No more so than out good friend and ally Saudi Arabia.Originally posted by: ciba
I'm serious.
The war on terror. We keep hearing how poorly it's going, and at the same time they fight against it (we should never be in Iraq, yet Saddam funds terrorists).
Originally posted by: ciba
Moreso than ever, this upcoming election seems to put all their proverbial eggs in the same basket.
Democrats seem to be dependent on americans "losing" to win this election.
Does anyone else get the nasty feeling with them basing their campaigns on this?
Originally posted by: ciba
I guess you might be right. It is more of a referendum on Bush than about Kerry's nonexistent leadership qualities.
Personally, I can't stand either.
What are the issues that you have with Kerry?[/quote]Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Theresa Heinz has nothing to do with the Heinz company.Originally posted by: ciba
1) He opposes outsourcing, but his sugar momma pays his bills thanks to Heinz.
Many people were misled and supported the war based on what the white house and DOD said. No one expected them to be as incompetent as they were in planning. Maybe next time they'll actually listed to the Military people.2) He doesn't take responsibility for his voting record. Yes, he voted for the war, but he didn't really vote for the war. My expectation of Congress is that they exercise some level of due diligence. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.
Bush doesn't have a war record he has what looks to be a questionable service record.3) Kerry's supporters (I believe he intentionally distances himself from this) hammer Bush's war record.
He can still throw away medal and be a war-hero, the two aren't mutually exclusive.Kerry goes from throwing his medals (but they weren't really his) on the white house lawn to trying to be the war-hero candidate.
Maybe some of the veterans here can correct me, but the purple heart is given out to any member of the armed forces who was wounded by the enemy. There is no level of severity that I know of.The war-hero president which got a purple heart for a papercut!
We have to pay for Iraq somehow. When we reach a level where there is a surplus then it's time for across the board tax cuts, until then tough.4) Taxes. The top 5% of wage earners already pay for most of the government, but that isn't enough! Let's try to cut spending instead (which, coincidentally is the single biggest reason I dislike Bush).
Practically every member of congress voted for the Patriot act and hardly any of them read it. It goes to far and parts of it need to be fixed or rolled back. It's called correcting your mistakes.5) He voted for the patriot act. Rallying against it now is simple political convenience.
Crappy underfunded bill. Who know what results would be like if funded properly, but it's highly irresposible to put requirments on people then not give them the neccesary tools to fulfill those requirments.6) NCLB - He bashes on this education bill, but guess what? Yup, he voted for it.
This applies to every politician, look at Bush and all the things he's supported then came out against or vice versa.Sure, some flip-flop is expected. People change their minds and that's acceptable. That is why I didn't include his views on NAFTA, among other bills he voted for, but opposes now. These are simply a handful that he voted for, but won't take responsibility for now.
He was joking, I can't believe people took that seriously.To top it off, when Kerry does something as simple as fall skiing, he blames it on someone willing to take a bullet for him. I didn't see Bush blaming any secret service agents when he ate it off his mountain bike.
You really don't understand global economics, do you?Originally posted by: ciba
I'm serious.
1) Kerry hammers on outsourcing and its impact on the economy, but he profits from a company (Heinz), half of whose factories are overseas. (Yes, it is his wife who owns the stock, but if he can't get his family to avoid investment in outsourced companies, how can he possibly expect us to believe he can impact the business world?)
Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.2) The war on terror. We keep hearing how poorly it's going, and at the same time they fight against it (we should never be in Iraq, yet Saddam funds terrorists).
The Democratic party will actually bring back some openness and honesty to the White House and the Cabinet.While I can't stand Kerry, I'm concerned that if the the economy improves, we find OBL and put together a viable exit strategy for Iraq, the dems will be significantly damaged in the election because they don't have anything else of substance.
Can you expand on this? Are you talking about the war?Democrats seem to be dependent on americans "losing" to win this election.
And vice-versa. We're in a two-party system so each side is only measurable against the other party. Also, it's just the nature of the incumbancy process. If you are the incumbant, whether or not you are Democrat or Republican, you're going to applaud your achievements and the other guy is going to downplay them.Originally posted by: ciba
Infohawk, every significant issue in this election is something the democrats claim the repubs do poorly.
They'll still have the environment, health care, economic justice, education, etc to talk about. Even if the economy and war situations improve, I doubt it will get to the point where people will agree on it or think GWB is doing a perfect job at it.If the economy and war situations improve, the democrats don't have much to campaign on.
I'm not sure what you mean. In any case, I think the two guys have differences in ideas.In the past, there's been at least one issue where canditates have different ideas on something, but aren't relying on the other candidate's failure for their electability.
Who says Heinz has no dedication to America?Originally posted by: ciba
"You really don't understand global economics, do you?"
I'm not referring to global economics. I'm referring to his talking about business leaders with no dedication to america, when he benefits from a company with significant overseas investments. I understand hypocrisy just fine! 🙂
The Democrats have much to campaign on.Infohawk, every significant issue in this election is something the democrats claim the repubs do poorly. If the economy and war situations improve, the democrats don't have much to campaign on. In the past, there's been at least one issue where canditates have different ideas on something, but aren't relying on the other candidate's failure for their electability.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I think this has more to do with how people perceive things.
I, personally, strive to look things in an upbeat and positive fashion - you know... the glass half full analogy. I started this back in my youth after seeing how successful(defined by their own goals and aspirations) people's attitudes were positioned.
I think alot of people have the glass half-empty mentality and dwell on the negative. I've seen it here, I've seen it at work, I've seen it almost everywhere so why shouldn't this whole "attitude" thing spill over into politics?
I don't think it's so much that they WANT the US to fail - it's just that they take positions that they would benefit from the "bad". No, not a conscience choice, and definitely not a situation where they want or hope for failure - it just happens to be how things sit.
CkG
Moreso than ever, this upcoming election seems to put all their proverbial eggs in the same basket.
Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.
Originally posted by: Genesys
Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.
would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genesys
Links between Iraq and terrorism are tenuous, at best. And, those frail links were NEVER a threat to the United States.
would you rather wait untill it were a threat, or nip the rose at the bud, so to speak.
Saddam was never going to be a threat to us.
1) He was contained
2) His WMD programs had been dismantled
3) His armed forces lacked training, working equipment, etc.