Kerry and Edwards ticket

[cvillehog]

Funny... I thought the title of this thread was "The Kerry and Edwards Ticket"

But, you feel free to spread any innuendo you wish...

So, Bush being the worst President ever isn't relevant to "The Kerry and Edwards Ticket"?

[cvillehog]

You can quote all the Senate votes you want, but we all know those bills get weighted down with rediculous provisions benefiting special interests and that often cause members of Congress to vote against what otherwise sounds like an important bill.

[Redskins Rule]

I have talked to those people who have been around the block for a long time. By that I mean 60 and 70 year olds. They remember where they were when Kennedy got shot and some remember where they were when Pearl Harbor got attacked. And of course, they know where they were during the horrible day of 9/11.

Out of all of the Presidents that they have seen they have to say that President Bush is by far the worst one. I sure hope they are right, because if we get a President much worse then him.....gosh, I don't even want to think what would happen to this country.

[Countertrey]

A classical "red herring" moment...

You can quote all the Senate votes you want, but we all know those bills get weighted down with rediculous provisions benefiting special interests and that often cause members of Congress to vote against what otherwise sounds like an important bill.

And, in most cases, that is actually correct... the context is important. The context here is that there are virtually no instances of Kerry voting for a weapons system, or an intelligence budget, because he opposed the spending on those issues... PERIOD. His votes are consistent, in opposition to defense weapons spending. It's one of the few areas that one would have difficulty demonstrating a history of "flip-flopping". He detests the military, a fact that is born out when you look at his history of "testimony" against service members still in country during his VVAW days, despite his cynical attempt to paint himself as a warrior, past and present during the DNC.

So, Bush being the worst President ever isn't relevant to "The Kerry and Edwards Ticket"?

I respond with debate, you respond with perjorative, innuendo, and unsupported ABB opinion. You voice the opinion that "Bush is the worst President ever"... we both know that you don't believe that, but, feel free.

[joebagadonuts]

countertrey;

saying that kerry did 'not support the troops in the field' is a lie in my opinion. his proposal to find funding in places other than from the pockets of future generations is proof that he was supporting the troops. but because his method of funding is different from president bush's strategy of inflating the deficit, kerry gets labeled as a non-supporter ot the troops. talk about spin. i would prefer to have a president who can think about two things at once (military funding and fiscal responsibility) than one who cannot.


most of the items you list that kerry 'voted against' came from a single bill; the fiscal year 1991 defense appropriations act. moreover, the following quote shows how perhaps kerry's stance on funding at that time was not far from others';

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

that was from president george h.w. bush's state of the union speech in january of 1992. sounds like the former president is just as soft on defense as kerry is.


finally, the votes that you say prove that kerry has something against the ability of the country to defend itself are misleading. most, if not all, of those votes (including the 1.5 billion slush fund the nat'l recon. office was enjoying) were in an effort to reduce the deficit. y'know, that thing that we eliminated under clinton but is now larger than at any time in the history of the country? but it is so much easier to just say that he voted against defense than to actually find out why.

[Countertrey]

Redskins Rule LOL

Out of all of the Presidents that they have seen they have to say that President Bush is by far the worst one.

Where did you find those folks? A retirment home in Dade County Fla?

Do you think EVERYONE here is completely gullible?

Let me tell you something that can be taken to the bank. 8 of 10 active duty military are going to vote for Bush (assuming their votes get counted). 7 of 10 Vietnam Veterans are going to vote for Bush. 6 of 10 veterans in general are going to vote for Bush.

These are not based upon my own personal awareness of how these folks will vote... if that were the case, I only know of 3 Veterans who say they will vote for Kerry... and I know several hundred. In otherwords, if it were based upon my experience, the numbers would be much closer to 100% Any of it scientific? Nope... but I guarantee that it's accurate. Much more reliable than "every old person in the world thinks W stinks"

BTW, I was traveling in a car on South Dakota Ave in Washington, DC, on my way to a doctor's appointment when I heard of JFK's assassination. So, what's your point?

[cvillehog]

You voice the opinion that "Bush is the worst President ever"... we both know that you don't believe that, but, feel free.

Interesting that you should speculate as to what I believe. I rather expected to be told it isn't true.

My question for you is, what would have been the effect on the budget and national debt of these spending bills you cite? Unlike Bush, Kerry is not in favor of massive spending with no increase in revenues to back it up. It's my children who will have to deal with the results of Bush's overspending/undertaxing, and I don't like it.

Asside from that, I just don't like Bush. I find him decietful and dislike the radical social conservatism that is pervasive in his administration. I also don't like his propensity to promise one thing (fiscally conservative policies, "compationate conservatism") and then completely go in the other direction. I also disagree fundamentally with his supply-side tax policies. I only had one semester of Macroeconomics back in college, but it was enough to know that the economic multiplier (that is the effect on the economy per dollar) for tax cuts is always one less than that of government spending. I also know that when you put extra money into the hands people who already have disposable income, that money generally doesn't get spent, it gets saved. Where as a low-income person will likely spend any extra money they get right away, thereby circulating that money in the economy. The problem is, tax cuts aren't a good way to do this, because many low income people don't pay many taxes, if any at all.

[cvillehog]

Let me tell you something that can be taken to the bank. 8 of 10 active duty military are going to vote for Bush (assuming their votes get counted). 7 of 10 Vietnam Veterans are going to vote for Bush. 6 of 10 veterans in general are going to vote for Bush.

Do you have numbers for reservists?

[Countertrey]

most of the items you list that kerry 'voted against' came from a single bill; the fiscal year 1991 defense appropriations act. moreover, the following quote shows how perhaps kerry's stance on funding at that time was not far from others';

You know, that's true. If I had used the entire list of opposed expenditures, which I have taken back as far as 1984, it is CONSIDERABLY longer, and, as you might imagine, far more difficult for Kerry or his defenders to justify. It included many of the weapons and systems which helped to bankrupt the USSR, and included even research on some of the later weapons systems, such as Patriot, he felt were un-needed later on. He has consistently opposed every Aircraft carrier of the Nimitz class. You want me to go on? I can, you know... it's really not a problem.

I will concede that he consistently votes with the majority on issues such as pay... just don't ask him to pay for equiping and training soldiers.

Of course, your attempt to link Kerry to "fiscal responsibility" is laughable... once again, one has but to examine his voting record to see that fiscal responsibility does not motivate John Kerry.

[cvillehog]

Of course, your attempt to link Kerry to "fiscal responsibility" is laughable... once again, one has but to examine his voting record to see that fiscal responsibility does not motivate John Kerry.

Do you contend that it motivates Bush? Because he says it does, but his actions do not bear that out.

To conclude, I've enjoyed our discourse here, but I will have to back out of the discussion now, as I know far less about Kerry's good or bad points than I do about what I don't like about Bush, and that line of debate isn't leading anywhere productive.

-Tony

[Countertrey]

ABB, I see. You have no idea of the history of the man you are going to vote for???

[cvillehog]

ABB, I see. You have no idea of the history of the man you are going to vote for???

What is ABB?

Anyway, I didn't say I had no idea of his history.

I'd rather have mickey mouse as president than Bush, though.

Edit:

I will say this though, if Kerry's voting record is so bad, and so weak on defense, why are the GOP faithful focusing on his time in Vietnam instead of his time in the Senate: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=baer081104

Also, President Bush has the benefit of not having served in our Congress, so those kind of votes cannot be held against him.

[Redskins Rule]

Bush is the worst President to have ever set foot in the oval office. He really shouldn't be there anyway. He stole the election to begin with. I honestly doubt that he will be able to steal the election twice so this country will be back on track here soon enough.

[Countertrey]

I see... stole the election. That's a serious allegation. Do you have proof, or are you simply parroting the Daley line?

I'll point out that in every independent review done, and regardless the source (newspaper, college research, whatever) Bush still won Florida. In every election district where there were claims of "voter disinfranchisement" the election commission was Democrat led (with one exception).

re: "worst President". You are repeating yourself. Is that what you do? Repeat something until it becomes fact? DO you have some facts to offer, or don't you?

[Redskins Rule]

Parroting the Daley line????? What?????

Bush is still the worst President to have ever set foot in the White House.

[cvillehog]

Countertrey,
Two questions:

What is ABB?

Did you read any of the links I have posted?

Also, Bush may not have "stolen" the election, but he did not have the majority (or even a plurality) of the popular vote. The truth is, most of the people who voted that day wanted Gore, not Bush.

[Countertrey]

ABB... I frequent a number of Military forums. As you might imagine, the population there is fairly consistently to the right of center... anyway, ABB is code for "Anybody but Bush".

I realize that it was Redskins Rule who made the irresponsible and hateful "stole the election" comment, and not you. None the less, I don't think he was talking of the Electoral College, but of the election fiasco in Fla... a fiasco which was of the Democrats own making.

Regarding the Electoral College victory/popular vote loss, all I can say is, that's how the Constitution bounces. It will go the other way, someday. The difference will be, you will see far fewer crocodile tears... conservatives tend to be more supportive of the Constitution as written, and will recognize that what goes around comes around.

I have read your links... don't consider them "agenda free", and don't give them much credibility. Interesting New Republic article, though. Suggests a libel suit... it would be political suicide. You see, it assumes that the vets making the claims are all lying... well, you may guess who my money would say is telling the truth.

You may also wish to know that John O'Neil, who authored the book "Unfit for Command" has been a vocal thorn in Kerry's side since the early 70's. O'Neil is the officer who took over command of Kerry's boat and crew when Kerry left. He is registered as an independent, and says that were Kerry not on the ticket, he would prefer Edwards. Now, of course, one can say anything, but having followed John O'Neil for a number of years, I believe him. I have been a fan of his since the Cabot debate, in which he had to challenge not only Kerry's attrocious post Vietnam behavior, but also had to debate the host.

While I am certainly interested in the current controversy around Kerry's service record, I am far more concerned that Americans might elect a man who stabbed fellow veterans in the back, at a time when some of those veterans were still engaged with the enemy. This is a man with no soul, with no commitment to a value system, with no sense of loyalty to men whom he cynically called his brothers. As is the case with Teddy Kennedy, I have followed his career for over two decades, astonished every time that the people of Massachussetts returned him to Washington.

I could care less about his opposition to the war... I care greatly about how he did it, and remain convinced that his behavior during that time approached criminal. It disgusts me that the Democrats offer him as their candidate, when they actually had a number of willing men who are honorable and capable. It's true, I would not have voted for any of them, as Bush still approaches my own values far more closely, but at least I could have looked at any of them without the taste of Bile rising in my throat.

Finally... Redskins Rule:

Parroting the Daley line????? What?????

If you wish to debate, do your own homework. As if... it's enough that I am out numbered on this thread at the moment... I'm not going to do your research for you. As a bonus, you may even learn something, and stop repeating opinions as fact.

[cvillehog]

Regarding the Electoral College victory/popular vote loss, all I can say is, that's how the Constitution bounces. It will go the other way, someday. The difference will be, you will see far fewer crocodile tears... conservatives tend to be more supportive of the Constitution as written, and will recognize that what goes around comes around.

I agree with your first point here, but I can't agree much to the second point. It is the GOP trying to amend the Constitution to define marriage as it's defined in the Bible. To me, that is basically stomping all over the Constitution. Alas, that is another issue. But I will say that, although the founding fathers were men of faith, they were also men that believe strongly in separation of church and state. I drive past the Jefferson Presidential Library (and Monticello -- Jefferson's home) everyday on the way to and from work, and I'd be glad to personally go research the founding father's religious intentions if someone wanted to call them into question.

I have read your links... don't consider them "agenda free", and don't give them much credibility. Interesting New Republic article, though. Suggests a libel suit... it would be political suicide. You see, it assumes that the vets making the claims are all lying... well, you may guess who my money would say is telling the truth.

I too take all those links with a grain of salt. They are definitely not "agenda free", but provide interesting reading when viewed for what they are. Obviously some are more credible than others.

I recall hearing a quote some time ago which said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if you aren't a Democrat when you are 20, you have no brain, and if you aren't a Rebublican when you are 50, you have no heart. I think that is a valid observation. I view the world through a 26-year-old's eyes. I am generally accepting of the different lifestyles of those around me, and that is my biggest general gripe with conservatives. Social conservatism just does not suit me. I'm all for fiscal conservatism -- small government, lower taxes, all that jazz -- though I am not a fan of supply-side economics based on what I know about how economies work. That said, I am also not a fan of the Bush administration, which I have stated here. I don't like his policies. I don't like his execution of those policies. And I don't think he has MY best interests, or the best interests of my friends and relatives, in mind when he does what he does. I also strongly support our troops, and am proud of the job they do protecting our country at home and abroad. I'm the son of a former Marine (my dad enlisted in 1969, but was never sent to Vietnam), and I grew up in the shaddow of Quantico Marine Corps Base.

I will say one thing to all the "ABB" crowd: If you tink that those contries who oppose the Bush administrations international policy, and specifically the operation in Iraq, are going to reverse position and run to the support of a Kerry-run U.S., you are kidding yourselves. The damage done to America's image (for what that is worth) has already been done, and those bozo's in France and Germany and (now) Spain have to face reelection from their constituents, who do not want to see their troops sent into this percieved quagmire.

-Tony

[Countertrey]

I recall hearing a quote some time ago which said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if you aren't a Democrat when you are 20, you have no brain, and if you aren't a Rebublican when you are 50, you have no heart.

Oh, boy, did that get butchered... I suspect you are referring to a quote from Winston Churchill that actually goes: "If, at 18, you are not Liberal you have no heart. If, at 50, you are not Conservative, you have no brain".

Amendments to the Constitution are not "stomping" on it... after all, the first thing the framers did after writing it was amend it. You may disagree, but the most liberal gay marriage law in the country was never legislated. It was commanded by a judge. Whether you are for gay marriage or opposed, there is a problem with that. The use of constitutional amendments to deal with judges who are legislating from the bench is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.

[joebagadonuts]

legislating from the bench? such as demanding the end to segregation of schools? some may see it as legislating from the bench, while others might interpret it as upholding the constitution. there is no definition in massachusetts law that says that marriage is between a man and a woman. there is, however, verbage that prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, etc. so it would appear to me that the courts simply interpreted the law, and issued a ruling based on the laws currently in existance.

as for john o'neil, didn't he just issue a statement where he said he regrets some of the accusations he made in his book about kerry? and a couple of days ago it was reported that his co-author, jerry corsi, called muslims and catholics pedophiles. nice guy.

i wasn't alive during much of the vietnam war, and i certainly don't remember kerry's protests, though i have seen and read some on the subject. what i cannot get from articles or footage is the feeling of the times, so it's difficult for me to comment. i will say, however, that i would prefer a president who volunteered for vietnam that one who ran away from it. een if kerry did return and protest in perhaps an inappropriate manner (which some could interpret as support for the troops rather than disdain).

[Redskins Rule]

i will say, however, that i would prefer a president who volunteered for vietnam that one who ran away from it.

Speaking of Vietnam....When of one Kerry's people was in a fight for his life. Kerry ran over to him and pulled him from the river. Kerry saved his life doing that.

On the flip side of the coin......Bush gets out of serving in Vietnam. Later on he gets elected President. Then comes that horrible day of 9/11 his people are in a fight for their lives. What does Bush do to help?

He reads a book with kids. That is just freakin horrible!!!!

President Bush is the worst President this country has ever had.

[Countertrey]

kerry did return and protest in perhaps an inappropriate manner (which some could interpret as support for the troops rather than disdain).

Now, THAT is an interesting spin...

Funny, most of the "troops" don't make that interpretation. But, what do we know? We're just a bunch of baby killing war criminals. I'm sorry... I just don't believe that you "support" troops by stabbing them in the back. A civilian with no military experience might be granted the benefit of the doubt. Kerry knew exactly what he was doing... and that makes it something despicable.

re:legislating from the bench... there are some things that a court MUST leave to the legislature. Among those would be modifications to understood cultural tenets which have existed since the beginning of civilization. The Massachussetts Legislature was wrestling with this very issue, but was undercut by the Mass. Supreme Court, in effect, removing the process from the realm of democratic practice. That, my friend, is tyranny, and undermines the foundation of the republic.

You are arguing this from the perspective of your agenda. Believe it or not, I have no dog in this fight, and could care less whether homosexuals have the right to marry or not. My concern is over the process, the practice of non-elected officials dictating and converting their agenda, their morality, into law.

[cvillehog]

I recall hearing a quote some time ago which said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that if you aren't a Democrat when you are 20, you have no brain, and if you aren't a Rebublican when you are 50, you have no heart.

Oh, boy, did that get butchered... I suspect you are referring to a quote from Winston Churchill that actually goes: "If, at 18, you are not Liberal you have no heart. If, at 50, you are not Conservative, you have no brain".

Yeah, sorry, I got it backwards. I told you I was paraphrasing. The point is the same.

Amendments to the Constitution are not "stomping" on it... after all, the first thing the framers did after writing it was amend it. You may disagree, but the most liberal gay marriage law in the country was never legislated. It was commanded by a judge. Whether you are for gay marriage or opposed, there is a problem with that. The use of constitutional amendments to deal with judges who are legislating from the bench is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary.

I believe you are wrong on this point. Amendments to the Constitution that both trump state's rights and take restrict the rights of citizens ARE stomping on the constitution. I don't exactly buy into the analogy being drawn between the gay marriage movement and the civil rights movement, but I will say this: the arguments that right-wingers use against gay marriage sound amazingly similar to those used to propetuate a racist and segregated society 50 years ago, when people were saying things about the cultural tradition of segregation.

-Tony

[joebagadonuts]

well, i did admit that given my age, i'm less informed on kerry's vietnam actions than i should be, and i will correct that. i can certainly understand how current and former military personnel would see kerry's actions as 'despicable' and traitorous.

as for the marriage issue, i thought i was arguing from the point of view of a person with an open mind and who enjoys seeing the logic in things, i.e. what the laws say is permissible and not permissible. of course, it's very difficult (if not impossible) for anyone to argue from a completely objective point of view, so you could be right.

[Countertrey]

Redskins Rule... OK, you've said it 4 times now... is this the Wizard of Oz technique? You know "There's no place like home... there's no place like home... there's no place like home... POOF! You turn into a frog (or something like that)