM
Well Bill, you've made your views abundantly clear, thanks.
Isn't it great that we can agree to disagree?! :)


I just have to say your naive loyalty to Bush is sweet, but misguided. There is so much evidence that the White House knew about the Sept 11 attack BEFORE it happened...go see "Farenheit 9/11", and while you are at it "The Corporation". These movies show the stories behind the stories the figureheads and media give us. There is much more going on than we are being told or shown.

Kerry is far from perfect, but I think he has more integrity than Bush, and we need a change for sure. If Bush stays in power he will run this country into the ground.

John Bridge
10-07-2004, 04:53 PM
Veronika, there is probably a lot I will agree with you on, but not on citing movies as a source of political knowledge. Movies are movies. They're for entertainment, just like politics. :D

Bill Vincent
10-07-2004, 05:00 PM
ESPECIALLY 9/11. Even the Democrats say it's alot of hogwash.

Well Bill, you've made your views abundantly clear, thanks.


Are you saying I talk to much?? :D

I've said it before, and I'll say it again-- EVERYONE'S entitled to my opinion!! :D :D :D

Scooter
10-07-2004, 08:29 PM
I gave the edge to Cheney in the debate this week. He came across as wiser, more experienced, and calmer.

That being said, I loved the part about him voting against Clean Water, Senior Citizens Meals on Wheels, Keeping Nelson Mandella in Jail, and against Martin Luther King Day. What a guy.

This clown is scary. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Shaughnn
10-07-2004, 11:48 PM
Here's a little more to chew on before tomorrow night. I know that the source is a "liberal media" outlet, but the authors of the article seems to have done enough fact-checking to make the story a worthwhile read. It's short, so why not read it and see if it doesn't strike a chord?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html

Shaughnn

vero
10-08-2004, 12:47 AM
Thanks John, these movies are a blend of fact and opinion, however I wouldn't call them entertaining....more like being hit on the head with a heavy object...like a piece of stone tile :eek:


By the way,Michael Moore admits that the opinions in the movie are his own, but that he had the facts presented verified by at least three independent sources before including them in the film. Where there's smoke, there's definitely some fire. :suspect:

I just hope whoever becomes president is better than we think they'll be and helps make things better instead of worse!

Steven Hauser
10-08-2004, 03:34 AM
Sorry Shaughnn,

You'll hafta give me the bullet points, I couldn't shoulder another commercial just to read the article.

:yawn:

Shaughnn
10-08-2004, 07:44 AM
Hi Steve,
The article has to do with a strange "bulge" that is under President Bush's jacket during the debate last week. It's a small flat square object between his shoulder blades. Speculation is that it is a prompting reciever for an earpiece the President was wearing during the debate and that he might have been advised during the debate by outsiders. That, of course, would not be within the rules of the debate and would probably not play well for the President amoung voters who don't appreciate cheating and lying.
The rest of the article presents additional information and explains the author's process for investigating the piece.
Shaughnn

Bill Vincent
10-08-2004, 11:25 AM
Veronika-- Concerning the 9/11 film, even Moore's sources have been discredited-- by the media, not just by Bush. As for your comment about whomever gets the election, FINALLY something you and I can agree on. :)

Shaughnn-- are you sure it wasn't a thermo nuclear device just in case he lost the debate, he could take Kerry with him? This is getting old. Speculation is nothing more than BS with a spin on it.

Bill Vincent
10-08-2004, 10:02 PM
Okay-- debate's over lets hear it. :) Atleast this time, Dubya didn't sound like a broken record. :)

jd77
10-09-2004, 08:27 AM
Okay-- debate's over lets hear it. :) Atleast this time, Dubya didn't sound like a broken record. :)


No - but Kerry sure did. He must have said "I have a plan" three hundred times.

It's getting old :tongue:


JD

Bill Vincent
10-09-2004, 08:37 AM
Actually, I think Kerry did quite well for himself. But that's to be expected, considering this ( the debates) is his forte. However, I was impressed to see Bush holding his own this time, as opposed to the last debate where he seemed totally unprepared, and tripping over his tongue.

jgleason
10-10-2004, 10:49 AM
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions in this country, that is a part of what makes America great. I have several issues that are important to me and are what I use to decide how I cast my vote. Here is my top four (in no particular order)...

1. Strong national defense

2. Fair and reasonable taxes

3. Limiting the federal government to its core functions as proscribed in the Constitution.

4. Appointment of judges that will interpret law, not create it.

Party affiliation is not important to me. Where the candidates stand on these issues is what matters. In the end I will vote for the candidate that most closely aligns with my thinking on these issues. In most elections the choices available means voting for the "lesser of two evils". This year I will be voting for Bush.

Steven Hauser
10-10-2004, 01:31 PM
I like your list Joe,

Mine is a little longer but briefer in description. I am interested in not only the candidate but who the potential cabinet is.

These are my hot buttons

* Abortion and all matters related to regarding life and conception
* Capital Punishment
* Employment
* Federal Deficit and Federal Debt
* Global Warming
* Gun Control
* Homeland Security and its interpretive need
* Immigration
* Improving Schools
* International Trade
* Iraq
* Welfare

jgleason
10-10-2004, 04:19 PM
Steven,

Some of your issues fall under the broader scope of my four main issues. Others I believe do not belong at the federal level, i.e. - improving schools, abortion, employment, welfare.

In essence, I am a Constitutionalist at heart. Power should be held as close to the people as reasonable. States rights are trampled all the time by an ever-expanding federal government led by activist courts.

I agree, when voting for the top of the ticket you need to take into account the likely makeup of the cabinet that the President will appoint. I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I think of what a Kerry cabinet would look like!

Bill Vincent
10-10-2004, 09:16 PM
Well, they could always put Kennedy in as sec. of transportation, maybe Carter as defense secretary, and before you know it, hell Clinton will be sharing the spotlight with Jim Dobson leading Focus on the Family! :tongue:

Shaughnn
10-10-2004, 09:27 PM
And James Gaius Watt was an exemplary choice for Sec. of Interior??? :crazy:

"I don't know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns." -- James Watt, to a Congressional committee in 1981, quoted from "A Brief History of the Apocalypse"

"We have every mixture you can have. I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent." -- James Watt, describing his staff to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on September 21, 1983; this comment led directly to his forced resignation; quoted from Bartlett's Online

Shaughnn

Bill Vincent
10-10-2004, 09:36 PM
Point taken. :) One of the numbest sob's ever to grace DC's streets.

Steven Hauser
10-11-2004, 03:43 AM
Hmm..

I agree in principal Joe, reality shows that we must pay attention to these issues at the national level.

Strict constitutionalism is not a reality right now.

:)

tileguytodd
10-11-2004, 07:06 AM
The larger the country grows,the less likely that is to happen also.

Answer this question if you would.

A Utopian government would in my opinion be...................?

jjwq8
10-11-2004, 07:13 AM
Located in another star system :D

Shaughnn
10-11-2004, 07:22 AM
I played a computer gam once that offered a Utopian government as an option. I don't think anyone ever chose it. The Fascist government was much more profitable and you didn't have to worry about "citizen unrest" because you just killed off the unruly ones. With the Democratic government, you always had to worry about popular resitance to wars, which might halt your expansion dead in it's tracks. Again, the Fascists didn't care and often were the most successful government system in the game unless someone took the diplomatic route and turned all of your opponents against you.
Just sharing an experience. :D
Shaughnn

Steven Hauser
10-11-2004, 08:08 AM
:yeah: maybe Jeremy.

I'd say...not going to happen at this point in our evolution.
;)

John Bridge
10-11-2004, 05:51 PM
It may not happen here and now, but there's no harm in avocating a return to a more accurate interpretation of the Constitution. I used to call myself a strict constructionist, but that's not all it's cracked up to be. I read a book by Judge Robert Bork in which he coined the term "original understanding." That's where I'm at now. To keep it short, it doesn't really matter what the founders originally intended; what the people (who ratified the Constitution) understood it to mean is what's important. So when you hold a piece of legislation up to the light of the Constitution, ask yourself what the ratifiers would have thought.

Try it a few times. Try it with the Patriot Act. :)

jjwq8
10-12-2004, 01:06 AM
But John, you know damn well that all new construction gets cracks as it cures and matures:D

John K
10-12-2004, 06:09 AM
At this point in time it seems to me that everyone knows who they will vote for. What is the point of having more debates and continuous campaining? :)

Bill Vincent
10-12-2004, 12:53 PM
exactly why I haven't bothered posting in this or the other thread in the last few days. :) Either I'm preaching to the choir, or my words are falling on deaf ears (my mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts-- and yes, I know I'm no different). Either way I'm wasting my "breath". :)

Bill Vincent
10-12-2004, 06:25 PM
Jeremy-- Something I've been curious about-- are you Kuwaiti, or are you U.S. military stationed there?

Shaughnn
10-12-2004, 06:56 PM
Bill,
Believe it or not, I do appreciate hearing views which oppose my own . I strongly believe that such exposure "keeps me honest". I may or may not change my mind, but at least I have a better understanding of both arguements.
I think that Jeremy is a British contractor who has been in Kuwait for a little over 12 years, if I'm remembering things correctly.
Shaughnn

Scooter
10-12-2004, 07:39 PM
With all due respect to John and the Constitutional strict constructionists, asking WWFD (What Would the Framers Do?) is silly. First of all, they had slavery,liked, and approved it. Religious freedom was fine, as long as you were Christian. They believed in devils and burned folks at the stake for being different. Flogging and other forms of punishment were just fine. There was no law against owning cannons to fight off Indians. The rule against Habeus Corpus was suspended, and anyone could be imprisoned without charges being brought during the Civil War. Elections as we know them didn't occur. They felt the citizenry were too stupid to vote, so the masses voted for Electors who in turn voted for candidates.

Of course, there were no building codes, speed limits, zoning, clean air acts, clean water acts, and the like. And the most important thing of all--they didn't have the designated hitter rule.

If ya'all want to turn a 2004 America back to 1776 laws, well, I got news for ya'all, things have changed.

Ultimately, this is a different country now, and the Constitution has to be flexible and change with the times to accomodate a completely different lifestyle.

jjwq8
10-13-2004, 01:45 AM
Bill,
One score and seven years ago...............I used to be a Brit. Then I arrived in Kuwait and the place has gone to hell in a hand basket ever since:D. I still possess a single passport that alleges British citizenship, however I have been generally disowned despised and dishonoured by all and sundry ever since. That is why I have so much TLC to lavish on you guys:D

John Bridge
10-13-2004, 08:24 AM
Scooter,

You talk like all progressivists. The Constitution must be flexible, etc. It's become so flexible that Congress can pass a Patriot Act and the Supreme Court will uphold it. The president signed it, so all three branches are now in agreement, the worst of all possible disasters in a federal system. That's what you get with flexibility. :)

I have no intention of taking the country back to the dark ages. What I said (and believe) is that it doesn't hurt to look back and try to apply the lessons of the past on the present. It also wouldn't hurt a thing to get back to a true system of federalism (as was envisioned by the founders).

One more thing. The Constitutional Period in Amercan History does not extend back to the witch burnings in New England.

And one more emphatic thing. The founders did NOT bring about a "Christian" nation. They brought about a nation of religious freedom. Get it right.

Scooter
10-13-2004, 11:24 AM
Yeah, right, like there were Budists (sp?), Jews, and Muslims in continental US at 1776. Dude, they were all Christians.

The Constitution says nothing about the building codes. Must be unconsitutional. Same with Income Taxes, the only taxes mentioned in the Constitution are tarrifs. Gotta be flexible here.

I like the Patriot Act. The more snooping that John Ashcroft does on the extremists, the better. Go ahead, and check out their library books. Gotta love it. I know most would disagree, but notwithstanding the opinion that I am a flaming liberal, there are some causes that cut across my party lines. This is one of them. Notwithstanding what Bush says, the war on terror IS about law enforcement. Typical law enforcement catches bad guys AFTER they do something wrong. The Patriot Act gave us the right to snoop and catch these guys BEFORE they do something wrong. I know I'm in the minority but thats the way I feel.

jgleason
10-13-2004, 02:31 PM
Scooter, not to be a pain but the "founding fathers" were most certainly not all christians. Do a little research on the subject before painting with such a broad brush.

Regarding taxes - Section 8 Clause 1 states -

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

Seems pretty clear to me that an income tax would qualify. Funny though that our federal income tax isn't applied uniformly throughout the United States. To me this means it should be either a fixed amount that everybody pays or a percentage amount that everybody pays. No the rich shouldn't pay a higher percentage. Clear to me that a flat tax would be the most uniform of all.

Duh! Forgot about the 16th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Regarding elections (at least for President), have you forgotten the Electoral College? As I recall the popular vote isn't what we use to elect a President, rahter Electors are designated state by stae according to the results of each state's election process. Tallying the popular vote on a national basis is NOT meaningful, at least not while we still have an Electoral College.

Finally - I don't think you will find building codes in any country's Constitution! In our case laws specifying rules for construction are properly delegated to the state and local level.

Unregistered
10-15-2004, 10:06 PM
No, the founders were not all Christians, and in fact, some of them had rather lofty philosophical ideas and beliefs. Much more progressive than our general populus of these days. It's not the religion, or lack of, that matters. It's what and how you are. From what I can gather over the past few years of observation, Bush seems to have moral integrity born of years of positive and negative experience. He seems to understand his faults and work toward improvement of himself. Kerry appears to have no core principles or solid beliefs, but is like a chameleon, changing color and pattern to match his surroundings. I would rather have a president who is unpopular among the world who has principles he is willing to stand on than a president who the world loves because he is spineless and of weak character.

John Bridge
10-16-2004, 02:15 PM
Hey unregistered. Who you be? ;)

oma
10-16-2004, 08:50 PM
I be oma, but when I tried typing my username in, my message was rejected. I just registered last night, and still have to learn the ropes about how this forum format works. I'm used to sites that automatically have you logged in when you visit. Sorry.

Unregistered
10-17-2004, 06:39 PM
want to have fun? Kick Kerry here!

www.angelfire.com/fl5/boyd_cartoons/KK

the game that never gets old!

tileguytodd
10-18-2004, 08:36 AM
Subject: You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.
>
>It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case
>you ever wondered. (I didn't know that either)
>
>He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected
president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his
family as well as his property.
>
>The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign
properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the
average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to
pay the water, gas &electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool,
and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for
all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service
security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of
their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all,
that is, that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay!
This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us.
>
>Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not
want you to know about.
>
>Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their
properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour
shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long
as they own those properties. It comes with being President, once you are
elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual
salary, as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments
to boot, plus salaries and protection for all their real estate property,
plus Secret Service Agents, and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In
addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours
for the rest of his life.
>
>Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five
Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That
is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including
Holidays. Wow, what does that cost?
>
>Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K
per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five
properties so far. That is if the Kerrys do not buy any more properties
afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals,
days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent.
>
>Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President!
Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all
their properties, both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he
pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it.
>
>The more I think about paying for Kerrys properties everyday, just makes me
happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to
boot.
>
>How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our
military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising
our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto.
>
>Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take
a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you
believe now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other
hand, the people serve Him and his wife!
>

Just wanted folks to be fully informed!!

Shaughnn
10-18-2004, 06:48 PM
So Todd,
This arguement is against John Kerry for President, not because he is not the best candidate, but because his benefits package would be more costly??? What if the candidate was a 35 year old with a long family history of living to advanced age? Should the candidate be disqualified because he or she has the potential to require Secret Service protection for more than 40 years?
Not a very genuine concern, Todd? But it's desperation demonstrates just how worried the Bush campaign is that they have to stoop to such tenuous arguements for the few votes it might sway. :sick:
Shaughnn

jd77
10-18-2004, 07:23 PM
No Shaughnn, I think the five Kerry (Hienz) mansions (and the lifestyle that goes with) shows he is somewhat hypocritical when talking about "the richest Americans". He are one. He has every right to have as many houses/boats/whatever he wants. Just don't lecture me about the rich "paying their fair share".

The gigolo has no clue what middle class is :D


JD

tileguytodd
10-18-2004, 07:38 PM
Shaugnn,I am not trying to sway you.
Your a Union worker and beyond the reach of any republican rhetoric.
I am a small business owner(that would be management or Suit to you even though i dont wear one)
Face it,we do not think along the same lines and expect differant things.
I do not begrudge you your right to vote as you see fit.I reserve the right to cancel your vote :)

Shaughnn
10-18-2004, 07:48 PM
JD,
If you married someone, and they had a lot of money, would you denounce it and chose to live by modest means? John Kerry has pointed out that he did benefit from President Bush's "Be My Friend Check" (my wife's quote), and that he want's to repeal that tax break to make the tax burden more equal. Didn't you watch the debates at all? He readily identifies himself as having a great deal of wealth, and has also stated very clearly that he feels that his responsibility is to make sure that the wealthy Americans pay their fair share. Senator Edwards has also championed a social responsibility with regard to returning America to a land of opportunity for all, instead of a land of perpetuity for some.
There isn't any hypocracy in a wealthy man wanting to see a poor man improve his condition. It's called philanthropy, and it used to be an endeavor that Americans led the world in. It's also considered to be amoung those Christian values, like charity and compassion and selflessless, that so many seem to have lost sight of. Do you hate John Kerry because he's wealthy or do you hate him because he's a Democrat? Either way, you aren't doing yourself any sort of service by fixating on either case and ignoring what the man has to say. Instead of swallowing the campaign rhetoric of his opponenets (the ones who have the most to gain by misconstruing the man's reputation), you might try to take three deep breaths and read the candidate's positions yourself. By letting other's interpret the campaign for you, you become their puppet. How's it feel to have another man's hand up your back? I wouldn't know.
Shaughnn
PS: "Gigolo"??? Have you SEEN that face? John Kerry is NOT a pretty man, and I doubt he's a good dancer. The only explaination for Teressa Kerry being with him has got to be love. :D

Shaughnn
10-18-2004, 08:00 PM
Todd,
I'm not so focused on my immediate situation that I don't see the larger picture. I work for a man whom I see wrestle with the same business issues that scare the hell out of me and make me less inclined to "go it on my own". But I know I will one day. And when I do, I want to know that I'm not subsidising the insurance industry because I'm a captive market. And I want to know that my competition pays the same "portion" of the tax burden that I do, so that craft and not overhead is the single-most important factor in remaining competitive (yes, I recognize it's Utopian, but one can dream). I want to be able to hire employees that possess the critical skills necessary to make complex calculations without my micro-management, and I want a public school system that will give them the tools that they need to excell. I want a community that is self-sufficient and has not been raped by the likes of Wal-Mart, whose insistance on plummeting price-points is driving jobs out of America. I want the peace of mind to know that when my parents are old and unable to take care of themselves, that I will have the means to do so AND still take care of my family.
These are some of the reasons that I do not like the direction that President Bush has led the nation and why I will be voting against him.
It's good to know that I'll be canceling your vote too Todd. Gawd knowns I couldn't sleep at night if I let you get your way on anything. :tongue:
Shaughnn

Bill Vincent
10-18-2004, 08:42 PM
So Todd,
This arguement is against John Kerry for President, not because he is not the best candidate, but because his benefits package would be more costly??? What if the candidate was a 35 year old with a long family history of living to advanced age? Should the candidate be disqualified because he or she has the potential to require Secret Service protection for more than 40 years?
Not a very genuine concern, Todd? But it's desperation demonstrates just how worried the Bush campaign is that they have to stoop to such tenuous arguements for the few votes it might sway. :sick:
Shaughnn
Kinda like bringing up Dick Cheney's daughter during the debate in an attempt to disenfranchise the religious right from the republican camp. :)

Thank God you can only cancel out one vote, Shaughnn-- is that mine, or Todd's?

Of course, thanks to the electoral college (which I vehemently oppose), neither yours NOR my vote counts anyway.

Shaughnn
10-18-2004, 09:22 PM
My friends who are gay, that I've heard from on this, thought that the Cheney's response was more disappointing than John's Kerry's mention of her when explaining how he felt about homosexuality. Homosexuals have been vilified for political purposes and I believe that Senator Kerry's goal was to put a real face on homosexuality. Mary Cheney has been out-of-the-closet for years and has been an activist for homosexual rights. By illustrating the simple fact that we all know homosexuals, it places them in more familiar terms and demonstrated his point that we are each entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness". I thought that Senator Kerry's unwillingness to legislate his morality onto the rest of America, spoke volumnes about his character and his understanding of what it truely means to be the President of the United States of America. President Bush's pander to the religiously fanatical was shallow and crude.
That said, I think John Kerry's campaign would have been better had he not mentioned Mary Cheney in the debate. But who could have imagined that the Bush/Cheney campaign would throw the Vice-PResident's daughter to the wolves like that? :wtf:
Shaughnn

Bill Vincent
10-18-2004, 09:42 PM
It has nothing to do with bringing Cheney's daughter out of the closet. It's about the way both Kerry AND Edwards used her to try and further their campaign and hurt Bush and Cheney's. I don't see it as Bush and Cheney throwing her to the wolves. I see it as Bush and Cheney trying to protect her from wolves the likes of Kerry and Edwards.

I would be JUST as pissed off if Cheney tried to use his daughter to endear himself and Bush to the gay community by putting her out in front of the campaign like a hood ornament.

Shaughnn
10-18-2004, 10:23 PM
Just like Ross Perot's lesbian daughter was spared by the Bush campaign back in 1992?
Shaughnn

Bill Vincent
10-18-2004, 10:27 PM
Shaughnn, I know this sounds convenient, but it's the truth-- I really don't remember that. To tell you the truth, I never really considered Perot a candidate-- kind of like Nader now, but that's irrellevant to this question. I don't remember that happening. But that might be because at the time, I wasn't as interested in politics as I am now. If it didn't have to do with the second ammendment, I wasn't interested.

jd77
10-18-2004, 10:30 PM
Shaughnn,

I'm sure that you can think for yourself, but with all due respect, you do sound a lot like the Kerry campaign.

Just a few things:

The "be my friend check" thing is clever but doesn't square when the money belongs to the taxpayer in the first place.

If Senator Kerry thinks the tax code is so unfair then he (or the Mrs.) could always pay more than 12.4%. Frankly, I say good for them. It's the law. Just quit lecturing about it.

Shaughnn "Do you hate John Kerry because he's wealthy or do you hate him because he's a Democrat?"

I do not hate anyone. (that was a "when did you stop beating your wife" question) :whip:


As for philanthropy - Senator Kerry talks a good game but check your facts. Here is a short excerpt (in context) from The National Review Online 4/14/2004 by Byron York:

Kerry reported giving $43,735, or about 11 percent of his total income, to charity in 2003. That significant level of giving stands in contrast to his record in the 1990s, in which the issue of the senator's charitable contributions was a source of controversy. In 1995, Kerry reportedly had a taxable income of $126,179, and made charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he gave $2,039 to charity. In 1993, the figure was $175. In 1992, it was $820, and in 1991, it was $0.


I give Senator Kerry his due respect but am getting tired of being lectured. You say I need to hear what the man has to say. I can't get away from it. It's all over every major network and main stream media outlet. It's starting to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher:D


Senator Edwards?
Shaughnn"Senator Edwards has also championed a social responsibility with regard to returning America to a land of opportunity for all, instead of a land of perpetuity for some."
Give me a break. That sounds like a stump speech to me Shaughnn. Prove it.



Shaughnn"Instead of swallowing the campaign rhetoric of his opponenets (the ones who have the most to gain by misconstruing the man's reputation), you might try to take three deep breaths and read the candidate's positions yourself. By letting other's interpret the campaign for you, you become their puppet. How's it feel to have another man's hand up your back? I wouldn't know."

You've got to be kidding me. I mean, if I took three deep breaths I couldn't even get halfway through Kerry's different positions on Iraq. Much less anything else :D :crazy: :D :crazy: :D

JD

Shaughnn
10-19-2004, 05:08 PM
JD,
I don't see any incosistencies in John Kerry's position regarding Iraq. He voted to give the President the power to declare war because the President lied to Congress and said that he would only use it as a negotiating position, and would not actually go to war without satisfying predetermined conditions (which he did not do). John Kerry's vote "against" the first Gulf War was based on the circumstances at that time. John Kerry voted for the funding for our troops presently in Iraq until the White House slipped riders on the bill, and then he voted against the altered bill. No contradiction. If anything, it consistently demonstrates thaT john Kerry evaluates every situation on it's own merits and does not fall lock-step into line with the Born-Again cultists that currently line the halls of the White House.
Ain't nothin more obnoxious than a born-again drunk. They imagine that the solutions which they have found to overcome their own weaknesses MUST be applied to all those around them or else their fragile bubble may burst. Maybe if President Bush went back to his 12-step sessions, he might find the strength of character to recognize that he has made mistakes. Those occasions where President Bush has been asked to name his mistakes have been invaluable. Being confident and resolute is a great aid in making difficult decisions. Being pig-headed and arrogant is a failing that consistently leads to ruin.
I'll vote for John Kerry, thank you. :D
Shaughnn

jvcstone
10-19-2004, 05:35 PM
An awful lot of you are making a big deal about Kerry's money problems (too much of it ???). Least you forget. Georgie isn't exactly a poor boy either. In fact, wasn't it his daddy who didn't even know what a grocery store scanner was. The Bush boys were born to wealth and privelege, and have used that position all their lives. Don't hear much about brother Neal these days. Daddy was able to bail him out of a savings and loan scandle back when that was a popular money making scam for the rich and famous. Understand he was closed up at the families Houston compound for the duration.
And, Bill V, This thing you keep aluding to about Kerry and the NVA. Don't you think that if it were really true, my old friend Karl would be having a field day with it now.
He never has been above bending the truth a little to get his guy an advantage, and something like that would be priceless in this campaign. :idea: :rolleyes: :twitch:
JVC

Bill Vincent
10-19-2004, 05:57 PM
Ain't nothin more obnoxious than a born-again drunk.


Shaughnn, now ya gone an' done it. You can Ki$$ my A$$. We're NOT all drunks, and contrary to popular belief, we're not all cultists or evangelists either. NOR do we all think that everyone should follow in our footsteps or you're going to hell. I'm done with these political threads.

John Bridge
10-19-2004, 06:22 PM
Yeah, Shaughnn, you've certainly done it now. Spoke your piece, you did. ;)

Why don't all you guys cool off a bit? As a bunch of people have said, nobody's going to change anyone's mind here; everybody knows who they're going to vote for, and it's only a couple weeks away. When the election's over we're all still going to be friends, fellow workmen/workwmmin' :D , and we'll all still respect each other and his/her opinions.

Geez I hope that . . . . doesn't win. :D

jd77
10-19-2004, 06:45 PM
Look at it this way JB -

at least we're at home speaking our minds and not out somewhere pickling them :D :D :D

Thanks for the forum to do it in :bow:

Shaughnn
10-19-2004, 07:06 PM
Bill,
I didn't say that all Born-Again Christians were bad. I said that I think that born-again drunks are obnoxious. And I don't think that all born-again christians are cultists, just the zealots that are driving a cross-shaped wedge into this nation. I don't subscribe to any particular religion but I have a great deal of respect and revearance for spirituality. As a person who makes every effort to be the best possible person that I can, I take my lessons from whomever and from whereever I can get them. Please don't misunderstand me. I think that, from what I've learned about you through this wonderful forum, that you have noble intentions and that your faith is very important to you, and I honestly do respect that. It's the people who crusade to abolish everything that does not comply with their **interpretation** of gospel that disgust and frighten me.
Living in California, I have had the blessing of being exposed to a variety of people and philosophies and I've found something valuable in all of them. Even the scary satan-worshipping dude who hung out at my neighborhood bar left me with a sincere "hmm" from time to time, if only from watching him interact with people and trying to understand his views. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I am not critical of anyone's spiritual path. It's when they try to grab me by the ears and lead me down it also, that my hackles get raised.
I don't see the presence of the Christian Right in the White House as being benevolent. I think that their agenda pivots on denying life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness to segments of the population that do not fit neatly into their dogma, and for that I'll remain critical of their tactics and cause.
Just because someone is wrapped in the flag does not make them a patriot. And just because someone quotes scripture and professes their faith does not make them a Christian. I think that you probably qualify, Bill. But I honestly don't think that the President's "advisory team" does.
Shaughnn
PS: John, what is it that they say about religion and politics again? I never seem to remember that warning. :D

Scooter
10-19-2004, 07:17 PM
Shaughnn did not refer to anyone other that GWB as a born again drunk.

I do find that the born again political types (so there is no misunderstanding, this refers to fundamentalist Christain politicians, not anyone here) want to impose their moral standard on everyone. One Example: Because THEY think that abortion is bad, then no one should get an abortion. Us liberals do not want to impose our values on the born agains. If ya'all don't want to get an abortion, then don't. Just leave us alone to do what we want to do. Its called freedom. I am Catholic and am dead set against abortion. Its wrong. But other folks don't believe what I do, and think that a woman has freedom to do with their body what they want. I understand and appreciate that and they have that right. Freedom, guys.

Oh well, this is the Mud Box, and somefolks get over the top.

Hang in their Bill.

John Bridge
10-19-2004, 07:33 PM
They say if you're gonna argue with someone, religion and politics are two pretty good subjects. :D

Shaughnn is right on this one (I think. :) ) I'm an agnostic. I might even be an athiest. I would know for sure, except I'm an agnostic. :) I don't think religion should enter into government at all. I don't like Bush's "faith based" initiatives. I think he ought to leave his faith back at the ranch. I'd much rather hear that he wants to make a return to the Constitution. :)

Don't get me wrong. I don't like Kerry either, and I don't care what religion he practices either. :)

Where's CX? He usually speaks up on matters like this.

jvcstone
10-19-2004, 10:02 PM
Hey John...
Some of the people I know up there in Crawford would rather he move his ranch somewhere else. :uhh: The neighborhood has gone to pieces since he moved in. :crazy: :laugh2: :crazy:
JVC

Steven Hauser
10-20-2004, 12:41 PM
Hi all,

I normally like to get into things like this but this one is so off base with regard to fact that there is not any point.

I echo John in that I hope all you realize you have more in common than not.

Enjoy the mudbox and keep it clean folks. Remember, no one is always right except me.
;)