Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

typoon · Jul 29, 2004, 09:29 AM

See the video here It's quite interesting to see

In case you can't see it from the link here is the source

rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC07200.rm

vmpaul · Jul 29, 2004, 10:22 AM

Boy, that was weak (use of the Flipper theme was funny though).

It's based on the assumption that there was only ONE way to conduct military action against Iraq. There wasn't. You can be for military action and not agree with how it was carried out by this Administration.

Either way, here's some of Bush's flip flops. I guess this means you're voting for Nader?

Bush Flip-Flops

1. 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]

2. 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]

3. 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]

4. 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. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

5. 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]

6. 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]

7. 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]

8. 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]

9. 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]

10. 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]

11. 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]

12. 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]

13. 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]

14. 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]

15. 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 singing ceremony, 03/27/02] Posted by Noelle at 04.20.2004 10.29 AM

typoon · Jul 29, 2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Boy, that was weak (use of the Flipper theme was funny though).

It's based on the assumption that there was only ONE way to conduct military action against Iraq. There wasn't. You can be for military action and not agree with how it was carried out by this Administration.

Either way, here's some of Bush's flip flops. I guess this means you're voting for Nader?

Bush Flip-Flops

1. 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]

2. 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]

3. 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]

4. 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. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." [President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

5. 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]

6. 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]

7. 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]

8. 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]

9. 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]

10. 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]

11. 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]

12. 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]

13. 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]

14. 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]

15. 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 singing ceremony, 03/27/02] Posted by Noelle at 04.20.2004 10.29 AM

Some of those are the reasons I'm not very happy with Bush but to me he is still better than John Kerry.

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by typoon:
Some of those are the reasons I'm not very happy with Bush but to me he is still better than John Kerry.

Just out of curiousity. How is he better than Kerry?

vmpaul · Jul 29, 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by typoon:
Some of those are the reasons I'm not very happy with Bush but to me he is still better than John Kerry.

Points for honesty.

Hey, I'm not in love with Kerry either. Point is they are BOTH typical politicians. If either one is President, they should have a watchdog Congress, an independent Judiciary, a critical press, and a demanding electorate to keep them honest and on their toes.

I'm not stumping for Kerry (other to counter falsehoods when I see them here). It's another 'lesser of two evils' vote for me this year. I just think another 4 years of an unrestrained Bush would be too dangerous.

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I just think another 4 years of an unrestrained Bush would be too dangerous.

That is what probably bothers the rest of the world most. Having invaded two countries in 4 years now still having to worry about elections, what would he do when he doesn't have to worry about elections?

Tater Salad · Jul 29, 2004, 12:04 PM

Kick terrorist ass. Sounds fine to me.
I'm hoping he puts more pressure on N Korea and Iran.

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Kick terrorist ass. Sounds fine to me.
I'm hoping he puts more pressure on N Korea and Iran.

Why Iran?

Tater Salad · Jul 29, 2004, 12:20 PM

Nuclear weapons. And I don't recall it being the friendliest of countries

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Nuclear weapons. And I don't recall it being the friendliest of countries

Got anything to back that claim up? Proof that they've got NW?

And in what way are they not the friendliest of countries? Have they threatened to invade a country lately?

Tater Salad · Jul 29, 2004, 12:30 PM

Human Rights
Nukes

What do you like Iran or something? And a threat does not require offensive military tactics.

Neighbor: "That guy has a rabid Tiger and a sawed off shotgun in his garage. He also has some grenades from the black market."

Cop: "He hasn't attacked anyone. Your accusations make you a muslim hating racist. Hate!"

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Human Rights
Nukes

What do you like Iran or something? And a threat does not require offensive military tactics.

Neighbor: "That guy has a rabid Tiger and a sawed off shotgun in his garage. He also has some grenades from the black market."

Cop: "He hasn't attacked anyone. Your accusations make you a muslim hating racist. Hate!"

From the Nukes link:

But International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, said the chief of Iran's atomic energy program had told him in September that the construction was for a 6,000-megawatt nuclear power facility.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh also said that Iran planned to declare the facilities to the IAEA and would welcome IAEA safeguards, according to ElBaradei.

I thought people would have learned by now that when the US accuses someone of developing or having WMD's it's not to be trusted. Blame it on whoever you want.

And their human rights record is just about the same(if not better) than the puppets in S.A. Still they get weapons and contracts left and right while Iran is always under the threat of being punished. Why is that?

If a threat does not require an offensive military tactic, could you elaborate on what kind of threat Iran poses to the US and US interests?

Tater Salad · Jul 29, 2004, 12:42 PM

Any hostile country with nuclear weapons is a threat. China. North Korea. Etc.
I wouldn't trust ayatollah or anything with more than a firecracker. Since you obviously have no threat of any attack up there (where there is nothing), you obviously don't have the rage of millions of Americans against these bastards.

Stradlater · Jul 29, 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by typoon:
Some of those are the reasons I'm not very happy with Bush but to me he is still better than John Kerry.

Thank you for quoting his entire post in your directly subsequent post.

Jim Paradise · Jul 29, 2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Any hostile country with nuclear weapons is a threat. China. North Korea. Etc.
I wouldn't trust ayatollah or anything with more than a firecracker. Since you obviously have no threat of any attack up there (where there is nothing), you obviously don't have the rage of millions of Americans against these bastards.

The States has nuclear weapons and I consider them a threat to global security because of it (amongst other reasons). Does it make suspect of them? Yes. Would I want a country to invade them or hurt its citizens? No.

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 12:49 PM

But to get back on topic I don't see the flip flop you guys are implying there is. Could you describe what the problem is?

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Any hostile country with nuclear weapons is a threat. China. North Korea. Etc.
I wouldn't trust ayatollah or anything with more than a firecracker. Since you obviously have no threat of any attack up there (where there is nothing), you obviously don't have the rage of millions of Americans against these bastards.

So it is completely OK, for Iran to pre-empt any US attack by using their subs to attack the US since the US is a hostile nation?

And you don't know anything about my history or my country to claim there is "nothing" up here, so please just STFU about that.

Tater Salad · Jul 29, 2004, 12:53 PM

Interesting talking point, which obviously is relativistic.
Do you really think that we're going to nuke someone for no reason? No. China attacks? Yes, they will die for it. Terrorist obliterates NASCAR event (almost 300,000), I'd be willing to turn some places into glass ice-rinks. Personally, I'd love to see an Iranian democracy. That goes for all of the ME under theocracies.

Jim Paradise · Jul 29, 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Interesting talking point, which obviously is relativistic.
Do you really think that we're going to nuke someone for no reason? No. China attacks? Yes, they will die for it. Terrorist obliterates NASCAR event (almost 300,000), I'd be willing to turn some places into glass ice-rinks. Personally, I'd love to see an Iranian democracy. That goes for all of the ME under theocracies.

Then let them achieve it themselves. Iraq did not attack the United States. Iran has not attacked the United States. China is not going to attack the United States.

Tater Salad · Jul 29, 2004, 01:21 PM

I was saying that is the only condition we would use nukes, which was part of the discussion with Logic. Iran, Iraq, and N Korea are threats.

dcolton · Jul 29, 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Interesting talking point, which obviously is relativistic.
Do you really think that we're going to nuke someone for no reason? No. China attacks? Yes, they will die for it. Terrorist obliterates NASCAR event (almost 300,000), I'd be willing to turn some places into glass ice-rinks. Personally, I'd love to see an Iranian democracy. That goes for all of the ME under theocracies.

They wouldn't have to worry about democracy if nukes were used!

Tater Salad · Jul 29, 2004, 01:35 PM

****'s coming soon anyway. The terrorists, those ****ers that they are (sorry Logic, freedomfighters), seem to be testing the airlines. There have been two hijacking scares, and the would have succeeded. One stopped it, and the other I'm not sure about. We know they want to disrupt the election. But hopefully those jackasses are stupid enough to believe we're the effeminate Europeans that they have already suceeded in attacking.
Bring 'em on Allah!

Jim Paradise · Jul 29, 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
I was saying that is the only condition we would use nukes, which was part of the discussion with Logic. Iran, Iraq, and N Korea are threats.

There were threats flying across continents all throughout the Cold War, and yet people managed to have the good sense not to go and nuke the world and civilization into oblivion.

*edited* Not that we didn't come close to nuking ourselves into oblivion.

dcmacdaddy · Jul 29, 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Hey, I'm not in love with Kerry either. Point is they are BOTH typical politicians. If either one is President, they should have a watchdog Congress, an independent Judiciary, a critical press, and a demanding electorate to keep them honest and on their toes.

I'm not stumping for Kerry (other to counter falsehoods when I see them here). It's another 'lesser of two evils' vote for me this year. I just think another 4 years of an unrestrained Bush would be too dangerous.

Originally posted by Logic:
That is what probably bothers the rest of the world most. Having invaded two countries in 4 years now still having to worry about elections, what would he do when he doesn't have to worry about elections?

My reason for voting Kerry as well. I have been bothered by MUCH of what he has done so far and I am just afraid of what he might do when there is no accountability to the electorate.

dcmacdaddy · Jul 29, 2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
Any hostile country with nuclear weapons is a threat. China. North Korea. Etc.
I wouldn't trust ayatollah or anything with more than a firecracker. Since you obviously have no threat of any attack up there (where there is nothing), you obviously don't have the rage of millions of Americans against these bastards.

Millions of Americans are enraged at the few world nuclear superpowers?!? Huh, I never knew.

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:

My reason for voting Kerry as well. I have been bothered by MUCH of what he has done so far and I am just afraid of what he might do when there is no accountability to the electorate.

Isn't that one of the biggest problems with the US system of just having the chance of being re-elected once? There is no accountability in the latter term, and that can't be good for a democracy.

dcolton · Jul 29, 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Isn't that one of the biggest problems with the US system of just having the chance of being re-elected once? There is no accountability in the latter term, and that can't be good for a democracy.

That is why we have 3 branches of government and a self proclaimed 4th estate.

Logic · Jul 29, 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by dcolton:
That is why we have 3 branches of government and a self proclaimed 4th estate.

How does that help against a president having no accountability towards the voters in his latter term?

Most democracies have three branches of government IIRC so that's no different, it the accountability in the last term that I'm wondering about.

dcolton · Jul 29, 2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
How does that help against a president having no accountability towards the voters in his latter term?

Most democracies have three branches of government IIRC so that's no different, it the accountability in the last term that I'm wondering about.

Congress. There is very little a President can do without the support of Congress. Yes, he can call a police action or defend the nation in a limited fashion, but without the support of congress, the President is open to impeachment and charges like treason and abuse of power if he/ she acts in a treacherous manner.

I imagine the bg issue would be war since law cannot be passed without congress and treaties must be ratified by the senate. It would be difficult for the President to wage war without the appropriate funds, which is controlled by the House of Representatives. In addition, if there were a war effort, by the time American troops were able to be placed into position for an offensive attack, Congress would have ample opportunity to impeach the President or block any action.

I guess the scariest thing is when impeached Presidents like Clinton pardon all of their criminal buddies when they leave office (it is a normal practice for President to pardon some criminals when they leave office, Clinton just seemingly went overboard)/

typoon · Jul 29, 2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:

My reason for voting Kerry as well. I have been bothered by MUCH of what he has done so far and I am just afraid of what he might do when there is no accountability to the electorate. [/QUOTE]

Well that's my reason for voting for Bush this year. If there was a better candidate I would be voting for them. After hear what has been coming from many of the democrat speakers over the past few days it doesn't make me want to vote for a democrat at all this year.

I agree that both candidates from both parties are true politicians and that so far it doesn't seem like both parties are any different, when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it I would Rather have Bush over Kerry any day.

Why are many of the Dems still acting and speaking like they are still back in the 60's?

I used to be a HUGE fan of Bush but many of the things he's done have really annoyed me to the point where If someone like Liberman or a decent candidate from anywhere came along I would have voted for them for the first time. I'm still a fan of the President just not as much as I was but I still think he will do a better job than Kerry.