Bush or Kerry?

Originally Posted by Ogmios22188

1) It's not necessarily a point that he can't decide what he believes in, rather that he's not afraid to change his mind if he sees fit. Bush, on the other hand, has a one-track mind.

Thats an almost orwellian slant to that. I'd agree with that analysis if he didn't change his mind on so many things, and the list goes on. For the war? Against the war! For the Patriot Act? Against the patriot act! It makes that idea much less plausible.

2) He doesn't make a big deal about being in the Vietnam War, other people do. However, serving in Vietnam as an officer is much more prestigious and honorable than being AWOL from the National Guard like a certain somebody. So what if he got Purple Hearts and not a more prestigious award? You should be ashamed to call him a coward. What have you ever done? If you have done anything more dangerous than serving in a war, I'll let that comment slide. If not, shut the hell up.

No, he does. And anyway, its his campaign, he can direct the emphasis. You can hardly get two minutes without hearing "I'm John Kerry and I served in Viet nam!" What, he served in Viet nam? I never would have guessed! Now, to AWOL charge. It first appeared in the 2000 campaign.

The charges from the 2000 campaign were based mostly on the testimony of Brigadier General William Turinspeed. Turninspeed, however, recanted his statement this year saying that he could not even remember if Bush showed up, because he could not remember if he himself had been there.

When Bush went on that poltical campaign he supposedly did deskwork that was the equivalent of service. Listen, Bush earned the requisite points for the twelve month period ending May 26th, 1973.

"An Air Force "Reserve Personnel Record Card" shows Bush received a total of 9 points for active duty training, 31 points for inactive duty training, and 15 points awarded for his membership in the reserves. The points total 56, exceeding the 50-point requirement for satisfactory service during the period, though barely."

Other documents include one-page Air Force Reserve summaries of points earned in the 12-month period ending in May 1973, and the subsequent period running through Bush's last credited service in July 1973.

Also released were copies of microfilm payroll records summarizing the days for which Bush was paid in 1972 and 1973. Though blurry and hard to read, they reflect payments for 82 days of services in 1972 and 1973.

In the end, most all, but not all discrepancies have been cleared up. Also remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. AWOL is a bunk charge.

Kerry did serve bravely in Vietnam. Although the way he accrued purple hearts has been subject to criticism (for extremely superficial wounds, in one case). What we don't like about Kerry, though, is what he did after the war. In fact, the vast majority of the swift boat veterans that served with Kerry have publicly opposed his run for the presidency. Also, being a fighter pilot in the National Guard isn't exactly the safest occupation. Many fighter pilots died, even in that Texas base, due to machine malfunctions from the fighter jets.

3) Taxes will have to increase for everyone to have Medicare. I have no problem with this. Tax everyone the same percentage of their income and everyone will be all right.

Taxes have this nasty habit of increasing while providing diminishing service. While I think the idea of such things are laudable, they rarely work well. (that being said, what is needed is not to pump money into a system, but to reform it).

5) All of these jobs are minimum-wage and suck.

Do you have any numerical data to support this? Even if the jobs are not as good as the former jobs (which is very debatable), they are still the means for people to improve themselves. Our economy was restructuring itself. People need jobs, from which they generate more experience, and their wages rise. This cannot be a one-step process.

8) Taxes lead to benefits. If you disagree, you're being selfish and greedy. The more taxes there are, depending on what they're for, can improve many things in our society.

Taxes leave little room for improvement. Taxes always effect the economy negatively. As to your aspersions of 'selfish' and 'greedy' I'll leave you to further define those words. Furthermore, government run programs are highly inefficient.

Zelink, no poll is 50% inaccurate. Maybe 5% inaccurate. You're making a huge assumption, and it's quite silly. As for the rest of what you said, just read my post. You sound like every other ignorant Republican I've met, and you would no doubt follow Bush to your doom. That's great for you, but don't think you can expect everyone to do the same. As long as you're content with your blind eyes and deaf ears, and it doesn't affect me.

If the Zelda Univerise poll is the poll in contention, then it is invalid on the basis of being a sample that does that represent the population.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Many fighter pilots died, even in that Texas base, due to machine malfunctions from the fighter jets.

Oh wow, I guess more people lost their lives there then in Nam! We should honor Bush for this! Not!!! He wold'nt even know ho to even FIX a jet, because of his 3rd grader intellengence, which is shown in his stupid phrases.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Do you have any numerical data to support this? Even if the jobs are not as good as the former jobs (which is very debatable), they are still the means for people to improve themselves. Our economy was restructuring itself. People need jobs, from which they generate more experience, and their wages rise. This cannot be a one-step process.

Hmm and I guess the recovery after the depression was as 'good' as this? Plese! The recovery facing Americans after the Depression had more decent jobs and programs. Besides, the majorty of people who lost their jobs had 5 to 6-figure jobs and are now working minimum wage.
Heres some good sites on our so called recovery:
httphttp://buffalo.bizjournals.com/b...9/daily19.html
http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publi...icle_785.shtml
Yes,there a bit old, but they have a good point.I rest my case.

Originally Posted by big_al

Oh wow, I guess more people lost their lives there then in Nam! We should honor Bush for this! Not!!! He wold'nt even know ho to even FIX a jet, because of his 3rd grader intellengence, which is shown in his stupid phrases.

Hmm and I guess the recovery after the depression was as 'good' as this? Plese! The recovery facing Americans after the Depression had more decent jobs and programs. Besides, the majorty of people who lost their jobs had 5 to 6-figure jobs and are now working minimum wage.
Heres some good sites on our so called recovery:
httphttp://buffalo.bizjournals.com/b...9/daily19.html
http://www.srimedia.com/artman/publi...icle_785.shtml
Yes,there a bit old, but they have a good point.I rest my case.

national minimum wage is 5 figure, also, speaking of '3rd grader intellengence,' there is a stark difference between a depression and a recession

Oh wow, I guess more people lost their lives there then in Nam! We should honor Bush for this! Not!!! He wold'nt even know ho to even FIX a jet, because of his 3rd grader intellengence, which is shown in his stupid phrases.

No, Bush wouldn't know how to fix a jet because he is a pilot, not a mechanic. Realize that Bush graduated from yale and from Harvard business school.

Hmm and I guess the recovery after the depression was as 'good' as this? Plese! The recovery facing Americans after the Depression had more decent jobs and programs. Besides, the majorty of people who lost their jobs had 5 to 6-figure jobs and are now working minimum wage.

The Great Depression had unemployment as high as twenty-five percent. You can't compare the two. People were on bread lines. Its just a stupid comparison. (Not to mention that the economy has added over a million jobs since the start of the year).

How is that "speaking of 3rd grader intellegence" at all? And what does this hafta do with anything? >_<

~Mute

I guess Bush really can't tell the difference between both depression and recession can he? Oh and I should say that the people are earning below $50,000 a year. This is no recovery, it is more like a stupid recovery in my eyes. Hardly anbody who lost their jobs are making the $50,000 to above $100,000 a year like they used to.

EDIT: If he's a pilot,why the stupid comment there huh? Yeah, and those million jobs there are consisteed of only jobs that have the $50,000 and below yearly mark on them. Also, many jobs have to be moved overseas greatly affecting the Union. It seems we have people on here who are aginst the Union.

o but those jobs aren't gone, theve been moved over sees to developing countries where development will cost about 1/20 as much. If you notice economic trends(with one like this progressing geometrically) and this trend had actually first became noticable during Clinton's first presidency. so dont start saying facts as signs of recession had been vissible months before bushes presidency. Also the average income in the US has NEVER been above $30,000 so u have no idea what ur talking about.

Did I say U.S avrage? No I said MANY. Pay attention! No, no, it's YOU who don't know what your talking about. Your spelling is sure one thing but thats not the point. The point is that although it's good that we send jobs overseas to developing countries, Clition was mearly getting the econmy recoverd after George H. Bushes failed tax plans.

...

If I see one more ad hominem in this thread, I swear to God I'm going to lock it.

Here's looking at you, al.

Originally Posted by zelink

if any1s taken higher level math like algebra II they'd be able to recognize that that pole has like a 50(exagerated)% margin of error or sumthing like that.

It's around 60%, and it's related to probability and not polls dude.

Most polls have a margain of error about 2-5%, I think.

The "42%" number that has been bandied around is extremely misleading. That calculation includes weekends. Also, it was a working vacation. Bush routinely met with foreign leaders (such as Tony Blair).

More importantly, every president, and indeed, most world leaders are not "in the office" for most of their terms. Presidents have been taking vacations since George Washington, who left Philadelphia for Mount Vernon twice a year for weeks on end during his eight year term. Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to suggest such activity, "to see firsthand how people live. You must ferret the people out of their hovels as I have done, look into their kettles, eat their bread, loll on their beds under the pretense of resting yourself, but in fact to find out if they are soft." In 1791 he took a long vacation through New England. Jefferson wrote of the importance of such trips, in a 1789 letter he wrote: "I know only the Americans of the year 1784. They tell me this is to be much a stranger."

When Teddy Roosevelt was vacationing in Yellowstone, his staff told reporters to stay away. One journalist rode in on a horse with a dog. The reporter was arrested, the horse was seized, and the dog was shot.

Most of the important matters presidents handle end up happening far away from the White House; the Jalta Conference, the Camp David Accords, the SALT treaties, and START were all attended and signed by presidents "away from their office." It's nothing new and nothing particularly suprising.

Sadam was a despot, and I suspect he used the bio-weapon liberally, but the main motivation for going into Iraq was 'Weapons of Mass Distruction' (of which there were none)

This is technically true. We haven't found much in Iraq itself, but I doubt Jewometaal or Iraq can explain this when even the UN is biting them in the ass over it.

As another note: what nation incapable of producing large scale chemical weapons happens to border Iraq?

Does anyone remember the images of the missiles being destroyed in Iraq? i thought it was odd that the one portion Saddam's industry could not produce of it's own was not so curiously absent. And before anyone suggests that "this information is only showing up now!" And cannot be true because intelligence services should have had it before that, it should be noted that when it was originally released it was attacked as not being substantial enough.

Iraq had many violations of UN sanctions, more than just this (as well as trying to purchase things from North Korea, which is disturbing).

More than just trying. It's well-known that the Taepo Dong 2 guidance system (and in the case of the Iranian Shahab-5 the basic design) was being tested in the Iraqi Al-Hussein. Largely this is because they are all loosely based on the same SCUD-B basepoint. it's also interesting to note that although the Iranian and Korean versions have trouble making it to ICBM ranges, Iraq got theirs working - though at not nearly the range - and within range of their primary target. A major point is that all the missiles Iraq stated it had stockpiles of exceeded the maximum range set by the UN.

Saddam did not have any ties with al-Quedia. Do I have to say it agian?

Please do. You might also want to tell the 9/11 Commission that because they disagree that there were no ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. They only state - as the administration has repeatedly stated - that there were not ties in a single case: The September 11 attacks.

(As a side note, the fact that adult stem cells have been far more successful than embryonic stem cells demolishes part of the argument for funding them.)

where did you get this idea? embryonic stem cells are way more adaptable than adult stem cells.

You both might be right. Embryonic stem cells are more effective theoretically than adult stem cells; however, only adult stem cells have received a serious shake and are thus more practically effective. Whether one is better than the other in applicable uses is yet to be determined. (Or maybe Bobslob is an evil rightwinger who hates old people and Christopher Reeves and Mad Hatter wants to find out which stem cells to remove to produce his own Eraserhead baby)

And for a fact, Bush is making some unconstitutional decisions such as the ban on gay marrage.This violates Admendment 14. Heres the admendment if you disagree with me:

I disagree. It neither states that my tax dollars should support any form of marriage, nor does it deny the governments right to prevent or allow or even force marriage on a party once it becomes an issue of tax dollars.

Again, American intelligence sources decided that Iraq was no threat to the American people when Bush took office

Actually, Nancy Pelosi, George Tenet (a Clinton appointee by the way), Bill Clinton himself, the British, French, German, Israeli, Russian, Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Turkish intelligence services were convinced he had the weapons - and if the pile of things that were on the list in 2002 and for which there are pictures being carted around were a hallucination 6 billion strong, it would appear he did.

'Fight Terrorism' (which Iraq and Sadam had nothing to do with, at least on American soil).

Embassies in Africa: 2. American soil.
Marine base in Lebanon: 1. American personnel.
WTC bombing '93: 1. Nerve gas involved? Yep. Iraqi agent involved? Yep. Too bad New York is just a belligerent colony and not part of any country.

Personally, I'd just as soon tell the whole Middle East to go **** itself. I really dont care. But, I do support the actions in Iraq and would support it in any of the countries in the region actively promoting the development of nuclear weapons. Why? I have neither the inclination nor the time to begin swapping destroyed cities with people who have yet to do what we did in the 11th century - removing the authority of a religious leader to demand a war and having whole countries or peoples take up arms. Nor do I think we would allow that. If they only used one we might be able to bank on them not having a second and things may cool down, but if they were to get and use a second one it would be necessary for a massive response. I mean writing a 1x10 to the 10th power in the "enemy losses" column. And I sure as hell do not want to have that **** hanging over my head. If they had the ability and thought it would keep them in power, I have no doubt that like Imperial Japan's high command before them the religious leaders there would attempt it as a lastditch effort. The quickest way I see to avoid that is to restructure the entire region on our dime and our lives if no one else is willing to fight until that that hopefully non-existent day.

I don't hate Bush for getting involved in a war no one really wanted, I hate those mad fanatics for forcing us to go there and drag them kicking screaming out of the 11th century before a whole lot more Westerners die. I hate them for forcing the the decision of the existence of nearly a billion of my fellow human beings (not to be confused with the likes of cattle) on my head.

As for politics, I think both of them are both statist ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s as well as moralizing asshats. What am I going to be registered as? Libertarian Party in all likelihood. But I don't even agree with that platform in at least half the issues and I have serious doubts any party would ever accept my platform - it's far too much of a push toward Classical Liberalism. I wouldn't mind explaining my domestic platform and why I think Bush - although I disagree in many respects - remains better than Kerry even there, I will if someone asks.

And I promise it will be a bullet-pointed list and not nearly so hideously long as this madness.

The Empire edited the following not:

If I see one more ad hominem in this thread, I swear to God I'm going to lock it.

Everyone but the myself, the Emperor, is too much of a smelly former plains ape to be anything but wrong. Now go pick lice of each other's backs, peasants.

Originally Posted by zelink

o but those jobs aren't gone, theve been moved over sees to developing countries where development will cost about 1/20 as much. If you notice economic trends(with one like this progressing geometrically) and this trend had actually first became noticable during Clinton's first presidency. so dont start saying facts as signs of recession had been vissible months before bushes presidency. Also the average income in the US has NEVER been above $30,000 so u have no idea what ur talking about.

while outsourcing helps the corporations, it doesn't do much good for employees and governments. the whole concept behind a good economy is to make the amount of money entering the nation greater than the amount leaving it. outsourcing requires great sums of money to leave the US, which, due to what I just said, is detrimental to our economy. what also hurts our economy its removal of jobs from our nation. it lowers the employment rate of our country, even if the jobs are just moved.

so this may seem all good and everything to employ the poor people of another country, but the looser employment laws in those countries often make it pretty unfair. just look at what nike did with the whole child labour thing (even though it was illegal, it still demonstrates what outsourcing aims for). since there aren't proper restrictions, this can easily turn into a system like we had in the gilded age.

Embryonic stem cells are more effective theoretically than adult stem cells; however, only adult stem cells have received a serious shake and are thus more practically effective.

heh...the adult stem cells have received a serious shake because without government funding, embryonic stem cell research isn't easy. the government doesn't want advancements to be made with embryonic stem cells, since they believe it to be unethical.

Originally Posted by Mad Hatter

heh...the adult stem cells have received a serious shake because without government funding, embryonic stem cell research isn't easy. the government doesn't want advancements to be made with embryonic stem cells, since they believe it to be unethical.

I know. What do you think I meant by "Embryonic stem cells are more effective theoretically than adult stem cells; however, only adult stem cells have received a serious shake?" Of course adult stem cells have received more testing for exactly that reason about government. No one really knows which will prove more practically effective because they have been unequal advanced. Until then both sides can shut up about the merits (or lack thereof) of each method. Do I believe there should be more testing of embryonic stem cells? Yes. Do I believe they will certainly prove more effective (it's already known they are less effeciently produced as you stated above) and moreso enough to outweigh the benefits? I don't know, neither does anyone who says they will, and neither does anyone who says they won't be! That was the point of my comment.

outsourcing requires great sums of money to leave the US, which, due to what I just said, is detrimental to our economy.

Actually, it has to do with basic market function irregardless of what unenforceable wisdom you impart on the matter.

/Imperial Announcement End

I am just going to say I am for Bush. I don't have time to write a long explaination as I usually do. Quick reasons.

Kerry has turned his back on his (and my) religion
While I may be from Edward's Homestate, I despise him imensly

I like Bush too.

^ I take it the abortion thing big bro? Yeah, that's why my mom's a bit uneasy on voting for him, even if she's not too fond of Bush. I'm not exactly big on Kerry anyways, but that hurts it a bit more. But I mean, even if he was anti-abortion, the way I see it, it's never gonna be gone. Too many people like it and find it okay, and to get rid of it would be a huge job, and if it was abolished people *especially women* will go mad, or at least a good deal of the country.

But yeah, for him to be like that even whilst being Christian ain't exactly great. Wait...I didn't even know he was Christian, or am I just missing the entire point?

I know. What do you think I meant by "Embryonic stem cells are more effective theoretically than adult stem cells; however, only adult stem cells have received a serious shake?" Of course adult stem cells have received more testing for exactly that reason about government. No one really knows which will prove more practically effective because they have been unequal advanced. Until then both sides can shut up about the merits (or lack thereof) of each method. Do I believe there should be more testing of embryonic stem cells? Yes. Do I believe they will certainly prove more effective (it's already known they are less effeciently produced as you stated above) and moreso enough to outweigh the benefits? I don't know, neither does anyone who says they will, and neither does anyone who says they won't be! That was the point of my comment.

I know...I was agreeing with you...

But yeah, for him to be like that even whilst being Christian ain't exactly great. Wait...I didn't even know he was Christian, or am I just missing the entire point?

there is such thing as a liberal christian. being christian doesn't automatically make you a pro-lifer; pro-lifers believe that even the earliest fetus is a human being. I don't, and kerry probably doesn't either. there's no bible passage that says anything like "though shalt not abort." it's all in the way we interpret things.

personally, I think it's more important to vote based on who would do a better job in office instead of a view on one specific policy. just think about it..."yeah, abortion's illegal, but we've all lost our jobs...damnit"

Originally Posted by IrishSamurai

I am just going to say I am for Bush. I don't have time to write a long explaination as I usually do. Quick reasons.

Kerry has turned his back on his (and my) religion
While I may be from Edward's Homestate, I despise him imensly

I like Bush too.

Yes, as was said before, there's such a thing as a Liberal Christian. I think Kerry's views on abortion are similar to Bush's, in that it should only be used when necessary, and not as a form of birth control. And besides, you shouldn't allow religion to be a key factor in who you vote for. I'm assuming you're Roman Catholic. If a Roman Catholic was running against a Reform Jew, would you automatically vote for the Roman Catholic? If so, that's wrong. As a voter, you have a responsibility to vote for the nominee who you believe will do the best job as President. Now, Bush has already had his shot at the Presidency, and wouldn't you say that he's done a pretty bad job? And wouldn't you say that Kerry will most likely do much better? If so, do you mean to tell me that you support Bush because Kerry doesn't share your religious views? Give me a break.

Originally posted by mad hatter
there is such thing as a liberal christian. being christian doesn't automatically make you a pro-lifer; pro-lifers believe that even the earliest fetus is a human being. I don't, and kerry probably doesn't either. there's no bible passage that says anything like "though shalt not abort." it's all in the way we interpret things.

personally, I think it's more important to vote based on who would do a better job in office instead of a view on one specific policy. just think about it..."yeah, abortion's illegal, but we've all lost our jobs...damnit"

I will pm you about the religious part of our beliefs on abortion, but I won't post it here.

And on your second paragraph, that's why I mentioned that it won't matter. Abortion is never going to be abolished, so it's really kinda a non-factor anymore. While I don't like that he's pro-abortion, I can't say I wouldn't want him to be president just for that, as it doesn't matter if he tries to get rid of it or not. It's here, and it will probably always be here.

Originally posted by Omigos22188
Yes, as was said before, there's such a thing as a Liberal Christian. I think Kerry's views on abortion are similar to Bush's, in that it should only be used when necessary, and not as a form of birth control. And besides, you shouldn't allow religion to be a key factor in who you vote for. I'm assuming you're Roman Catholic. If a Roman Catholic was running against a Reform Jew, would you automatically vote for the Roman Catholic? If so, that's wrong. As a voter, you have a responsibility to vote for the nominee who you believe will do the best job as President. Now, Bush has already had his shot at the Presidency, and wouldn't you say that he's done a pretty bad job? And wouldn't you say that Kerry will most likely do much better? If so, do you mean to tell me that you support Bush because Kerry doesn't share your religious views? Give me a break.

Yes but he also may see Bush as a good president though. It may seem farfetched, but there's actually a lot of people in the country who do think Bush is a good president, plus we really don't know how well Kerry might do. He might do great, but he might be worse than Bush.

And on the voting with our beliefs. It's not like we'd vote for people who are just in our religion, if we felt they were would be bad presidents, we wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for them. But if they shared our beliefs and were slightly good, we might vote for them. Some people see Bush as a good president, so if they agree with his religious beliefs then surely they'll vote for him. I see Bush as okay, and I'm glad I can't vote, because I would never be able to decide for this. Bush is okay, Kerry seems okay, Kerry believes in something against my religion, Bush hasn't done well for jobs. I can't decifer who'd be better.

I again will jump in very late and simply say:

I'll be voting for Bush in November.

That's all I'll add to this thread. A long time ago I figuired out there are 3 topis that are off limits in conversation:

- Politics
- Abortion
- Religion

The reason being, the beliefs on these 3 issues are so far embedded in peoples morals, that 90% of the time, it's impossible to have conversation about them. It'll usually turn into a fight.

Bush hasn't done well for jobs.

Myth. According to the Department of Labor we had 135,836,000 jobs in December of 2000, and 139,031,000 jobs in June of 2004. According to my uberleet 3rd grader math skills that's a gain of some 3,195,000 jobs, right?

Not that it matters. In a free-market system the government cannot directly produce or lose jobs. It can only make it easier or more difficult for businesses to thrive and thus indirectly affect the company survival rate and hiring practices. For the most part this is done by manipulation of minimum wage, tariffs, or industrial subsidies. Of course, on a global scale our unemployment rates are far from terrible by any standards but our own.

In fact, the way this kind of a myth continues long after the event spawning it becomes false can be transferred to the economy at large. Most effect on the economy early (say day one to a year and a half) in a presidency is almost entrely the effect of the last administrations indirect policies.

Now, Bush has already had his shot at the Presidency, and wouldn't you say that he's done a pretty bad job? And wouldn't you say that Kerry will most likely do much better? If so, do you mean to tell me that you support Bush because Kerry doesn't share your religious views?

No. Why would I trust a self-confessed war criminal? No. - I think that answers all of your questions. Now, would someone mind making me a nice list of things Bush has done that are "bad" and nothing idiotic like, "he can't be doin teh speech no good!" Alright?