Lets vote, for president

Who would you vote for?

  • Bush

    Votes: 7 12.1%
  • Kerry

    Votes: 46 79.3%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 5 8.6%

  • Total voters
    58
sensieman

Have you nothing better to do than correct others grammer? It is a waste of time to do so. The other things you say are ok to point out even though there wrong, but to correct others grammer... tsk, tsk, tsk.
 
This is all about kerry flip-flopping, and no brooker there IS more than just one time kerry flip-flopped. I wont do them all because there is just to many to go into detail to.

Flip-Flopped On Iraq War

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted yes.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President?s Action In Iraq. KERRY: ? I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.? (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted ?To Threaten? Use Of Force In Iraq. ?I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: ?Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it?s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?? KERRY: ?I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don?t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.? (MSNBC?s ?Hardball,? 1/6/04)

Flip-Flopped On Patriot Act

Kerry Voted For Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House. (H.R. 3162, CQ Vote #313: Passed 98-1: R 49-0; D 48-1; I 1-0, 10/25/01, Kerry Voted Yes)

Kerry Used To Defend His Vote. ?Most of [The Patriot Act] has to do with improving the transfer of information between CIA and FBI, and it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on September 11th.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Manchester, NH, 8/6/03)

Now, Kerry Attacks Patriot Act. ?We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I?ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American?s basic rights.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)

Flip-Flopped On Attacking President During Time Of War

In March 2003, Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began. ?Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts ? said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. ?It?s what you owe the troops,? said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. ?I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won?t speak a word without measuring how it?ll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they?re listening to their radios in the desert.?? (Glen Johnson, ?Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric,? The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge. ??What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,? Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library. Despite pledging two weeks ago to cool his criticism of the administration once war began, Kerry unleashed a barrage of criticism as US troops fought within 25 miles of Baghdad.? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own ?Regime Change,?? The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

Flip-Flopped On No Child Left Behind

Kerry Voted For No Child Left Behind Act. (H.R. 1, CQ Vote #371: Adopted 87-10: R 44-3; D 43-6; I 0-1, 12/18/01, Kerry Voted Yes)

But Now Kerry Is Attacking No Child Left Behind As ?Mockery.? ?Between now and the time I?m sworn in January 2005, I?m going to use every day to make this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ?No Child Left Behind.?? (Holly Ramer, ?Kerry Wants To Make ?Environmental Justice? A Priority,? The Associated Press, 4/22/03)

Kerry Trashed NCLB As ?Unfunded Mandate? With ?Laudable? Goals. ?Kerry referred to [No Child Left Behind] as an ?unfunded mandate? with ?laudable? goals. ?Without the resources, education reform is a sham,? Kerry said. ?I can?t wait to crisscross this country and hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words ?no child left behind.??? (Matt Leon, ?Sen. Kerry In Tune With Educators,? The [Quincy, MA] Patriot Ledger, 7/11/03)

Flip-Flopped On Double Taxation Of Dividends

December 2002: Kerry Favored Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. ?[T]o encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should eliminate the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it?s held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should attempt to end the double taxation of dividends.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)

May 2003: Kerry Said He Opposed Ending Double Taxation Of Dividends. ?Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. ?This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,? he said.? (?Kerry Says Time Is On Dems? Side,? The Associated Press, 5/8/03)

Flip Flopped On Internet Taxation

In 1998, Kerry Voted To Allow States To Continue Taxing Internet Access After Moratorium Took Effect. Kerry voted against tabling an amendment that would extend the moratorium from two years to three years and allow states that currently impose taxes on Internet access to continue doing so after the moratorium takes effect. (S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/7/98, Kerry Voted No)

In 2001, Kerry Voted To Extend Internet Tax Moratorium Until 2005 And Allow States To Form Uniform Internet Tax System With Approval Of Congress. (H.R. 1552, CQ Vote #341: Motion Agreed To 57-43: R 35-14; D 22-28; I 0-1, 11/15/01, Kerry Voted No)

Kerry Said ?We Do Not Support Any Tax On The Internet Itself.? ?We do not support any tax on the Internet itself. We don?t support access taxes. We don?t support content taxes. We don?t support discriminatory taxes. Many of us would like to see a permanent moratorium on all of those kinds of taxes. At the same time, a lot of us were caught in a place where we thought it important to send the message that we have to get back to the table in order to come to a consensus as to how we equalize the economic playing field in the United States in a way that is fair.? (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/15/01, )

There is six times that kerry has flip-flopped, there is much more but i felt i should give this to you in moderate doses.
 
umm, on kerry flip-flops... I believe that he has done a fair bit of flip flopping, but listening to the repulican party isnt the best way to find out where he did so because:

I believed, because bush said so, he flip-flopped in the bill to provide forces in iraq and afghanistan with 87 billion US. This turned ou to be completely not true: he voted YES for the bill when the funding for the bill was stated as a tax hike for richest 1 percent, but voted NO when the republicans removed that and didn't state how they would pay for the bill. This is pretty reasonable as knowing how you will pay for something before you do it is pretty neccessary.

I have no other examples, but this should at least show that what republicans say should be taken with a pound of salt. Also, research WHY he actually voted yes and then no or vice-versa cause there might be reasons such as the one above... just because the bill has the same name on one week and then the next, doesn't mean it is the same bill.

(Funny thing is that Howard-Dean with all his Bush bashing, was one of the few democrats who hasn't flip-flopped since he opposed pretty much all of bush's policies from the start. he would have been a good runner against bush)
 
Flip-Flopped On Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Kerry Pledged To Fund Reconstruction With ?Whatever Number? Of Dollars It Took. NBC?S TIM RUSSERT: ?Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?? SEN. JOHN KERRY: ?No. I think we should increase it.? RUSSERT: ?Increase funding?? KERRY: ?Yes.? RUSSERT: ?By how much?? KERRY: ?By whatever number of billions of dollars it takes to win. It is critical that the United States of America be successful in Iraq, Tim.? (NBC?s ?Meet The Press,? 8/31/03)

Then Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package. ?Passage of the bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in fiscal 2004 supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq, including $5.1 billion for security and $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs. It also would provide $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90 percent of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has been forgiven by other countries. Separate provisions limit reconstruction aid to $18.4 billion. It also would provide approximately $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for veterans medical care.? (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted No)

Kerry Later Claimed: ?I Actually Did Vote For The $87 Billion Before I Voted Against It.? (Glen Johnson, ?Kerry Blasts Bush On Protecting Troops,? The Boston Globe, 3/17/04)
 
meme9898 said:
sensieman

Have you nothing better to do than correct others grammer? It is a waste of time to do so.
The other things you say are ok to point out even though there wrong, but to correct others grammer... tsk, tsk, tsk.[/QUOTE]

2 points:

1) I wasn't correcting your grammar, I was correcting your vocabulary. Actually, I wasn't correcting it, but merely pointing out that you were using a word that doesn't exist. Correcting the grammar in your posts would have been a much, much longer process.

2) I pointed this out because knowledge of the vocabulary one is using is very important in political discussions. If you don't know the meaning of the words you use, then they may as well have no meaning. Using non-existant words makes me think you have no idea what you are talking about when you say things like Canada is growing more and more socialistic. What on earth did you mean by that statement? Is Canada a socialistic country and, if so, is it becoming more and more so?

meme9898 said:
the other things you say are ok to point out even though there wrong...

Now in this sentence I won't bother correcting the glaring errors because your meaning is easily understandable. But its going to take more than your just saying I'm wrong to convince me.
 
you know what i meant, so dont bother correcting me. I see bad grammer and vocab all the time, i dont say anything because its not important. So what if the word doesnt exist, like i said you know what i mean, and if you dont there is something wrong, not with me, but the one reading the post.

now please lets get back on topic please!
 
Speaking of "flip-flopping"...

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief:

September 2, 2004, Updated

From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: "I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations." But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ?would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists?including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents?issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]

10. Ahmed Chalabi

BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]

11. Department of Homeland Security

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

12. Weapons of Mass Destruction

BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]

...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]

13. Free Trade

BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]

14. Osama Bin Laden

BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]

...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

15. The Environment

BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

16. WMD Commission

BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]

17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission

BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony

BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]

...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]

20. Gay Marriage

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

21. Nation Building

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link

BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

23. U.N. Resolution

BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]

...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]

24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict

BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]

...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]

25. Campaign Finance

BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

26. 527s

Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]

?Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it?I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]

27. Medical Records

Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect?the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]

?Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department?asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

28. Timelines For Dictators

Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]

?Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]

29. The Great Lakes

Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'? [AP, 7/19/01]

Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]

30. Winning The War On Terror

Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

?Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

?Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]


:souka:
 
Bush meant this war will not be won by conventional means, a day after he said that he said he should of been more clear on saying those words. This war will be won , but there will be no peace treaties, or anything like that. Terrorism will not be completely eracticated, but it will be sevearly disrupted, and won't be as bad as it now by far. This war will take a long time, don't get impatiant it will be going on at least for the next 30 years.
 
meme9898 said:
you know what i meant, so dont bother correcting me. I see bad grammer and vocab all the time, i dont say anything because its not important. So what if the word doesnt exist, like i said you know what i mean, and if you dont there is something wrong, not with me, but the one reading the post.

No, I still don't know what you meant. Assuming you meant to say "socialist", what you wrote still doesn't make any sense because Canada isn't a socialist state and the government today is led by a man with a very cozy relationship with the business community whose policies are considerably more conservative than those of most of his Liberal party predecessors. Vocabulary mistakes aside, I still don't understand what you were trying to get at.


meme9898 said:
now please lets get back on topic please!

I'd be glad to. But outside of my attack on your vocabulary you haven't responded to any of the other points I've brought up, except to say I'm "wrong" without elaborating.
 
meme9898 wrote....
This war will take a long time, don't get impatiant it will be going on at least for the next 30 years.

And you're Ok with that? If so, I guess Bush is the guy you should vote for. Even Vietnam didn't take that long.

Flip-Flopped On Iraq War

Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted yes.)

In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President?s Action In Iraq. KERRY: ? I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.? (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

Kerry Later Claimed He Voted ?To Threaten? Use Of Force In Iraq. ?I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations.? (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Announcement Of Presidential Candidacy, Mount Pleasant, SC, 9/2/03)

Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: ?Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it?s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?? KERRY: ?I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don?t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.? (MSNBC?s ?Hardball,? 1/6/04)

Did you actually read what you posted here? Where's the flip-flopping? First, Kerry said he thought it was right to disarm Saddam, then he said we should threaten Saddam with the use of force, and then he said he disapproved of the way Bush did it, which was to just bust in a start bombing. Please point out where you think the inconsistencies are.

It's effective when Bush makes his nonsensicle claims because there're enough people in this country who don't take the time to think about the fact that what he's saying just doesn't even make sense.

:homer: It's like when Homer Simpson said....
"First you didn't want me to get a horse, now you want me to take it back. Make up your mind!"

So, Marge is a flip-flopper?

It bothers me that so many people fall for such faulty reasoning.

you know what i meant, so dont bother correcting me. I see bad grammer and vocab all the time, i dont say anything because its not important. So what if the word doesnt exist, like i said you know what i mean, and if you dont there is something wrong, not with me, but the one reading the post.

I don't mean to launch a personal attack here, but come on! Bad grammar, vocab, and using words that don't exist is "not important"? All you're proving is that people who don't think education is important, support Bush.
 
I voted for kerry ( I have no idea who he/she is) because eveyone else voted for him/ her. Im sorry but I just don't find george bush a trustable person anymore. What he did with iraq was right yet very wrong at the same time and I just cant trust what he says anymore
 
BUSH TO ALTER ECONOMIC STATS AGAIN

Last week, the Census Bureau released statistics showing that for the first time in years, poverty had increased for three straight years, while the number of Americans without health care increased to a record level.[1] But instead of changing its economic and health care policies, the Bush administration today is announcing plans to change the way the statistics are compiled. The move is just the latest in a series of actions by the White House to doctor or eliminate longstanding and nonpartisan economic data collection methods.

In a Bush administration press release yesterday, the Census Bureau said next week it "will announce a new economic indicator" as "an additional tool to better understand" the economy. The change in statistics is being directed by Bush political appointees and comes just 60 days from the election. It will be the first modification of Census data in 40 years.[2]

This is not the first time the White House has tried to doctor or manipulate economic data that exposed President Bush's failed policies. In the face of serious job losses last year, the Associated Press reported "the Bush administration has dropped the government's monthly report on mass layoffs, which also had been eliminated when President Bush's father was in office."[3] Similarly, Business Week reported that the White House this year "unilaterally changed the start date of the last recession to benefit Bush's reelection bid." For almost 75 years, the start and end dates of recessions have been set by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private nonpartisan research group. But the Bush administration decided to toss aside the NBER, and simply declare that the recession started under President Clinton.[4]


Sources:

1. "Census: Poverty up in 2003," The Olympian, 9/01/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1152672&l=52819.
2. Census Bureau press release, 8/31/04.
3. "Monthly report on mass layoffs dropped," Shawnee News-Star, 1/05/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1152672&l=52820.
4. "Inventing The 'Clinton Recession'," Business Week Online, 2/23/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1152672&l=52821.


Visit http://www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion

:souka:
 
etchdubya.jpg


We?re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore

How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich?s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
By Garrison Keillor August 26, 2004

Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and Prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element. The genial Eisenhower was their man, a genuine American hero of D-Day, who made it OK for reasonable people to vote Republican. He brought the Korean War to a stalemate, produced the Interstate Highway System, declined to rescue the French colonial army in Vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) American arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned--and there was a degree of plain decency in the country. Fifties Republicans were giants compared to today?s. Richard Nixon was the last Republican leader to feel a Christian obligation toward the poor.

In the years between Nixon and Newt Gingrich, the party migrated southward down the Twisting Trail of Rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the Scourge of Liberalism, the Great Crusade Against the Sixties, the Death Star of Government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of Ronald Reagan who, while George McGovern flew bombers in World War II, took a pass and made training films in Long Beach. The Nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. ?Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,? says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. ?I don?t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.? The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy.

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong?s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt?s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we?re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

Rich ironies abound! Lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! Wild swine crowd round the public trough! Outrageous gerrymandering! Pocket lining on a massive scale! Paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires! Hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! O Mark Twain, where art thou at this hour? Arise and behold the Gilded Age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of Divine Grace.

Here in 2004, George W. Bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy--the single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the White House fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president?s personal satisfaction but sold to the American public on the basis of brazen misinformation, a war whose purpose is to distract us from an enormous transfer of wealth taking place in this country, flowing upward, and the deception is working beautifully.

The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good.

Our beloved land has been fogged with fear--fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.

There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn?t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it?s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn?t the ?end of innocence,? or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn?t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.

Whenever I think of those New Yorkers hurrying along Park Place or getting off the No.1 Broadway local, hustling toward their office on the 90th floor, the morning paper under their arms, I think of that non-reader George W. Bush and how he hopes to exploit those people with a little economic uptick, maybe the capture of Osama, cruise to victory in November and proceed to get some serious nation-changing done in his second term.

This year, as in the past, Republicans will portray us Democrats as embittered academics, desiccated Unitarians, whacked-out hippies and communards, people who talk to telephone poles, the party of the Deadheads. They will wave enormous flags and wow over and over the footage of firemen in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and bodies being carried out and they will lie about their economic policies with astonishing enthusiasm.

The Union is what needs defending this year. Government of Enron and by Halliburton and for the Southern Baptists is not the same as what Lincoln spoke of. This gang of Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.

This is a great country, and it wasn?t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we?re not getting any younger.

Dante said that the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who in time of crisis remain neutral, so I have spoken my piece, and thank you, dear reader. It?s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.


Garrison Keillor is the host and writer of A Prairie Home Companion, now in its 25th year on the air. This adapted excerpted from Keillor?s new book, Homegrown Democrat (? 2004) is reprinted by arrangement with Viking, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/979/
 
satooriii, tell me where you find all of this. too much good info. :D:D

oh, and bush said war cannot be won by "conventional means". well, in my opinion, if a war can't be won by conventional means, its not a war since there have been hundreds if not thousands of wars in the last couple of thousands of years, and all have been winnable. an unwinable war is just an exuse to keep fighting: some people benefit from war; when those people are in power, problems arise. Bush and co. prob. benefit from war cause they just loove to fight. (and connections to halliburton or whatever its name is...)

terrorism wont be disrupted severely: maybe one terrorist organisation will suffer, but America probably wont get their money, which will just be given to other groups to use freely.

in fact; i think, I wanna blow up something in america right now (hypothetically)... my chemistry teacher tought me how to make fertiliser bombs, so i go there, buy some fertilizer, diesel and cotton (pretty bog standard equipment), make it and blow something up. there, I am a terrorist, and the war has been for nothing, since I still did something.

oh, and meme, I dont think you read me correctly: he voted, yes then no... but NOT FOR THE SAME BILL. in the latter, basically half of it was removed. how do you just give 87 billion to people without having it? In my opinion, he did the right thing when he voted against the second draft.

haha, he's changing the means of statistical analysis? that is as low as you can go.

(..Wow, Bush sure flip-flops more than I thought. :D)
 
You know I'll agree with you that The War on Terror is not an actual war, just like the War on Drugs isn't an actual war, and yes in a sence it isn't fully capable of being won, there will always be be some lunitic out there who want's to disrupt something with there sadistic actions. But I do believe eventually it won't be nearly as bad as it is now.

Blessed
"Bush and co. prob. benefit from war cause they just loove to fight."

Your pretty much calling Bush and Co. warmongerers, which is low and untrue.
But if thats not what you meant, please tell me what you did mean.

"but America probably wont get their money"

Please elaborate on this statement, I sure hope you didn't mean what i think you meant.

Brooker

"And you're Ok with that? If so, I guess Bush is the guy you should vote for. Even Vietnam didn't take that long."

Vietnam war was a differant kind of war, we were trying to stop the spread of communism, a form of government. Last I heard terrorism isn't a form of government, it's a vile way to express ones views through premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in people and in government. It will take a long time to reduce terrorism by a large amount, we're not dealing with a country or one group of people in a certain area. These people are spread out all over the world, all with differant agenda's, and we need to find all the people we can who are involved or plan to partake in terrorist activities.
 
meme9898 said:
Your pretty much calling Bush and Co. warmongerers, which is low and untrue.

I think warmongers is a pretty fair title for them. They did invade a country without any sort of provocation and have threatened to attack numerous other countries who have likewise done nothing to attack the US. Pretty much fits the definition of "warmonger" as I understand it.

meme9898 said:
"And you're Ok with that? If so, I guess Bush is the guy you should vote for. Even Vietnam didn't take that long."

Vietnam war was a differant kind of war, we were trying to stop the spread of communism, a form of government. Last I heard terrorism isn't a form of government, it's a vile way to express ones views through premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in people and in government. It will take a long time to reduce terrorism by a large amount, we're not dealing with a country or one group of people in a certain area. These people are spread out all over the world, all with differant agenda's, and we need to find all the people we can who are involved or plan to partake in terrorist activities.

This isn't really true. If you'll remember, next to the (non-existant) WMD threat the number two reason for invading Iraq was "regime-change", which in other words meant changing the form of government in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, if for no other reason than the fact that there weren't any anti-US terrorists in Iraq before the invasion (plenty of them there now, though). Saddam's regime was one of the last independent bastions of Arab nationalism that resisted US influence and by removing him Bush hoped to bring the entire region under greater American control. In this regard, politically the wars in Iraq and Vietnam are very similar. But I think Brooker was probably referring to the military situation in Iraq, which is also very similar. The US has already lost the Iraq war in the sense that none of its main goals save for removing Saddam (which was by far the easiest to achieve) have been achieved, nor are they likely to be in the future. The US military cannot win the war because politically speaking the US position in Iraq is too weak. Except for the Kurds, the entire country has now turned against them, much like the situation in Vietnam. The insurgents cannot defeat the Americans (just like the Vietnamese, who never won a major battle) , but they don't have too. A stalemate is all they need. As long as they can prevent the US from establishing Iraq as an American puppet state (which they evidently can do), at some point the US is going to loose its will to 'stay the course' and be forced to withdraw from Iraq, much like it did in Vietnam. That won't happen if Bush wins the election because he has staked his whole reputation on the war, but if Kerry wins the Americans will be out of Iraq within a year or two. If not, then whoever takes over from Bush in 2008 will bring the troops home. Either way, the US is going to leave Iraq without having accomplished any of its political goals and the country will likely end up in the hands of Shi'ite political leaders with strong ties to America's other archenemy, Iran.
 
You can fight a war in Iraq, you can fight a war in Afghanistan, but you can't wage war on a tactic. Let's call these things what they are... Iraq = a war against Saddam, Afghanistan = a war against a state that supported a group we didn't like, but not a war on terror. Republicans love to use such catch all phrases, like "War on Terror" and "Family Values".

Besides, what is terrorism? Attacking civilians to achieve a military or political goal? If that's our definition, kind of sounds like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to me. I'm not trying to open up that issue, but the point is that we're not fighting a tactic.
 
Brooker said:
Besides, what is terrorism? Attacking civilians to achieve a military or political goal?

Here's Mirriam-Webster's definition:
Main Entry: ter?ror?ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

And for terror:
Main Entry: ter?ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
 
Back
Top