2004 US Presidential Election
#1
09-18-2004, 09:38 AM
Perhaps it's time to start a thread on the 2004 US Presidential Election. Where do you all stand?
I've just turned 18 and am registered Independent. At the current time, though I cannot predict the future, I find absolute loyalty to a single political party to be dangerous. Perhaps "mob psychology" is not the right term, but the idea still applies.
I am not extremely pleased with George W. Bush because, as often pointed out, his strategy in Iraq is not effective and he has practically killed all good international relations. I have friends in other countries including Costa Rica and Turkey, both of whom mention the anti-Bush sentiment. They feel that the US is unpredictable and seeks to impose its views on the world. I can sympathise.
On the other hand, Kerry is lost. He has no firm stance on most issues and resorts to personal attacks instead of focusing on the future. The Democratic party is increasingly vitriolic and is losing credibility. I appreciate that Kerry seems to advocate a better strategy in Iraq and better international relations, but it is so hard to tell if this is simply a political stunt.
I lean a bit more towards the liberal side on issues like stem cell research, death penalty, gay rights, etc., however dislike abortion. I own a hybrid, obviously, though I am not a hardcore environmentalist.
I have not had much formal education about economics, but from my observations I am cautiously optimistic of the Republican viewpoint. At times, the Democrats seem self-destructive in order to gain the lower-class vote. My father is also a doctor, and the medical malpractice crisis is pivotal to our family. I vote on the big picture, however.
So, overall I have been inclined towards Bush, but I have serious doubts about where this country is headed and desire some real direction. Perhaps if Kerry had more credibility I'd be able to swing his way.
[edit] The Vietnam arguments are distractions. They will not influence my vote. [/edit]
I've just turned 18 and am registered Independent. At the current time, though I cannot predict the future, I find absolute loyalty to a single political party to be dangerous. Perhaps "mob psychology" is not the right term, but the idea still applies.
I am not extremely pleased with George W. Bush because, as often pointed out, his strategy in Iraq is not effective and he has practically killed all good international relations. I have friends in other countries including Costa Rica and Turkey, both of whom mention the anti-Bush sentiment. They feel that the US is unpredictable and seeks to impose its views on the world. I can sympathise.
On the other hand, Kerry is lost. He has no firm stance on most issues and resorts to personal attacks instead of focusing on the future. The Democratic party is increasingly vitriolic and is losing credibility. I appreciate that Kerry seems to advocate a better strategy in Iraq and better international relations, but it is so hard to tell if this is simply a political stunt.
I lean a bit more towards the liberal side on issues like stem cell research, death penalty, gay rights, etc., however dislike abortion. I own a hybrid, obviously, though I am not a hardcore environmentalist.
I have not had much formal education about economics, but from my observations I am cautiously optimistic of the Republican viewpoint. At times, the Democrats seem self-destructive in order to gain the lower-class vote. My father is also a doctor, and the medical malpractice crisis is pivotal to our family. I vote on the big picture, however.
So, overall I have been inclined towards Bush, but I have serious doubts about where this country is headed and desire some real direction. Perhaps if Kerry had more credibility I'd be able to swing his way.
[edit] The Vietnam arguments are distractions. They will not influence my vote. [/edit]
#2
09-20-2004, 09:51 AM
Disabled people tend to favor the Dems. Thus, I favor Kerry. This year, like Jason said, Bush has killed all good international relations. I've heard rumors that he'll attack Iran and bring back the draft if he gets elected. Attacking 3 Muslim countries in 3 years will most definitely look like Bush is on a crusade against the Muslim.
Bringing the draft back won't affect me 1 bit cuz I'm deaf and 38.
Unfortunately American society on the average tends to be selectively blind. Thus, Bush will probably win again. At least he can't circumvent the 2 term limit. I just hope Bush doesn't bring WW3 around - us vs the world. I can guarantee we'll lose.
Bringing the draft back won't affect me 1 bit cuz I'm deaf and 38.
Unfortunately American society on the average tends to be selectively blind. Thus, Bush will probably win again. At least he can't circumvent the 2 term limit. I just hope Bush doesn't bring WW3 around - us vs the world. I can guarantee we'll lose.
#3
09-20-2004, 11:16 AM
Gotta step into this as a Moderate Conservative Republican..... 
First of all "Bush" cannot "attack Iran and bring back the draft" on his own. It would require Congressional approval - and I don't think any seriously intelligent people like all of us on this forum could believe that Congress would approve either of those, especially after they all have egg on their faces because of the Intelligence failures that led to the Iraqi invasion........... :blink:
Remember: Congress is the voice of the people, the "check and balance" that keeps Presidents from doing things the majority of people do not want done.
I realize that it sometimes does not work as well as intended, but it will still work in the above mentioned situations, I feel sure - don't you?
First of all "Bush" cannot "attack Iran and bring back the draft" on his own. It would require Congressional approval - and I don't think any seriously intelligent people like all of us on this forum could believe that Congress would approve either of those, especially after they all have egg on their faces because of the Intelligence failures that led to the Iraqi invasion........... :blink:
Remember: Congress is the voice of the people, the "check and balance" that keeps Presidents from doing things the majority of people do not want done.
I realize that it sometimes does not work as well as intended, but it will still work in the above mentioned situations, I feel sure - don't you?
#4
09-20-2004, 04:44 PM
Hi Jason:
___Being a young voter, you have a world of opportunities in front of you. With that comes a responsibility to research what you may or may not know about the political party’s history … as of this writing anyway.
___First, budget deficits. I highly suggest that you look back over the last 40 years to get a good feel as to what types of deficits are brought about and by what type of administration/congressional makeup. The Republican’s look poor in the past and appear absolutely horrific over the last 3 + years vs. the Democratic Clinton administration’s previous 8. You can thank a little known Independent Texan who goes by the name of Ross Perot for bringing this little problem to the forefront of the American taxpayer some 12 + years ago. It was solved … Until the second Bush administration took over with tax cuts to the extremely wealthy far in excess of anything offered to the lower and middle classes and spending on defense and Homeland security that appears to be almost Reaganistic in its extremes. I was a huge Reagan fan given the Cold War but once that was over, it was time to pull back the reigns a bit. Clinton did. Bush did not although he and the rest of us got smashed with 9/11.
___Next, consider your average CEO’s compensation packages. The CEO of the corporation I work for makes ~ $1E6 in salary and has made on average ~ $15E6 in stock and options over the past 4 or 5 years. Here is Joe Hybrid making a decent wage and getting hit with on average of ~ 21% tax rate (this is a real % after all the deductions and payouts are complete in our household) whereas Joe millionaire CEO is getting a tax break and all that stock is taxed at 15%. Why do you think these extremely wealthy guys get paid in stock and you and I get paid in $’s anyway?
___Who controls the Bush administration? Might I suggest that you look deeply into this question? Bush as a public speaker is about as convincing and as articulate as Dan Quayle, the VP in the previous Bush administration. Not quite as bad as that but not much better either. The guy truly pulling the strings of the Bush Whitehouse is closer then you might think. Kerry appears not to be much of a leader either and with an ultra rich background, he too is separated from those that will eventually elect him or send him back to the Senate … or not.
___Wars … Afghanistan. You bet. Go in and wipe up the floor with the Taliban. Iraq? I wanted Saddam dead as much as the next guy but to use 9/11 as the pretext when 15 of 19 of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi nationals? This fact was known long before we ever hit Iraq yet that is all you hear about with > 1,000 US soldiers dead. We knew about the Saudi contingent within days of the 9/11 attack if not hours afterwards. There was no intelligence failure, there was a 9/11 fever and we struck out at who ever was convenient. It just so happens that Saddam’s attempt on Bush senior’s life in Kuwait some years past pissed off youngster Bush enough to have at least 1,000 American’s now lying in their graves for it. I am on the fence as to this wars purpose and outcome and I was a huge supporter of Bush’s Middle East doctrine when it was first announced. With that, I am not so sure and I might have made a mistake in thinking so. In other words, I thought we should have gone in and taken care of the SOB in Desert Storm I when we had a dead solid reason to do so but who am I to say?
___Republican’s tactics … There is no party on earth this side of the Communist regimes (past and present) that can spin or attack with such force and/or sound bites. Clinton was tried and convicted in the public eye for closer to one hundred million dollars then 10 million. The tactic to jump from Republican senator to congressman and back again worked like a charm except Clinton was an intelligent SOB irregardless of his sexual failings. What frosted me the most was when it was Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois’ turn at the attack? This same SOB was far worse in his past sexual exploits yet here he was with powerful committee at his disposal turning Clinton’s BJ into a 50 + million $ debacle. Hypocrite is a kind term given the attacks. The Democrats would probably perform the same if they had the $’s backing them and the smart guys running the show. They don’t in both cases.
___What has me truly afraid for my children is that the US is very much like a Roman empire of old. Top dog in the military strength department without a question but not smart enough to consolidate, reign in its spending, and stay the hell out of everyone else’s business at just the right time. When I say stay out, I am not saying pull back from foreign policy in the least but simply keep the big stick in our hands and not using it as much. Some of this is strategic planning and the US has done a hell of a job at pulling the strings over the last 60 + years but who is to say if we have gone too far? Our foreign policy has taken out some of the more virulent aggressors in the world which was the exact right thing to do. Today however, I am not so sure? A look at where both our general government deficits and Social Security are heading should make you cringe. If the US was a public company, every Officer and Director (President, Vice President, Cabinet member, Congressman, and Senator) would be imprisoned without much of a trial given the way our finances are handled which is to say the least, far worse then any Enron scandal. A quick take on SS’s surpluses into the general fund with the IOU’s being given back is enough to make one scream when they see it up close and personal. The way to cure it? Make the retirement age so high so as to make sure most of us are long dead and buried before we receive a dime of the 15% our employers and ourselves have contributed over the past 20 + years and probably for at least another 20 + years yet to go. Did you know that said CEO’s don’t contribute to SS above 80 + thousand dollars? Sure its nice to hit that level in late fall but CEO’s hit that number in mid January! Medicare at 1 + %, yes but only on wages, not stock and stock option profits!
___Sorry for speaking in anger instead of with clear thoughts and ideas but this truly pisses me off!!!
___Lars-ss, you are right on, congress controls the purse strings. The problem however is that administration and congress of the same party are in bed together in more ways then we would ever have allowed in the past … Jefferson would probably be turning over in his grave if he knew how the politics of today work vs. the past. Or maybe not as he was in his own way a sexual predator as well
___Good Luck to us all and my flame suit is on now so go ahead and fire away …
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
___Being a young voter, you have a world of opportunities in front of you. With that comes a responsibility to research what you may or may not know about the political party’s history … as of this writing anyway.
___First, budget deficits. I highly suggest that you look back over the last 40 years to get a good feel as to what types of deficits are brought about and by what type of administration/congressional makeup. The Republican’s look poor in the past and appear absolutely horrific over the last 3 + years vs. the Democratic Clinton administration’s previous 8. You can thank a little known Independent Texan who goes by the name of Ross Perot for bringing this little problem to the forefront of the American taxpayer some 12 + years ago. It was solved … Until the second Bush administration took over with tax cuts to the extremely wealthy far in excess of anything offered to the lower and middle classes and spending on defense and Homeland security that appears to be almost Reaganistic in its extremes. I was a huge Reagan fan given the Cold War but once that was over, it was time to pull back the reigns a bit. Clinton did. Bush did not although he and the rest of us got smashed with 9/11.
___Next, consider your average CEO’s compensation packages. The CEO of the corporation I work for makes ~ $1E6 in salary and has made on average ~ $15E6 in stock and options over the past 4 or 5 years. Here is Joe Hybrid making a decent wage and getting hit with on average of ~ 21% tax rate (this is a real % after all the deductions and payouts are complete in our household) whereas Joe millionaire CEO is getting a tax break and all that stock is taxed at 15%. Why do you think these extremely wealthy guys get paid in stock and you and I get paid in $’s anyway?
___Who controls the Bush administration? Might I suggest that you look deeply into this question? Bush as a public speaker is about as convincing and as articulate as Dan Quayle, the VP in the previous Bush administration. Not quite as bad as that but not much better either. The guy truly pulling the strings of the Bush Whitehouse is closer then you might think. Kerry appears not to be much of a leader either and with an ultra rich background, he too is separated from those that will eventually elect him or send him back to the Senate … or not.
___Wars … Afghanistan. You bet. Go in and wipe up the floor with the Taliban. Iraq? I wanted Saddam dead as much as the next guy but to use 9/11 as the pretext when 15 of 19 of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi nationals? This fact was known long before we ever hit Iraq yet that is all you hear about with > 1,000 US soldiers dead. We knew about the Saudi contingent within days of the 9/11 attack if not hours afterwards. There was no intelligence failure, there was a 9/11 fever and we struck out at who ever was convenient. It just so happens that Saddam’s attempt on Bush senior’s life in Kuwait some years past pissed off youngster Bush enough to have at least 1,000 American’s now lying in their graves for it. I am on the fence as to this wars purpose and outcome and I was a huge supporter of Bush’s Middle East doctrine when it was first announced. With that, I am not so sure and I might have made a mistake in thinking so. In other words, I thought we should have gone in and taken care of the SOB in Desert Storm I when we had a dead solid reason to do so but who am I to say?
___Republican’s tactics … There is no party on earth this side of the Communist regimes (past and present) that can spin or attack with such force and/or sound bites. Clinton was tried and convicted in the public eye for closer to one hundred million dollars then 10 million. The tactic to jump from Republican senator to congressman and back again worked like a charm except Clinton was an intelligent SOB irregardless of his sexual failings. What frosted me the most was when it was Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois’ turn at the attack? This same SOB was far worse in his past sexual exploits yet here he was with powerful committee at his disposal turning Clinton’s BJ into a 50 + million $ debacle. Hypocrite is a kind term given the attacks. The Democrats would probably perform the same if they had the $’s backing them and the smart guys running the show. They don’t in both cases.
___What has me truly afraid for my children is that the US is very much like a Roman empire of old. Top dog in the military strength department without a question but not smart enough to consolidate, reign in its spending, and stay the hell out of everyone else’s business at just the right time. When I say stay out, I am not saying pull back from foreign policy in the least but simply keep the big stick in our hands and not using it as much. Some of this is strategic planning and the US has done a hell of a job at pulling the strings over the last 60 + years but who is to say if we have gone too far? Our foreign policy has taken out some of the more virulent aggressors in the world which was the exact right thing to do. Today however, I am not so sure? A look at where both our general government deficits and Social Security are heading should make you cringe. If the US was a public company, every Officer and Director (President, Vice President, Cabinet member, Congressman, and Senator) would be imprisoned without much of a trial given the way our finances are handled which is to say the least, far worse then any Enron scandal. A quick take on SS’s surpluses into the general fund with the IOU’s being given back is enough to make one scream when they see it up close and personal. The way to cure it? Make the retirement age so high so as to make sure most of us are long dead and buried before we receive a dime of the 15% our employers and ourselves have contributed over the past 20 + years and probably for at least another 20 + years yet to go. Did you know that said CEO’s don’t contribute to SS above 80 + thousand dollars? Sure its nice to hit that level in late fall but CEO’s hit that number in mid January! Medicare at 1 + %, yes but only on wages, not stock and stock option profits!
___Sorry for speaking in anger instead of with clear thoughts and ideas but this truly pisses me off!!!
___Lars-ss, you are right on, congress controls the purse strings. The problem however is that administration and congress of the same party are in bed together in more ways then we would ever have allowed in the past … Jefferson would probably be turning over in his grave if he knew how the politics of today work vs. the past. Or maybe not as he was in his own way a sexual predator as well
___Good Luck to us all and my flame suit is on now so go ahead and fire away …
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
#6
09-20-2004, 05:32 PM
Wayne,
I think you bring up a lot of valid points. I also agree the Republican party is a strong political machine like the communist party of old. I also feel Kerry is not the best candidate, but since he is the only alternative to Bush I will vote for him.
I feel we are on a downward slide that must be stopped. I'm concerned that Americans believe everything they read and everything the media tells them. Critical thinking is going the way of endangered species. If a person expresses cognitive dissonance, they are considered a flip flopper.
Where is the America where people questioned and looked for answers?
Remember - Hitler did not take power through the barrel of a gun, but through the ballot box.
In every election, we the people have a chance to change or make history, lets hope we make the right one.
I think you bring up a lot of valid points. I also agree the Republican party is a strong political machine like the communist party of old. I also feel Kerry is not the best candidate, but since he is the only alternative to Bush I will vote for him.
I feel we are on a downward slide that must be stopped. I'm concerned that Americans believe everything they read and everything the media tells them. Critical thinking is going the way of endangered species. If a person expresses cognitive dissonance, they are considered a flip flopper.
Where is the America where people questioned and looked for answers?
Remember - Hitler did not take power through the barrel of a gun, but through the ballot box.
In every election, we the people have a chance to change or make history, lets hope we make the right one.
#7
09-20-2004, 06:40 PM
Ridiculously Active Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 1,797
My humble opinion-
Personally I am not affiliated with any particular party but tend to lean Libertarian, as they seem to be the only ones who take the U.S. Constitution seriously.
Both Republicans and Democrats have serious issues of implementing a socialist state: Let’s take from the people who have….and give it to the have-nots. Why? Because the have-nots really need it. Whose doctrine was it?
“From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs”.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And yet Congress recently passed such laws.
So, given the Libertarians aren’t going to hold the Congress and Presidency anytime soon, I am forced to choose between the two “evils”.
Think about it…Since Democrats base their ENTIRE platform around socialism, (And Kerry only on his war service)- I grudgingly have to vote Republican. I don’t go for the irrational argument “Anyone but Bush”, as this could put anyone in the driver seat…to the voiced pleasure of Islamic terrorists.
While Kerry continues to bark about the sagging economy, the net loss of jobs, the economy in the United States continues to boom. The unemployment rate is currently lower than the average rate of the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. That's also lower than it was when Bill Clinton was re-elected over Bob Dole in 1996.
Liberal bias?
Funny...the media never found sagging employment with Democrats, yet they're talking about 5.4% not being very low for Republicans.
New York's unemployment is back at it's pre-9/11 levels, at 6.7%. That's down from July's 7.5% and 8.4% last year. Home ownership is at record levels too. What else is it going to take for the media to admit the economy is booming?
*Unemployment is lower than average of the last 30 years
*Unemployment in NY is back to pre-911 levels
*Home ownership at record levels
*US household wealth is at record levels
Hurricane Ivan is caused a production drop in oil from offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico which may result in a price increase for gasoline. Rest assured, Kerry and the press will blame Bush for the price increases.
Truly I am not a Republican....at least not in today's Republican platform.
I became politically aware during the Regan election and I was scared by the Democrats that Ray-Gun (As they called him) purposely desired to cause WWIII and kill everyone. After Regans victory I learned that the Dem's had fooled me and I see them doing the same to others every election.
Every time they campaign on the same thing...Republicans want to throw your grandmother down the steps (Remember that Flash! movie on the Dem's website last election?), starve your children, make you poor, hate colored people etc. The scare tactics are always the same & predictable.
Kerry has no foundation…he is as shifty as the sand on the beach. He votes to send the military into action then votes against funding them?
He tells an ecology group that the doesn't own an SUV then stumps in detrouit bragging about his SUVs? Well its not him who ownes them but his family?
The guy stands on nothing....except what's currently politically convenient.
At least Bush has a foundation to stand on. I disagree with so many things Bush is doing…but at least I know where he stands.
Iraq:
How anyone can't see Saddam's Iraq as a serious U.S. security threat is beyond me.
WMD:
Right up to invasion the UN said they had them, intelligence said they had them..Even Kerry said he likely had them. Where did they go? We know he used them before. Dumped in the desert in secret? Why do it in secret? Were they shipped to another country? They already found enough WMD in Iraq to easily kill 100,000 people.
Even Russia's president reported before DSII that Saddam's Iraq is preparing for an attack here on the U.S. soil. There was Saddam, an evil twisted ruler bent on hatred for the U.S. for booting him from Kuwait among other things.
Evil ? Twisted? He even had custom meat grinders which victimes were lowered head first while family members were forced to witness. Public Education.
What if Putin was right...along with the rest of the world that Saddam had the weapons? (We all knew the WMD was "contained" by 18 UN resolutions)
Should the president go with France and Germany and wait longer? How long?
What if major catastrophy happened to our cities and we were warned, but did nothing...Who's fault would that be?
Today I know my family is safer and that's what counts for me.
The + 1000 service men who have died in Iraq are heros. Liberators.
If the same press could travel back about 60 years ago to the defeat of Japan, only a couple of years past victory I'm sure the headlines would be:
"Another 16 U.S. service men were killed outside of Tokyo, shot in the apparent quagmire in the Pacific war by insurgents"
I have a 1944 copy of the Atlanta Journal Constitution- wartime issue.
The difference in reporting back then and today is amazing and shocking.
Personally I am not affiliated with any particular party but tend to lean Libertarian, as they seem to be the only ones who take the U.S. Constitution seriously.
Both Republicans and Democrats have serious issues of implementing a socialist state: Let’s take from the people who have….and give it to the have-nots. Why? Because the have-nots really need it. Whose doctrine was it?
“From Each According To His Abilities, To Each According To His Needs”.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And yet Congress recently passed such laws.
So, given the Libertarians aren’t going to hold the Congress and Presidency anytime soon, I am forced to choose between the two “evils”.
Think about it…Since Democrats base their ENTIRE platform around socialism, (And Kerry only on his war service)- I grudgingly have to vote Republican. I don’t go for the irrational argument “Anyone but Bush”, as this could put anyone in the driver seat…to the voiced pleasure of Islamic terrorists.
While Kerry continues to bark about the sagging economy, the net loss of jobs, the economy in the United States continues to boom. The unemployment rate is currently lower than the average rate of the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's. That's also lower than it was when Bill Clinton was re-elected over Bob Dole in 1996.
Liberal bias?
Funny...the media never found sagging employment with Democrats, yet they're talking about 5.4% not being very low for Republicans.
New York's unemployment is back at it's pre-9/11 levels, at 6.7%. That's down from July's 7.5% and 8.4% last year. Home ownership is at record levels too. What else is it going to take for the media to admit the economy is booming?
*Unemployment is lower than average of the last 30 years
*Unemployment in NY is back to pre-911 levels
*Home ownership at record levels
*US household wealth is at record levels
Hurricane Ivan is caused a production drop in oil from offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico which may result in a price increase for gasoline. Rest assured, Kerry and the press will blame Bush for the price increases.
Truly I am not a Republican....at least not in today's Republican platform.
I became politically aware during the Regan election and I was scared by the Democrats that Ray-Gun (As they called him) purposely desired to cause WWIII and kill everyone. After Regans victory I learned that the Dem's had fooled me and I see them doing the same to others every election.
Every time they campaign on the same thing...Republicans want to throw your grandmother down the steps (Remember that Flash! movie on the Dem's website last election?), starve your children, make you poor, hate colored people etc. The scare tactics are always the same & predictable.
Kerry has no foundation…he is as shifty as the sand on the beach. He votes to send the military into action then votes against funding them?
He tells an ecology group that the doesn't own an SUV then stumps in detrouit bragging about his SUVs? Well its not him who ownes them but his family?
The guy stands on nothing....except what's currently politically convenient.
At least Bush has a foundation to stand on. I disagree with so many things Bush is doing…but at least I know where he stands.
Iraq:
How anyone can't see Saddam's Iraq as a serious U.S. security threat is beyond me.
WMD:
Right up to invasion the UN said they had them, intelligence said they had them..Even Kerry said he likely had them. Where did they go? We know he used them before. Dumped in the desert in secret? Why do it in secret? Were they shipped to another country? They already found enough WMD in Iraq to easily kill 100,000 people.
Even Russia's president reported before DSII that Saddam's Iraq is preparing for an attack here on the U.S. soil. There was Saddam, an evil twisted ruler bent on hatred for the U.S. for booting him from Kuwait among other things.
Evil ? Twisted? He even had custom meat grinders which victimes were lowered head first while family members were forced to witness. Public Education.
What if Putin was right...along with the rest of the world that Saddam had the weapons? (We all knew the WMD was "contained" by 18 UN resolutions)
Should the president go with France and Germany and wait longer? How long?
What if major catastrophy happened to our cities and we were warned, but did nothing...Who's fault would that be?
Today I know my family is safer and that's what counts for me.
The + 1000 service men who have died in Iraq are heros. Liberators.
If the same press could travel back about 60 years ago to the defeat of Japan, only a couple of years past victory I'm sure the headlines would be:
"Another 16 U.S. service men were killed outside of Tokyo, shot in the apparent quagmire in the Pacific war by insurgents"
I have a 1944 copy of the Atlanta Journal Constitution- wartime issue.
The difference in reporting back then and today is amazing and shocking.
#8
09-21-2004, 07:21 AM
This Iraq thing is SO CONFUSING to me.....
Why are the insurgents fighting us and fighting the Iraqi army? Do they not understand that the goal is to have a FREE, DEMOCRATIC Iraq? Do they not understand what that means? What are they fighting for - a return to the dictatorship?
Regardless of the intentions, this "war" will never end unless the mindset in Iraq gets changed. And how to "modify" the mindset of a country?
Laterz.........
Why are the insurgents fighting us and fighting the Iraqi army? Do they not understand that the goal is to have a FREE, DEMOCRATIC Iraq? Do they not understand what that means? What are they fighting for - a return to the dictatorship?
Regardless of the intentions, this "war" will never end unless the mindset in Iraq gets changed. And how to "modify" the mindset of a country?
Laterz.........
#9
09-21-2004, 09:18 AM
I’m leaning towards Kerry and pretty much agree with most points mentioned against the Bush administration. I think going into Afghanistan was justified, but not Iraq. Maybe W should have read daddy’s memoirs first. I agree that he has pretty much destroyed international relations. Then there’s the environmental issues Bush is not taking seriously, most of his stimulate the economy plans seem to rely on short term planning.
As an IT Professional, I’m worried about what will happen, or continue to happen, to jobs in my profession under the Bush administration. How many more will be sent overseas?
I don’t particularly like Kerry and agree that he seems lost at times. But I still think he’s better than Bush.
As an IT Professional, I’m worried about what will happen, or continue to happen, to jobs in my profession under the Bush administration. How many more will be sent overseas?
I don’t particularly like Kerry and agree that he seems lost at times. But I still think he’s better than Bush.
#10
09-21-2004, 10:52 AM
I think growing up in another country has given me another perspective on political systems. For example, what most Americans term "socialism" (which seems to be a common American euphemism for "communism") hardly counts as such in other countries. I also find it puzzling when Americans don't consider social services as part of society's responsibility to its members, and as part of a nation's responsibility to ensure public benefit and public health to its citizens.
Of course a lot of that has to do with the rugged individualism culture here, which absolutely has its benefits (less rigid social structure, more mobility). However, taken to EXTREMES, this concept leads to a 'more for me, the hell with you' mentality which is unsustainable and destructive in the real world because we (as individuals) are not islands, and our actions affect other human beings. The scary thing for me is that there has been a shift in the last 20 yrs or so in framing the issues so that the question that get ask is not "what will have the greater benefit/least harm" but rather "what's in it for me?". That doesn't foster meaningful discussions of public policy nor does it encourage long-term solutions.
So where am I going with this? I guess to encourage people to step back and look at the situation here in the US from other angles and other sources. Ask yourself why pertinent questions and issues are not getting enough exposure:
Where is the outrage over the fact that the WMDs, the main reason (among the other 22 or so) to invade Iraq are non existent? Where are the hard-hitting questions about what the administration was so busy about that they could justify ignoring all the warnings preceding 9/11? What about the fact that we were supposed to feel safer, when the threat level has never gone below yellow, and NOT ONE of the individuals that Ashcroft hastily picked up on suspicion of terrorism has been indicted in trial?
Where is the outrage over the fact that the "Education President" saddled schools with costly mandates, then quietly withdrew funding? Or that the much-trumpeted Medicare "reform" is very good for the drug companies' bottom line, just not for the seniors they're supposed to cover?
Think about it. Then find out what either candidate has DONE (vs. has SAID). And make your choice.
Of course a lot of that has to do with the rugged individualism culture here, which absolutely has its benefits (less rigid social structure, more mobility). However, taken to EXTREMES, this concept leads to a 'more for me, the hell with you' mentality which is unsustainable and destructive in the real world because we (as individuals) are not islands, and our actions affect other human beings. The scary thing for me is that there has been a shift in the last 20 yrs or so in framing the issues so that the question that get ask is not "what will have the greater benefit/least harm" but rather "what's in it for me?". That doesn't foster meaningful discussions of public policy nor does it encourage long-term solutions.
So where am I going with this? I guess to encourage people to step back and look at the situation here in the US from other angles and other sources. Ask yourself why pertinent questions and issues are not getting enough exposure:
Where is the outrage over the fact that the WMDs, the main reason (among the other 22 or so) to invade Iraq are non existent? Where are the hard-hitting questions about what the administration was so busy about that they could justify ignoring all the warnings preceding 9/11? What about the fact that we were supposed to feel safer, when the threat level has never gone below yellow, and NOT ONE of the individuals that Ashcroft hastily picked up on suspicion of terrorism has been indicted in trial?
Where is the outrage over the fact that the "Education President" saddled schools with costly mandates, then quietly withdrew funding? Or that the much-trumpeted Medicare "reform" is very good for the drug companies' bottom line, just not for the seniors they're supposed to cover?
Think about it. Then find out what either candidate has DONE (vs. has SAID). And make your choice.
Thread
Topic Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Curated Content Editor
Journalism & The Media
0
10-27-2014 05:00 AM
