 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"There are polls out now that have Kerry ahead."
Yes, and polls at this time in Clinton and Reagan's first term that showed them fare behind and with far less in the way of approval ratings.
Kerry has his own weaknesses. He has an extremely liberal voting record, even on security issues, and he has taken a number of unpopular positions that won't be popular in the general election.
But more importantly, voters are prospective moreso then retrospective. Voters aren't go to base their selection on what the candidates were doing 30 years ago.
Remember, Bush defeated McCain, a Vietnam POW, even though at one time he was far behind him in the polls. And that was among the strongly pro-defense Republican primary electorate. |
Bush patort act doesnot improve america security at all it just tick off alot of people who want to be free to say what they want and do what they want. The Department of Home Land Security is than joke. The coast guard doesnot have than enought partol ships to all it is ask to do. First the Department of Homeland Security need more money to pay their increase staff they will needed and to buy the necessary everyday equipment they will need.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
First to many american Bush commitee perjury with then about the WMD in Iraq. |
While I hope you are right, ironically I suspect that he will get a pass on this one for the same reason Reagan did with Iran-Contra: neither of them are the brightest bulbs in chandalier and as such, they depended heavily on advisors. All Bush needs to do is to finger an Oliver North and he'll probably skate free.
That being said, the war in Iraq is much worse than Iran-Contra. Going to war should always always always be a last resort for any nation. It was simply poor judgement on his part to invade with such shaky "evidence". You told us to trust you, George. We did. You let us down. Now you must pay the price.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The number of people who think Bush should be re-elected are lower than the number of people who think he should not be re-elected.
There are polls out now that have Kerry ahead.
While a poll at this point is poor evidence at best, it is still some evidence that Bush is not particualrly popualr with anyhone outside his given base (where he is widely popular)
So the one not showing anything is you. |
Two week ago some poller call me up and ask me about the president race and who I would vote for they didnot like the fact that I wouldnot vote for Bush that they hung up on me. Which show me that two week ago the Poller where trying to make the poll come out showing that Bush will win they where afaid of telling him that he might lose. Plus the only ask between 1000 and 2000 people nationwide too few to give than accurate reading, if they ask 23,000,000 people then if might have some meaning.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Plus the only ask between 1000 and 2000 people nationwide too few to give than accurate reading, if they ask 23,000,000 people then if might have some meaning. |
take a stats course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
This is a good place to thread jack. I have a question. It was widely reported as fact that Hussein openly supported Palestinian terror by paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers.
This alone, insofar I am a concerned, is more than sufficient reason for the regime change. I never got the issue of WMD. Heck, in his speach after 9/11 made it clear that any nation supporting terror would be a target and I think it a perfectly logical, almost essential policy.
Is there a hole in my thinking?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Regarding the importance of a military record:
In the 2000 primaries McCain was 'supposed' to have won, right?
Now I don't know if he exactly had some policy aims that could have turned off any Republican if he or she thought objectively about it. A military man with a strong anti-corruption aganda. (anti-corruption was parhaps his fall?)
Nevertheless my question is this. If Karl Rove had not conducted his push poll campaign were Republicans were asked if they would vote for a man, McCain, who had an 'illegitmate black child', would Bush then have lost?
As it were McCain had actually adopted a child from Bangladesh. So neither black nor illegitimate. As if it would matter.
Naturally the calls made it evident that Republicans would rather not prefer a man who had an 'illegitimate black child', so Bush got the ticket.
Now if Kerry who has a military record, but is apparenty in cahoots with the Chinese (this rabbit was also pulled against Gore, remember - those dirty Chinese!), but he does not have an illegitimate black child, would this mean that Bush is in trouble?
Of course Kerry will now have to 'disprove' that he is not on the Chinese payroll. This will probably be as difficult as Saddam 'disproving' his possesion of non-existent WMDs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
This is a good place to thread jack. I have a question. It was widely reported as fact that Hussein openly supported Palestinian terror by paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers.
|
There is a bit of distortion here. It was 'widely reported' by the....BBC.
However the story was that in the case of a suicide attack, subsequently the Israeli Military would bulldoze the home of the family. Collective punishment.
Then Saddam Hussein (or some underling working in the foreign dept, fourth floor), would send a check to the family sounding 25.000.
These payments were however insignificant compared to the war reparations this selfsame underling had to pay to israeli cinema owners who during the first gulf War had suffered incurable losses due to the Scud Attacks, and the general interest in the war which kept people at home glued to their televison screens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
Ned - quote:
Berz, I don't fully understand your antipathy to Bush. You cite his spending, but because of it you are willing to vote for a party that wants to spend more? |
If it was just between Kerry and Bush, I might vote for Kerry. Hopefully I'll have a libertarian to vote for. But I don't see any proof the Dems could outspend the GOP and Bush. Their spending makes the Clinton years, including when he had a Democrat Congress, look like a time of fiscal sanity.
quote:
Bush is a phenomenon. He is showing the Republican party a new ideology in "compassionate" conservatism. I frankly like it. The social safety net is important. We should expand it and support it to the extent we can afford it. At the same time, we need to be true to our beliefs that competition is necessary to keep quality up and prices low. Thus Republicans will introduce new programs with competition built in. Democrats will not. The difference is important. |
Translation: The GOP strategy is to take away as many key Democrat issues as possible. Result, we get the usual Democrat spending in addition to the usual Republican spending.
Instead of a ~5% increase in government spending we get a ~10% increase. All those years the Repubs were whining about the Dems spending too much was just BS, they were really whining about not having more control over where our money ended up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
There is a bit of distortion here. It was 'widely reported' by the....BBC.
However the story was that in the case of a suicide attack, subsequently the Israeli Military would bulldoze the home of the family. Collective punishment.
Then Saddam Hussein (or some underling working in the foreign dept, fourth floor), would send a check to the family sounding 25.000.
These payments were however insignificant compared to the war reparations this selfsame underling had to pay to israeli cinema owners who during the first gulf War had suffered incurable losses due to the Scud Attacks, and the general interest in the war which kept people at home glued to their televison screens. |
I would say that direct financial support to terrorists is fairly significant. Clear justification for the invasion.
And war reparations. Yeah, those are clearly justified.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-02-2004 00:51
|