[quote]biltritewave wrote:
I’ll tell you what GW has done for me, he showed up on the doorstep of my mothers office, in the wreckage of a huge terrorist attack and, speaking from his heart said, “well I can hear you, and the people that knocked down these buildings will soon hear us.”
And he has delivered.
[/quote]
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
Delivered what, exactly?
Newsflash, Its not a one man organization. If you can take out the out the ability to wage terror, to fund, to support, to sponsor, one man sitting in a Cave cant do much. Sure we would love to have bin laden., but there are other things which are being done effectively besides just capturing him.
Tell me what you think Kerry would have done differently that would have resulted in Bin Ladens capture by now…please, enlighten me.
Bilt, considering how Bush was spouting off after 9/11 that bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks and a great threat to our country, and considering that he is still at large, I would think that he would still be of great interest to our country.
It’s been nearly three years since the attacks, do you actually believe he is huddled in a cave somewhere, crapping in a bucket? The man is very well funded and connected and obviously has an interest in causing harm to the US.
I don’t understand how you can’t see the ridiculousness of Bush’s statement when so much time, money and effort went into ousting Saddam.
Let’s see, bin Laden caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans on US soil. The American deaths blamed on Saddam are those that took place after we invaded his country. Who, then, was the bigger threat to us, Saddam or bin Laden? Please enlighten me.
Poor misguided liberals.
Yes I do think Bin Laden is huddled in a cave somewhere. Have you seen recent pictures of him and compared him to previous ones. He looks like he is about 25 years older. He also has a very debilitating disese. He is important, but if you take away the ability of the organization he leads, or his ability to lead it, which we are well on our way to doing, then his importance dimminishes. There is a huge distinction. One involves gaining ‘justice’ for september 11th, the other is ensuring it doesnt ever happen again. The latter being much more important than the former.
I thought I was quite clear in my brief post as to how the republicans will make Kerry look bad. However, I will state it plainly once again: the republicans are going to advertise the liberal Kerry voting record! Is that nasty politics? Telling the truth is something that there needs to be more of.
Why would Kerry run away from his long term liberal voting record? He should be proud of it, or does he know that America is not ready for a northeastern liberal to be elected to the highest office in the land?
Zeb’s latest prediction for the November election: Bush wins by 5%!
The numbers may change as we get closer however the outcome will be the same: Bush will be reelected!
Some people don’t seem to have the faintest clue what sort of game is being played here.
If bin Laden is no longer capable of launching an effective attack against us, then he is no longer a threat. Continuing to chase after him just wastes time and money, so why bother?
If bin Laden can launch an attack, then he is still a threat, and we should still be concerned with him. But we don’t want him to know that, so we should pretend we don’t know he can launch an attack.
So, whether bin Laden is a threat or not, we should advertise that we don’t believe bin Laden is a threat.
[quote]jodgey wrote:
Of course the Republicans are going to try to make Kerry look bad, really bad. Because that is the only way they know how to do business.
Two words for ya cowboy: “Michael Moore”
From the WSJ Friday, July 30, 2004
Michael Moore, who shared a box with former President Jimmy Carter, quoted in National Review on Republicans: “They are up at six in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they’re going to screw today. The hate, they eat [it] for breakfast. They are going to fight and they are going to smear, and they are going to lie, and they are going to hate.”
Which party is it again that can’t stop with the smear tactics? Who when pressed for an actual fact nearly always responds with a question dogding emotive argument? Why is the word “spin” in our modern political lexicon? Gee, I guess I’m too much of a hayseed retard blindly playing sheeple for my comander and chief to know the answers to my own questions.
All facetiousness aside as a SSgt in the USAF who’s already been on ground once in Iraq and getting ready to go back in September I’ll tell you first hand that our war with Saddam and his puke infested regime was absolutely worth it. If you think for second that Saddam had no WMD’s as well as programs to produce WMD’s I got a bridge to sell ya. Trust me, there is a lot of shit that goes unreported in the media.
In fairness I will offer up a bitch about one Bush admin person whom I don’t dig on and that is Donald Rumsfeld. While I do truly love to watch him give all those sneering asses in the Washington press corps hell during his dail brief. I have to say “Hey Donnie It’s okay to increase the size of the military”
Of course if you did that you may piss off all the lefties in this country. After all who opposes increasing the size of the military more than Donny Rumsfeld? Hmmm? And who opposed funding me while I am in Iraq? Oh yeah! I remember now! John Kerry and the democratic party. No matter what hand wringing they do and no matter crocodile tears they shed on my behalf, I am not about to forget what the democratic party has been saying since vietnam. And I certainly am not about to forget how my father was treated by all the sanctimonious long hairs after he got back from his tour. Which was a year by the way. Sorry John Forbes Kerry I ain’t impressed. And for those of you on the left who wish to be upset on my behalf. I’ll belive that you aren’t trying to use me for political reasons when you pick up a weapon and stand a post with me.
Ok, thanks CDarklock, I guess that really clears it all up… ummm… yeah.
With that, then I am not going to go rub one out after looking at Lindsay Lohan’s pictures. {wink wink}
Wow… CDlark you really have gotten it figured out! simply amazing! Please tell us more of the ingenious shadowy methods of our government. That reminded me of I know, that he knows, that I know, that he knows…
Tyler60,
Thanks for admitting you are a Democrat. From now on you are going to be Tyler 60. This comes from your “It’s been 60 years, how long does Europe have to kiss our ass” comment. Actually 2004-1989. Not 60 by “Republican” math.
Anyway, it’s quite sad that Democrats on this board and elsewhere do not want to discuss his speech in any detail. If I was a die-hard Democrat I wouldn’t either.
It’s kind of sad that instead of talking about the “strengths” of your candidate, you immediately launch into a diatribe against George Bush.
I’m voting for George Bush for many reasons. He does exactly what he says. Bin Laden is in a cave. Saddam is in jail awaiting punishment. Afghan women are in school. We’ve already found banned weapons along with the development progam in Iraq. Libya has surrendered ricin, vx, and nuclear parts as a result of our strong stand. We’ve developed a Department of Homeland Security along with the many accoutrements. Our economy is picking up serious steam. Jobs are being created included in the manufacturing sector. Our troops have received increases in pay and equipment. Iraqi’s are developing a Democracy. Our ideas and ideals will spread and prosper. Freedom will prevail.
In short, I’m voting for something. You are voting against something you don’t seem to understand. I say that’s sad.
JeffR
Wow, Jeffery, you really gave me both barrels with that one. Excuse me while I re-attach my ass…
[quote]JeffR wrote:
It’s kind of sad that instead of talking about the “strengths” of your candidate, you immediately launch into a diatribe against George Bush.
[/quote]
See that’s the thing, Jeffy. The reason I am voting for Kerry is that he is not Bush. If you don’t like that, then tough shit. I can’t really imagine anyone worse than Bush. His idea of an energy policy is to drill as many wells as possible (funny how that supports his core constituency so well).
Kerry has a plan to integrate alternative energy that has the potential to add thousands of new jobs. Yesterday Cheney was trying to blame the democrats for the price of gas. I guess it never occurred to the Bush admin to try and conserve a bit by raising CAFE standards.
[quote]
Our economy is picking up serious steam. Jobs are being created included in the manufacturing sector. [/quote]
Perhaps you should do a little math on that one. The jobs lost under Bush equal somewhere around 4 million. The 1.5 million created earn, on average, $9k less per year. Let me guess, it’s Clinton’s fault, right?
[quote]
Iraqi’s are developing a Democracy. Our ideas and ideals will spread and prosper. Freedom will prevail. [/quote]
Yeah, all of the Iraqis are holding hands and singing kumbaya. That country is a mess and will be for years if not decades to come. All the righties claim this war was about WMD, support for al queda, freeing the repressed Iraqi people, blah blah blah. Well here’s a newsflash for you: it was about oil. We have a tremendous economic interest in the middle east because of oil and anyone who thinks that this was about “spreading democracy” or any other crap is simply kidding themselves. Do you think we would actually support Israel the way we do if they were anywhere other than in the middle east?
You hear what’s going on in Sudan? Bush refused to use the word “genocide” for as long as he could because that would mean we would have to uphold our national values and jump in and help. It wasn’t until Congress was screaming “genocide!” that forced him to do something about it.
The simple fact is that I will vote for Kerry because of the energy issue alone… regardless of what Bush has done in Iraq, done to our standing in the world, etc., etc., etc. I only need that one thing to convince me that my vote needs to go to Kerry.
Ty,
I thought you were of the elite and a smarter Dem than what typically rears it’s ugly head on this forum, but you’ve failed to display the facts necessary to support my presumption. Please forgive me.
While you are trying to find a place in your heart to forgive me for being so presumptuous, please visit http://factcheck.org/ to blow away your own misguided BS. You’re last post is a real eye opener to your lack of credibly opinion.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I can’t really imagine anyone worse than Bush.[/quote]
You’re not trying very hard.
Here’s the simple fact: Kerry does not seem to know what the President can and cannot do. Clinton didn’t, either. Kerry seems to think he’ll come crusading into office and barking orders and things will happen.
What will really happen is that Kerry will get tossed into the middle of a huge machine that is moving much too fast. Then he’ll say “turn left!”, and become rapidly acquainted with just how fucking complicated a left turn can BE.
So most of Kerry’s promises are simply not going to happen. He doesn’t have the time to implement more than one or two of them, and they’ll barely be gathering steam by the time his term’s up.
I find it really strange that Kerry has all these plans to make American businesses do things. It sounds to me like we’re going to be coerced into doing business the Kerry way, through punitive taxes and restricted freedom in the market. I don’t like that idea.
Fact: environmental legislation and permits have made it nearly impossible to construct new refineries. That’s why we haven’t built any new ones since 1976. Furthermore, new environmental regulations – under the Democrat banner – have forced many refineries to shut down.
So supply goes down, while demand keeps going up. Basic economics, people.
House Republicans are trying to pass a bill that encourages the construction of new refineries in high-unemployment areas by speeding up the approval process. This would – oddly enough – help people create thousands of new jobs.
How exactly did Bush cause people to lose their jobs?
Of course. America supports the Israeli government almost exclusively out of guilt for not getting involved in WW2 sooner. It doesn’t really have jack shit to do with oil.
Now, we support the SAUDIS because of oil. No question about it. But Israel – that’s just because we Jews won’t shut up about it. Guilt is our thing, you know.
Oil it,s always been about the oil. The bush family has held key interest in the oil market for years. How come we don’t here more people complaining about the price of gas these days. Who’s responsible, I’ll tell you whose responsible that idiot thats on the hill right now. At least Clinton told those rich assholes at opec no and used some of our reserves. Bush will wait until the price of oil gets to about $50 a barrel until he uses some of our reserves. Because he has his hand the cookie jar. His family is getting richer while we’re stuck footin the bill. If want to see more money in your pockets not by tax cuts vote for KERRY. When its gets closer to election time mark my word. I would guess Oct. you will see the price of gas drop and you will see the moron on capitol hill, saying look what I did for the american people what a crock of sh*&%%^%t. The longer bush stays president no one will see any relief in the price of gas except for political gain. Let,s talk about the national deficeit. We had a surplus when clinton left office. In less than six months bush had used it up and we where in debt again. We now have the biggest national deficit ever thanks to big the big spender. Leaving him in office would be a big mistake. Just think how big our deficeit will be if he gets another term. Just a middle class american that thinks we need a change. As far as the economy goes why dont you look in your Sunday classifieds and tell me the economy is better. There may be new jobs but they do pay substanially less than the jobs people lost. So dont tell me the economy is getting better. Proof is in the pudding.
JackZ, hadn’t seen that article on employment at factcheck.org, so thanks for the link. Doesn’t convince me that Georgie boy is doing a good job, but I’ll admit I was repeating what I heard with regard to job loss. (BTW, to anyone who didn’t read the article, it says Kerry’s figues are wrong, but so are Bush’s and most economists don’t really know what’s right.) But I’m just full of BS, so what do I know. Right Jack? 
CDarklock: I disagree with you completely about our support of Israel but that’s ok…
As for energy policy: it’s not the creation of jobs alone that is of concern. I believe it’s critical to move away from fossil fuels as soon as we can for a variety of reasons. The technology is there, we just need to expand upon it. Building new refineries is only going to be a temporary fix. I’m talking about expanding an entirely new industry to become a major player.
[quote]
I find it really strange that Kerry has all these plans to make American businesses do things. It sounds to me like we’re going to be coerced into doing business the Kerry way, through punitive taxes and restricted freedom in the market. I don’t like that idea.[/quote]
I didn’t say any of that. What’s wrong with trying to move away from fossil fuels? What is a better plan? I would really like to hear it.
I understand that being president isn’t an easy job. And I know Kerry would have some surprises waiting for him when he got into office, just like every other president has experienced before him. We can agree on that. However, Bush has made it very clear that the president most certainly can affect our country greatly. And I don’t like what I’ve seen or where I see this going.
I stick by my original position that energy policy alone is why I will vote for Kerry. You think he won’t be able to do a damn thing about it, I do.
[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
I believe it’s critical to move away from fossil fuels as soon as we can for a variety of reasons.[/quote]
I don’t believe it’s critical. I believe it’s SMART, but that doesn’t seem to be much of a motivator for big business.
Notice, for example, that when we require a certain MPG from automobiles… manufacturers streamlined the body. They were SUPPOSED to be making the engine more fuel-efficient, but instead they just made all the cars look like suppositories.
The really sick part is that it would probably be cheaper to work on engine efficiency, since among other things you don’t need a fucking wind tunnel.
However, that new industry can’t be built in a year or two. A refinery can, and with most American refineries working at or near capacity, it’s the only effective way to drop fuel prices in the near-term.
I’m certainly not suggesting that we should abandon energy research and just build refineries, but there’s an awful lot of bullshit in alternative energy, and it’s going to take time before we can sort through that and find the REAL science in it.
I know; Kerry did. I’m very disturbed by his plans to essentially set fences and traps in the way of business activity he doesn’t like but can’t legitimately forbid, because while he’s not doing anything I disagree with TOO much using that, he’s setting a precedent that could be used to take this concept much, much too far.
If it weren’t for the left-wing radical no-nuke crowd, we’d already be driving ‘nucular’ cars.
Nuclear power is, without a doubt, the best renewable power source you or I will ever see - but we’ll never see it’s potential realized because of the left-wing radicals that think ‘solar-power’ is the answer.
Until people wake up and realize that we will never pay money to have a solar car, or that fuel-cells will never be a competitive alternative, the Middle-East will continue to be very important to our way of life here.
But does that mean we went to war in Iraq for oil? Nope
We are in a war against terror. Bush’s pre-emption doctrine is the way we should have been attacking the terrorists since they took hostages in Iran back in 1979. Do I give a shit about their sovereignty? Hell no.
I think we should be even more proactive in the war on terror. We should close our borders - suspend NAFTA until there are safeguards in place with both Canada and Mexico to ensure that they are not harboring terrorists bent on doing our country harm.
Kerry is a weak-kneed apologist who thinks that we have no coalition unless the French are a part of it.
He has yet to say what he would do different - only that Bush has done it wrong.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Nuclear power is, without a doubt, the best renewable power source you or I will ever see - but we’ll never see it’s potential realized because of the left-wing radicals that think ‘solar-power’ is the answer.
Until people wake up and realize that we will never pay money to have a solar car, or that fuel-cells will never be a competitive alternative, the Middle-East will continue to be very important to our way of life here. [/quote]
Rain, I agree with you about nuclear to some degree, in that it is not as dangerous as most of us have been led to believe, especially with newer technology. However, you are wrong about solar.
First, I don’t hear anyone claiming we should all be driving solar cars. What is happening in the solar arena is the development of much cheaper, much more efficient, and much less obtrusive solar arrays that will be available for use everywhere: on the roofs and sides of houses and buildings, your clothing, and, yes, even your car (but as a supplement, not it’s main power source).
There are companies that have increased the efficiency of solar cells substantially and they have their sights set on the 60% to 70% range. That’s huge considering most bulky panels you see today are between 8% and 20% at most. There are also companies who have developed cells that print out on material as thin as cellophane… and they’re very cheap to produce. Their efficiency is not so good yet, but they’re getting there.
If more research and development is done to bring these products to market quickly, they could have a large impact on our utility grid. Couple that with the implementation of electric cars that can be charged using the electricity generated by your home, and there you go.
All of this can be done and is being done now. But not enough people know about it. As for fuel cell vehicles, right now I think I agree with you: they’re a wash. Takes too much energy to extract hydrogen, plus it’s just another way to keep the oil companies in charge.
Overall, the middle east will continue to be very important to the world until we nut up and put in the effort to make the changes that need to be made.
Just between you and me, Ty - I would never own ANYTHING that Ed Begley Jr. is pushing as a good idea.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Just between you and me, Ty - I would never own ANYTHING that Ed Begley Jr. is pushing as a good idea.[/quote]
Tell you what, rain, you go check out the t-zero at http://www.acpropulsion.com then come back and tell me if you think the same thing about electric cars.
And keep in mind that it was built by a small company, not Detroit.