Home Forums Gamescan Chat42 About
* Login   * Register * FAQ    * Search
It is currently Thu 03-28-2024 6:45AM

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Questions for the Presidential Candidates
PostPosted: Thu 07-29-2004 12:44PM 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Mon 03-01-2004 2:11PM
Posts: 64

Source: Off Campus
Here is a column by Radley Balko that has some very good points on both sides. It points out some very interesting inconsistencies in the political histories of both candidates. Disclaimer: Balko is a libertarian, but even they have intelligent things to say sometimes.

While we're disenchanted with both candidates, take a good look at this blog. It speaks about the glittering generalities of political speaches and could just as easily be about Republicans. I especially enjoyed the part about poverty-stricken people scraping together small sums of money for donations that "moneybags" politicians gladly accept. And let's not kid ourselves - this stuff happens all the time on both sides of the fence.

Again, feel free to comment.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 07-29-2004 12:57PM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon 08-18-2003 9:25AM
Posts: 530
Location: 37°57'47.14"N, 91°44'51.65"W

Source: Off Campus
Yeah, I literally laughed at Clinton's speech. He reminded the audience several times that he had recently joined the top 1% of wealthy Americans, and that he was benefitting greatly from Bush's tax cuts. He also pointed out that he, Bush, and Cheney could have all served in Vietnam but chose not to, then complimented John Kerry's service. Jon Stewart pointed out that night that Clinton had devised a brilliant strategy to discredit Bush and Cheney by pointing out just how much they had in common with him!


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 07-29-2004 9:31PM 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu 02-06-2003 12:57AM
Posts: 124
Location: Way the hell away from Rolla

Source: Off Campus
Patrick wrote:
Yeah, I literally laughed at Clinton's speech. He reminded the audience several times that he had recently joined the top 1% of wealthy Americans, and that he was benefitting greatly from Bush's tax cuts. He also pointed out that he, Bush, and Cheney could have all served in Vietnam but chose not to, then complimented John Kerry's service. Jon Stewart pointed out that night that Clinton had devised a brilliant strategy to discredit Bush and Cheney by pointing out just how much they had in common with him!


And all of that after his wife called him the last "Great" dem. President. I really like the Daily Show's coverage of the DNC. It reaffirms that it is not the liberal show that it can occasionally seem to be. They are equal opportunity offenders when it comes to politics; they will most likely be doing the same to the RNC in a few weeks.

I found it interesting that Edwards said they were going to hunt down and destroy Al-Qaeda. Last time I checked that kind of brute mentality didn't quite fit in with their Anti-War rhetoric. How do they plan to do all that without supporting troops? Their campaign has no ground to stand on and Kerry, everyone at the Daily Show knows, and well most free thinking people know it. The whole "anyone but Bush" bit on the part of the Dem's is not a smart move. It takes whatever viable credibility there is away from the Kerry campaign.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 07-29-2004 9:44PM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed 03-06-2002 4:47PM
Posts: 388

Source: Off Campus
jerslan wrote:
I found it interesting that Edwards said they were going to hunt down and destroy Al-Qaeda. Last time I checked that kind of brute mentality didn't quite fit in with their Anti-War rhetoric. How do they plan to do all that without supporting troops? Their campaign has no ground to stand on and Kerry, everyone at the Daily Show knows, and well most free thinking people know it. The whole "anyone but Bush" bit on the part of the Dem's is not a smart move. It takes whatever viable credibility there is away from the Kerry campaign.

I think the Edwards plan is to handle Al-Qaeda in the same way that the US handled this kind of stuff pre 88. They want to use intelligence, undercover agents, and funding other groups in the region to do it.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 07-29-2004 9:55PM 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Thu 02-06-2003 12:57AM
Posts: 124
Location: Way the hell away from Rolla

Source: Off Campus
That's still not very democrat-like of them. All of that Black-Ops stuff is supposed to be against their political beliefs, so I still call bullshit on them. The current lack of reliable intelligence is because of the CIA and other organizations that Kerry would need to rely on, thus they would not be up to the task of hunting down and killing Bin Laden and destroying Al-Qaeda. If you look at their entire plan objectively its mostly just the typical false pretense (ie: saying what needs to be said to get elected).


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu 07-29-2004 10:32PM 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon 09-29-2003 9:29AM
Posts: 122

Source: Fidelity
jerslan wrote:
I found it interesting that Edwards said they were going to hunt down and destroy Al-Qaeda. Last time I checked that kind of brute mentality didn't quite fit in with their Anti-War rhetoric. How do they plan to do all that without supporting troops? Their campaign has no ground to stand on and Kerry, everyone at the Daily Show knows, and well most free thinking people know it. The whole "anyone but Bush" bit on the part of the Dem's is not a smart move. It takes whatever viable credibility there is away from the Kerry campaign.


I don't think it is fair to brand Kerry/Edwards as anti-war, or claim that they don't support our troops.

Most free thinking people know it? It seems to me that there are quite a few free thinking individuals who will stand behind Kerry, such as myself. But then, I am a bleeding heart liberal.

And just because we there are a lot of people that would vote for "anyone but Bush", that's not how the democrats are billing this ticket, and I don't think that's how they chose their candidate. They chose a candidate they thought would win, and would represent their views.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 07-30-2004 7:55AM 
Offline
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon 08-18-2003 9:25AM
Posts: 530
Location: 37°57'47.14"N, 91°44'51.65"W

Source: Off Campus
beane wrote:
And just because we there are a lot of people that would vote for "anyone but Bush", that's not how the democrats are billing this ticket, and I don't think that's how they chose their candidate.

Actually that's the exact impression I got from this convention. The speakers rarely lifted up Kerry. When they did, it was brief and perfunctory, and usually involved nothing more than Kerry's Vietnam record, which is a poor basis for a presidential run. Instead, they criticized Bush, ableit with less harsh rhetoric than usual. They spoke more of "needing a change" than "needing Kerry." Michael Moore was quoted during the convention saying "I can't imagine four more years of Bush" but has never come close to saying "I want to see four years of Kerry." There was little true enthusiasm to be found for John Kerry. The only times the crowd got truly fired up were when the speakers were tearing down Bush. I really got the impression that Democrats don't care who's running, as long as they're not George Bush.


Top
 Profile  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 07-30-2004 8:26AM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Wed 03-06-2002 4:47PM
Posts: 388

Source: Off Campus
jerslan wrote:
That's still not very democrat-like of them. All of that Black-Ops stuff is supposed to be against their political beliefs, so I still call bullshit on them. The current lack of reliable intelligence is because of the CIA and other organizations that Kerry would need to rely on, thus they would not be up to the task of hunting down and killing Bin Laden and destroying Al-Qaeda. If you look at their entire plan objectively its mostly just the typical false pretense (ie: saying what needs to be said to get elected).

I'll try to say this as politely as possible but I don’t think you understand Democrats in general or Kerry’s policies on this. It is one thing to call bullshit on someone seemingly contradicting them self, but It simply is not a contradiction in this case.
‘"My goal is not to find a way to go to war," he said. "My goal is to find a way to prevent young people from having to die because we do the job ahead of time properly." Kerry said: "That's my belief about the presidency, evidently it's Tony Blair's belief about the prime ministership of Great Britain." Kerry said he would not hesitate to use preemptive force to protect the country from an imminent threat of terrorist attack. "Am I prepared as president to go get 'em before they get us? If we locate them and have sufficient intelligence, you bet I am," he said.’
Kerry Vows to Double Ranks of Spies, Create Czar
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5695755&pageNumber=0


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri 07-30-2004 9:50AM 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Mon 03-01-2004 2:11PM
Posts: 64

Source: Off Campus
I just read the Kerry acceptance speech. While I could go on for days about all of the things he said, I'll keep my comments to the topic at hand -Kerry's foreign policy.

Kerry's Foreign Policy
First of all, when Kerry, Edwards, and other doves say they want America to be "respected abroad," they don't really mean that. What they mean is that they want America to be liked abroad. And that will take decades of charity (not appeasement) to happen. People claim that America lost respect the instant Bush "stole the election" and took over the White House. Let's think back to the Clinton administration: North Korea was developing nuclear weapons (under Clinton's nose), China was blatantly stealing plans for them, Iraq was firing at U.S. troops several times per week, numerous European "allies" were actively circumventing U.N. sanctions on Iraq, and most of the Arab world was supporting (or at least not condemning or stopping) terrorists who planned on killing Americans. That sounds like respect.

The real cause for the messiness of this whole Iraq thing is not misinformation or American hawkishness. The cause was the world's lack of respect for the U.N. and the U.N.'s lack of principle. People ask whether it's the U.S.'s job to dethrone every evil dictator in the world. The answer: It isn't. It's the U.N.'s job. But when members of the security council are making tons of money off of Iraq in lucrative oil and weapons deals, there's no way any significant action will take place. America went in with all of the allies that were willing to go. Remember the addage: "What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular?" That goes for foreign policy, too. And if you think Iraq is worse off now than before, you're naive, misinformed (most likely), or diluted.

And I'd like to point out that Kerry's stated foreing policy goes pretty much like so: "I'll do what Bush did, but because I am John Kerry and not Bush, the world will love the U.S. for it." We're supposed to believe that Kerry, because he is so likeable, will create allies using the same policies. Let's see his plan: more troops, more funding for the military, more spies, preemptive strikes, go to the U.N., protect America abroad... Hey! Those are all things Bush is doing. And magically, Kerry will be loved for it! Let's get real. Al Qaeda and other Islamic Jihadists (and France) hate America because it's America, not because Bush (or even a Republican) is President. 9/11 was planned during the Clinton administration. Terrorists want to kill Americans, whether they're Republican or Democrat. Terrorists want to kill the American President whether he's Kerry or Bush. The idea that we should strive to be respected (read: liked) abroad to achieve better security is rediculous.

More spies is a good idea. In fact, Republicans have been saying this for years. The reason we had bad intelligence in Iraq is because there were no inside people in Iraq. Those type of operatives take years to get in there, and Iraq happened only a year and a half after 9/11. To blame Bush for bad intelligence is to blame our generation for the collapse of social security when it happens. Problems in the intelligence agency have been growing since the 70's.

Don't kid yourself into thinking the U.S. will be more safe with Bush out of office. The real reason Jihadists hate us is because they think we're too friendly with Israel. That's it. You want them to like us, then cut ties with Israel, support the Palestinians, and get Israel to give up all of Jerusalem and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Throw in a few "Allah is Great"s and we'll be buddy-buddy with France, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that's what we're going for.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 08-08-2004 10:39PM 
Offline
Brigadier General

Joined: Tue 01-22-2002 12:35PM
Posts: 1057
Location: Shawnee Mission, KS

Source: Off Campus
Patrick wrote:
I really got the impression that Democrats don't care who's running, as long as they're not George Bush.


That's how I feel. If it came out tomorrow that Kerry was a convicted murderer, I'd still vote for him.

(assuming I could, since he'd be ineligible and almost certainly would be dumped by the party)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 08-09-2004 1:01AM 


Source: Somewhere
zkissane wrote:
Patrick wrote:
I really got the impression that Democrats don't care who's running, as long as they're not George Bush.


That's how I feel. If it came out tomorrow that Kerry was a convicted murderer, I'd still vote for him.

(assuming I could, since he'd be ineligible and almost certainly would be dumped by the party)


I hope you aren't serious.


People like you are part of what's wrong with our election process. Your right to vote should be revoked because of your obvious lack of thought. This "anyone but Bush" philosophy is a dangerous cop out. Think of what issues are most important to you, then pick a candidate who will champion those.

In other words, grow up and take things seriously.


Top
  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon 08-09-2004 1:02AM 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu 03-07-2002 4:45PM
Posts: 283
Location: Corumbia

Source: Delta Tau Delta
^
|
|
|
|


Direct your anger at me.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 08-22-2004 7:32PM 


Source: Somewhere
I take it seriously and i still say anyone but Bush.


Top
  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 08-22-2004 7:36PM 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue 09-09-2003 9:33PM
Posts: 129

Source: McAnerney Hall
^
|
|
Me


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun 08-22-2004 7:55PM 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Thu 09-25-2003 8:14PM
Posts: 2314

Source: TJ North
Anyone But Bush means just that. Anyone could include someone like Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Moore, Ted Kennedy, Charles Manson, Saddam Hussien, you, or even me.

Don't get me wrong, i dislike Bush quite a bit and will not give him my vote, but i don't buy into the ABB philosiphy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
    
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group