Why BUSH will WIN BIG!

[Noam]

"The trend,is your friend.

If he reached his nadir in 2003 and starts 2004 on the way up--- AMERICA LOVES A WINNER.

Look at what is going on in the world:

Kadaffi makes about face;
Assad makes about face;
Syria and Turkey are friends;
Egypt and Iran renew 25 of break up;
India and Pakistan are talking;
NK is a pu$sy cat...
Sheikh Yassin is even conceiding (trifle)

You think all this JUST HAPPENED??? Out of thin air? by HAPPENSTANCE?? (read some Krouthammer!)

IT IS ALL THE RESULT OF AMERICAN RESOLVE IN IRAQ!!!

Liberals bemoan the American casualties--THE WORLD SEES THEM AS AN ACT OF BRAVERY AND RESOLVE (YES--R E S O L V E!!) TO NOT COWER TO TERROISM AND DEFEAT FANATIC ISLAM, Their SUICIDE BOMBERS AND THEIR DESPOT RULLERS.

ALL THE HATEFUL AND BLIND AMERICANS are gnats. THANK G-D they are THE MINORITY!

London is betting now 73% on Bush.

[varian]

Although I have few complaints about "W's" war on terror, or payback, check out the following by an American conservative.

http://www.joelskousen.com/ hotissues.htm

You'll see that politically there may not be that much difference between invertebrate Republicans and pond scum Democrats. The main difference at present is that the Dems seem to be slightly ahead in the "self-hating American" category. Yes, the US has an abundance of "self-haters" too.

[haganah]

It's funny when I'm in the US (where I live) I tend to vote democrat seeing as I am in the lower middle class and my mom has been unemployed for 2.5 years thanks to GW Bush...

But on the otherhand when I'm in Israel I tend to be right-wing... and I know that Bush is good for Israel... but reform needs to come at home as well.

My predicition: Bush

[I am David]

DONT GIVE IN TO STUPIDITY!

Vote not Bush!

[RichardP]

Originally posted by I am David
DONT GIVE IN TO STUPIDITY!

Vote not Bush!

I am not an American but in all honesty, I fear what will be, if the Democrats win the Whitehouse. Thankfully, Kerry is the front runner, and Dean has hit the slippery slope. That said, however, I feel, everyone, in particular Israel, will not benefit from a Democrat presidency.

[Noam]

"I fear what will be, if the Democrats win the Whitehouse. "

It is not THAT BAD
All you will have to AVOID for the next 4 years is:


Tall Buildings
Metros
Buses
Restaurants
Shopping malls
Resort areas
and
crowded places

and you are fine

Of course, if you have Agoraphobia-- you up sheets creek.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Noam
"I fear what will be, if the Democrats win the Whitehouse. "

It is not THAT BAD
All you will have to AVOID for the next 4 years is:


Tall Buildings
Metros
Buses
Restaurants
Shopping malls
Resort areas
and
crowded places

and you are fine

Of course, if you have Agoraphobia-- you up sheets creek.

Isn't that the truth, Noam! LoL! :p

[Roland]

Originally posted by RichardP
Isn't that the truth, Noam! LoL! :p

LOL, too :D
Add airlines around the world, all tourist spots and namely the USA.
Reminds me of trying to search for "weapons of mass destruction" again with the "i'm feeling lucky" option at google.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Roland
LOL, too :D
Add airlines around the world, all tourist spots and namely the USA.
Reminds me of trying to search for "weapons of mass destruction" again with the "i'm feeling lucky" option at google.

Very good, Roland, I needed a chuckle or three! :D

[I am David]

Originally posted by Noam
"I fear what will be, if the Democrats win the Whitehouse. "

It is not THAT BAD
All you will have to AVOID for the next 4 years is:


Tall Buildings
Metros
Buses
Restaurants
Shopping malls
Resort areas
and
crowded places

and you are fine

Of course, if you have Agoraphobia-- you up sheets creek.

Oh please, thats such a stereotypical generalization about the democrats. One of John Kerry's strongest points IS defense and security. He regularly critisizes Bush for messing up Afganistan by not giving the proper resources to catch bin laden and pressure the Pakistani government for military entry. Just because Bush invaded a country based on evidence which is was/is questionable does not mean he is the end all and be all of security. Nor does it mean the democrats, and specifically, kerry, are just horrid on security. That is just an image hard core american conservatives would like you to believe. The truth is, there is nothing inherintly wrong with the democrats security positions.

[Kev]

I'm not commenting on this article yet, but as we are on the subject of Kerry, this site has popped up today that may or may not be of some interest?


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/)

and this one:

AS CAMPAIGN HEATS UP, VETERANS TAKING SIDES (http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/bglobe_ker_02_04.htm)



and, the Biggest rant of all against Kerry:
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php?id=P2587


The truth is, there is nothing inherintly wrong with the democrats security positions.

At the very least I do feel Clinton should have done a better job than he did though.

[Kev]

I held my nose and supported Bush verbally ( am not american) as much as the next person, but I cant help but feel for the first time, that he may yet be the one term president so many have said he would be.

I doubted their opinions but unless something does happen to change this around between now and then, I am not feeling confident about the upcoming election.

Between Kellys admission, despite that medias obsession with leaving out key parts of his speech, people remember what they hear and it isnt looking so good for him right now, alongside the very high spending that other Republicans themselves are up in arms about.

Granted, if I were American, I would most likely hold my nose and vote for him again but I am not so confident that most others will feel the same as I do.
I saw this post elsewhere:

Wonder what some of you think of it?


WHEN BUSH LOSES IN NOVEMBERHE WILL HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT HIMSELF
" (http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin159.htm)


By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

January 23, 2004

NewsWithViews.com

Let me be the first one to say it: President Bush is on track to lose in November, and it won't matter who his Democratic opponent is. His fabrications, deceptions, and prevarications are just too much to stomach. His duplicity rivals anything in the previous administration, a Republican name plate notwithstanding.

It's hard to think of anything this president has done right. His policies are every bit as socialist (or fascist) as the most liberal Democrat. We have lost more freedoms during the last three years than we had lost during the previous thirty! Even though Bush has enjoyed Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, neither conservatives nor constitutionalists can point to a single victory Bush has given them. Not one!

Babies are still being aborted at an escalating rate. The Bush administration has done as much (or more) to promote the homosexual agenda as any Democrat. Bush has proliferated the growth of federal spending and corresponding federal deficits to levels not seen in decades. Furthermore, he has created the embryo of a giant Orwellian police state while at the same time offering amnesty and legitimacy to foreign criminals who have invaded our country. If all of that isn't bad enough, Bush even threw his support behind the Clinton gun ban!

Due to Bush's dismal record, the Democratic nominee (whoever he is) will have to work at losing this election. The facade of a "wartime" president is wearing thin. Moreover, gas and oil prices have skyrocketed since oilmen Bush and Cheney rode into Washington, D.C. In addition, without a willingness to cut spending, Bush's tax cuts are a fraud! And now Bush wants to spend an additional billion dollars annually (where this money is coming from nobody knows) to send men to Mars. Get real!

Beyond that, Bush has repeatedly stated that his war against Iraq was fought for the purpose of "enforcing the demands of the United Nations." Now, isn't that lovely? Does he really expect us to re-elect him President of these United States after hearing that he ordered more than 500 brave, patriotic Americans to die in Iraq on behalf of the UN? Does he think we are a bunch of morons? He must.

G.W. Bush deserves to be a one-term president. And the truth is, the nation won't be worse off with a Democratic replacement. At least with a Democrat in the White House, Republicans in Congress might decide to actually oppose liberal policies.

With a liberal Democrat in the White House, a president might get 40% of his agenda through Congress. Bush, on the other hand, will get 80% of his policies through Congress, and Bush's policies are every bit as bad as any liberal Democrat's. So, you tell me who is actually "the lesser of two evils."

(If you would like to track the ongoing Bush record, go to (www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html.)

Therefore, when Bush loses in November, he will have no one to blame but himself.

[Kev]

Quoting another Post I saw elsewhere, or part of another article, I am not sure.......





A few of the Bush highlights:

1. 4,000,000 American children have been murdered in the Abortion holocaust since the Bush inauguration. Aside from signing a meaningless abortion ban, he has not lifted a finger to stop a single one of them. He has even refused to direct his own employees in the FDA to ban the chemical weapon called RU-486.

2. His "intelligence" minions brought 75 US Senators together just before the infamous October 2002 "war vote," and (according to Florida Sen. Bill Nelson) told them a traitorous lie - that Iraq had a fleet of boats ready to launch WMD spraying drones against our East Coast.

3. In early 2003 our president told us we were in danger of a sudden, imminent attack by Iraq, which justified a pre-emptive invasion. It turns out he planned the whole "war" within days of getting sworn into office.

4. Bush pushed through the freedom killing "Patriot" Act and the Homeland "Security" Act. There was enough poison slipped into these acts such that any one of us can be accused of breaking the law without ever knowing what we did wrong. (That may be just the point!)

5. Bush (with a little help from the "conservative" Republicans) cranked through double digit spending increases, $500 billion deficits, and signed every unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) piece of legislation that came across his desk.

6. Led us down the path to socialized medicine with hundreds of billions committed to "free" prescription drugs.

7. He borrowed money from our grandkids to pay for a phony tax cut.

8. Sat by and did nothing while the federal courts launched a full-frontal assault against the Constitution.

9. Has taken the prestige of the U.S. and tossed it away by turning our military into his personal empire building force.

10. In an attempt to buy the Hispanic vote, he would willingly destroy what is left of our borders.

It seems the enemy has sneaked into our camp and is tearing up the place! The key question at this point is whether our Republic can survive another five years of this onslaught.

Elected officials who subvert the Constitution are criminals, plain and simple. They have betrayed their country and it is time to hold them accountable. We need to kick them out of office and send them off to jail.

It probably sounds a little naive to even suggest that we have any recourse against the traitors that have taken over our country. But we do! Sure, the system is rigged. But that does not mean our only choice is between George Bush and whichever delusional imbecile manages to ooze out of the Democratic primary. No one can force us to give them our vote.

Is turning our country around going to be easy? No, not at all. Is it even possible to find enough honest politicians to make a difference? Well, let's just say it does not look good. And even if we find them, we are a long way from getting this straightened out.

But since the failure of voting the "lesser of two evils" is virtually guaranteed, it is time for us to stand up for what is right, regardless of the consequences and …

Just say NO to lawbreaking politicians!

[I am David]

Bush is absolutly the most pathetic president this country has ever had. It's not just what he does, which always seems to be to to the detriment of the country, but its how he plays these word games with the public that makes it seem like his decisions are in fact good. Like his tax cuts, which do nothing but bad for the economy, he apparently has no qualms deceiving the public into thinking it was a good tax cut, like everything else he does. His presidency is for himself, for his buddies, for his crude and selfish ideology, not at all for the country.

That said, the allegations against Kerry are pathetic. So what if he protested against the war? Who the hell really cares if he was with Jane Fonda. I could NOT care less. And if American soldiers were doing bad things in Vietnam, why should he not condemn them for it? Again, the allegations are not based at all on logic, their just little sound bytes, little catch-phrasy type of things that dont making any sense yet sound bad, so people take them on face value. Dont give in to stupidity, think, think hard and long, and get your info from many sources :)

[RichardP]

Originally posted by I am David
Bush is absolutly the most pathetic president this country has ever had. It's not just what he does, which always seems to be to to the detriment of the country, but its how he plays these word games with the public that makes it seem like his decisions are in fact good. Like his tax cuts, which do nothing but bad for the economy, he apparently has no qualms deceiving the public into thinking it was a good tax cut, like everything else he does. His presidency is for himself, for his buddies, for his crude and selfish ideology, not at all for the country.

That said, the allegations against Kerry are pathetic. So what if he protested against the war? Who the hell really cares if he was with Jane Fonda. I could NOT care less. And if American soldiers were doing bad things in Vietnam, why should he not condemn them for it? Again, the allegations are not based at all on logic, their just little sound bytes, little catch-phrasy type of things that dont making any sense yet sound bad, so people take them on face value. Dont give in to stupidity, think, think hard and long, and get your info from many sources :)

Thanks for the advice... perhaps you should take a tad of your own advice... "think, think hard and long, and get your info from many sources." :)

[I am David]

Believe me I have :) I would not give such advice unless I was a champion of its usage myself ;)

[Kev]

I certainly have problems with Bush and don't understand how anyone can back him blindly, and will admit his spending habits, tax cuts, etc make me shake my head a bit for it isn't what I would have expected................but unlike yourself, perhaps I would still hold my nose and vote for him again if I were American.

Regardless of how you see Kerry, I've met many others that despise any and all policies Bush has made rabidly, yet not all were wise and it was apparent to me they weren't able to get past their blind hatred for the man.

I would have to suspect that you are like those I have met as well.


I would be curious to know if you have ever voted republican in at all........?

[I am David]

I understand your sceptisism, I too know and understand of those who simply are blind in their hatred/dislike for Bush simply because its a kind of automatic decision based on their political beliefs. But these are hard lefters, real liberals, and they for the most part, coincidentally have the right idea. But only coincidentally. They don't have the right idea about Bush because they thought through the facts and made logical deductions, but simply by chance their automatic political beliefs happened to be right. This is what happens when you always side with one side or the other, sometimes you are simply right just based on odds ;)

This however, is certainly not me. It is only somewhat recently that I REALLY started to dislike Bush, and get an idea of his impact on the country. I do not consider to have any political affilation, wether left or right, and will side with whatever makes sense.

Just to clear things up, I don't beleive EVERYTHING Bush did is absolutly wrong, but whatever good he did do is insignificant compared to the bad. And as far as voting, I havent had many times to vote really ;)

I'm basically just saying that yes, hardcore liberals/blind leftys do have a similiar view on Bush, but that shouldnt invalidate the well-thought out views of Bush who coincidentally happen to be similar.

[Kev]

Just to clear things up, I don't beleive EVERYTHING Bush did is absolutly wrong, but whatever good he did do is insignificant compared to the bad. And as far as voting, I havent had many times to vote really



Fair enough.
I dont agree with you fully although I will go as far as to say that I believe some very poor planning went into Iraq, or shall I say the lack thereof when speaking of planning, but be that as it may, I still feel for now, whilst this Islamofascism is sweeping the world, I would still vote for him, unless a democrat that truly understood that the world has changed made some sort of impact upon me.

Unfortunately, none have as of yet!


That said?

My only concern at the moment is whether or not Bush will be able to ensure a secular state in Iraq, or whether this will be short lived with the Iman types quiicly taking over and running amok.

I've yet to hear anyone here convince me that this will not happen, or if it does, how the outcome may not be more disastrous for both America and Israel, not too mention the rest of the world.

In saying this, I also recognize that there are those who support Bush blindly and are incapable of truly seeing his faults, just as those on the left are incapable of seeing past their hatred for the man.


I would love to be convinced, by just one person, that a rabidly zealot state will not be the final outcome! :(

I ask someone to convince me otherwise! :)

[merkava4]

Bush has done so much for America it's funny when these Democrats attack him. It's so easy for them to attack him after Iraq and Afghanistan. But Gore would never have had the balls to go into either country. Maybe Gore would send a couple cruise missiles and shuffle some CIA. Bush took over the US economy when it was starting to go downhill. The Internet is the ONLY reason it went up during CLinton's reign. Clinton had nothing to do with the economy, how would tax increases help?! Bush's healthcare plan is a compromise between republicans and democrats and is cheaper than the democrats version and now the democrats are complaining! The economy is picking up some steam, 112,000 jobs created. I predict Kerry is at his high point in public opinion. And once Bush's safe of $200 mill is used for the campaign, things will change. By the way, Kerry admitted to comitting massacres in Vietnam, that will play over well! I'm sure the Liberals will turn a deaf ear to that one while still calling Bush a "war criminal"
Go Bush 2004!

[I am David]

Kev, I know its easy to think that Bush == great on security + tough on terror, but its not the truth. This is the message that Bush has been trying to send out, IE "I am your man for security and security is of the utmost importance therefore I am the best president because I will keep you safe, alive, reguardless if the economy is doing good or not". Thats what he wants people to believe, heck he may even believe it, but its not the truth. The truth is Bush simply doesnt know how to fight the global war on terror, and if attacking Iraq is his idea of it then he knows less than I thought. So far, Bush has only RESPONDED to terror, not actively and agressivly fought against it. Afgahnistan should be given much more resources than it is, and where is Bush's massive, front line effort to get Pakistan to properly and fully cooperate with US military to capture Osamma?

Truth is, Bush has not being fighting the war correctly, which would include full support of Israel's war on terror and not this half-decided, sometimes good-sometimes bad, politically motivated position that his administration has taken so far. He also has not been putting Syria and Iran on the frontline of the political picture, which are the real SIGNIFICANT threats that pose an enourmous threat later on, and his virtual igoring of them is unacceptable . This is not a real fight against terror...ignoring Syria, Iran, not fighting to get Osama, to activly fight it. Bush's war on terror so far, has been nothing short of pathetic. I know thats a harsh and seemingly ridiculous judgement of Bush compared to what is mostly thought of Bush on this issue, but if you look at the facts, its true.

Kerry understands what a real war on terror is (at least better than Bush), and hopefully when he starts campaiging he can get that message out.

[Kev]

And once Bush's safe of $200 mill is used for the campaign, things will change

I do hope you are right!

It's so easy for them to attack him after Iraq and Afghanistan

I dont disagree with you one bit about his having the balls to go into Iraq.
Im glad he did.
I am concerned however, that its not going quite as well as I had hoped and am concerned the Imans will take over once the US has left, if not before.
Again, I ask someone to convince me that this will never happen, for I truly would love to feel strongly once again, as I once did, that this would not be a possible outcome!

The truth is Bush simply doesnt know how to fight the global war on terror

Where you may blame him for this, I admire him.
Yes, he may not know how to fight it fully, but does anyone?
I would rather see an attempt that failed than someone who appeased simply out of fear they didnt know how to fight it.
So I cant agree with you on that point.

Personally I do feel at this point he has secured his peoples position to the best of his ability, albeit, it is not perfect, but times never are.

Ive heard it said we do not know if Bush has stopped any more attacks, but yes we do.
Al Queda hasnt been hitting soft targets in Saudi simply because they believe the war on terror will be better fought this way, no, they have simply because Bush has made it far too hard for them to attack the US again.
What I fear is a Dem in power who will allow this to happen.
And I tend to blame Clinton for not having done the right thing MUCH sooner, for had he, perhaps 911 may never have taken place.

Truth is, Bush has not being fighting the war correctly, which would include full support of Israel's war on terror and not this half-decided, sometimes good-sometimes bad, politically motivated position that his administration has taken so far


Here I agree with you, although I do understand his position, for he feels he has to put Americans first, and feels if Israel is allowed to retaliate, it will inflame the Muslim world even more.

I for one dont agree but I do understand that he may feel this way, and I would like to see Israel being allowed to act as they have every right to do, so within that scope alone, I agree with you completely.

He also has not been putting Syria and Iran on the frontline of the political picture, which are the real SIGNIFICANT threats that pose an enourmous threat later on, and his virtual igoring of them is unacceptable


Again, I agree!
My hopes are that it isnt all played out yet and Iraq was simply the easiest one to first go after.
We have seen results played out from this in regards to both Libya and to some smaller degree, Syria, although, granted, not enough and more needs to be done.


Kerry understands what a real war on terror is (at least better than Bush), and hopefully when he starts campaiging he can get that message out.

Im going to have to take a closer look at Kerry for I was suprised that he has risen to where he has so quickly and will do so asap, although I am sceptical.

[I am David]

Where you may blame him for this, I admire him. Yes, he may not know how to fight it fully, but does anyone? I would rather see an attempt that failed than someone who appeased simply out of fear they didnt know how to fight it. So I cant agree with you on that point.

Why assume that know one knows how to fight a real war on terror? Ofcourse no one can ever do it PERFECTLY, my point is that Bush is doing it SEVERLY wrong, in very significant ways. I do not admire him at all for wasting his resources on Iraq when they need to be used on Iran and Syria and AlQuedia. I would also have to disagree that we have stopped more attacks. We cannot know this. But if you look at the effect of Iraq, the only thing I can see it doing is making Al-Queda laugh at us and our stupidity for being so off-target on them, all the while inflaming other radicals to attack us. No, it was an unwise desicion to attack Iraq so soon and ignore all the other, more serious issues. Bush has targeted the least of the threats, while ignoring the most sever ones. And do you really think he'll attack another country? I dont think he can "pressure" a country to do anything, he just knows how to attack, or do absolutly nothing. I am not confident at all Bush will fight the war on terror correctly. For the safety of America, I hope Bush does not get re-elected.

My point about Palestinian terrorists, is it is arrogant to assume that Palestinain terrorists are not part of Bush's so called "war on terror", and very low of him to hold the united states and Israel to a different standard on when its ok to fight terror. Here Bush attacks a country pre-emptivly, before admittly, it is even a threat, and based on shoddy intelligence, and Bush condemns Israel for assasinating terrorists who are known to have blood on their hands? Bush is a disgrace.

[Kev]

My point about Palestinian terrorists, is it is arrogant to assume that Palestinain terrorists are not part of Bush's so called "war on terror", and very low of him to hold the united states and Israel to a different standard on when its ok to fight terror. Here Bush attacks a country pre-emptivly, before admittly, it is even a threat, and based on shoddy intelligence, and Bush condemns Israel for assasinating terrorists who are known to have blood on their hands?



Well, in this one area we certainly are in full agreement.

I'm not entirely sure how some Israelis in this forum feel b ut I will say that most Israelis I know away from here, as well as most Jews I know, period, share your view!

For what its worth.

I wont deny that there isnt a lot that is very wrong with how Bush has handled the situation, or his seemingly coziness with Saudi etc.............but like yourself, Today I am less assured that in the end, when all is said and done, it will have done much good.

This may change, but I cant imagine how you could come to the conclusion that someone such as Al Gore would have been at all effective if this had all taken place on his watch?


But, as far as Iran and Syria go, I dont believe he wouold have gained any more momentum from allies had he wanted to deal with them first.
Therefore, alll this wishing for what he may have done may be fruitless and perhaps Iraq was in the end the best way to begin.

I dont think we can fully know for years to come yet how this will all eventually play out.


The Internet is the ONLY reason it went up during CLinton's reign. Clinton had nothing to do with the economy

I am very much in agreement with the above statement and do understand that Clinton has been given a lot of credit for which he had no control of and Bush has also been attacked for what he as well had no control over.

That said?
Most people listen to sound bytes, but dont truly listen to the whole story.
And, there are far too many today, Republicans as well I understand that are focusing only on the debt.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
Kev, I know its easy to think that Bush == great on security + tough on terror, but its not the truth. This is the message that Bush has been trying to send out, IE "I am your man for security and security is of the utmost importance therefore I am the best president because I will keep you safe, alive, reguardless if the economy is doing good or not". Thats what he wants people to believe, heck he may even believe it, but its not the truth. The truth is Bush simply doesnt know how to fight the global war on terror, and if attacking Iraq is his idea of it then he knows less than I thought. So far, Bush has only RESPONDED to terror, not actively and agressivly fought against it. Afgahnistan should be given much more resources than it is, and where is Bush's massive, front line effort to get Pakistan to properly and fully cooperate with US military to capture Osamma?

No, as you reveal at the end of your post your view on this topic is politically motivated.

I've heard Colin Powell condemn targeted assassinations but I've never actually heard President Bush do so. The White House comment on IDF raids is often "Israel has the right to defend itself." President Bush has offered the Palestinians a state, it's true, but it's contingent on them creating a less corrupt government devoted to rule of law and eradicating Arab terrorist groups.

What you fail to point out is that most Democrats opposed deposing the Butcher of Baghdad. We're supposed to believe Saddam had no involvement with terrorism, as if he had principles. Meanwhile, there are terrorist mass murder attacks every day in Iraq...

Meanwhile, you support politicians whose idea of "fighting" terrorism is working strictly within the virulently anti-Israel United Nations, who are more interested in bashing Bush (even suggesting he knew in advance about 9/11--a shameless lie), and some of whom say we give too much support to Israel.

Truth is, Bush has not being fighting the war correctly, which would include full support of Israel's war on terror and not this half-decided, sometimes good-sometimes bad, politically motivated position that his administration has taken so far. He also has not been putting Syria and Iran on the frontline of the political picture, which are the real SIGNIFICANT threats that pose an enourmous threat later on, and his virtual igoring of them is unacceptable . This is not a real fight against terror...ignoring Syria, Iran, not fighting to get Osama, to activly fight it. Bush's war on terror so far, has been nothing short of pathetic. I know thats a harsh and seemingly ridiculous judgement of Bush compared to what is mostly thought of Bush on this issue, but if you look at the facts, its true.

This is nonsense. President Bush signed the Syria Accountability Act. To the best of my knowledge, the White House did not come out against Israel's raid on Syria. On the contrary, the administration has said repeatedly that Syria needs to stop supporting terrorism. And while the Democrats' beloved UN has said Iran is "cooperating" we have just received confirmation from Pakistan that Iran is shopping for nuke design tips.

To wit, Bush has deposed the Taliban and the Iraqi Baathist Party, and forced Al Qaeda into hiding. There hasn't been a major terrorist attack on the US since 9/11. Ghaddafi, another well-known rogue state dictators, has surrendered.

Yet you pretend you know what's really going on, which you claim is little of value, when in fact your criticisms are politically motivated and, therefore, lack credibility.

Kerry understands what a real war on terror is (at least better than Bush), and hopefully when he starts campaiging he can get that message out.

Oh yes, he demonstrated that when he tossed someone else's medals.

The Democrats are the anti-war party. They demand we work more through the UN. And some Democrat candidates spend more time accusing Bush of lying--to the scurrilous extreme of suggesting he "knew" about 9/11 in advance--than condemning states and leaders that support terrorism.

Of course, you know better, but there are plenty of Jewish leaders who agree, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, that this is one of the most pro-Israel administrations we've had.

Of course, you would prefer we go back to the Clinton admin that forced the phony Oslo Peace Process on Israel--that forced Israel to negotiate with Yaser Arafat. Arafat was the single most frequent foreign leader to visit the Clinton White House. At least President Bush has the decency to refuse to meet with the Jew-killing darling of the Democrats' radical chic wing.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Kev
Well, in this one area we certainly are in full agreement.

I'm not entirely sure how some Israelis in this forum feel b ut I will say that most Israelis I know away from here, as well as most Jews I know, period, share your view!


You might want to reconsider your view, Kev. Contrary to "I am David" the Bush administration has arrested a number of Hamas and Islamic Jihad supporters in the US, shut down phony "charities" funneling money to them, and defeated what was the most powerful Arab state militarily in just three weeks.

Meanwhile, while "I am David" claims the Bush administration isn't fighting Islamism, his preferred party, the Democrats, are busy equating Bush to Hitler because Bush is in their opinion too reliant on military force and too tough on terrorists and terrorist sympathizers living and operating in the US.

Take, for example, Sami Al Arian. This guy was a professor at a university in Florida who was long known to be involved with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The Clinton Admin was too busy feasting Yaser Arafat, the Father of Modern Terrorism, to do anything about this terrorist agent. Rather than applauding Al Arian's arrest, however, Democrats are more interested in demonizing Attorney General John Ashcroft (who, by the way, is one of the most principled politicians). I don't know how anyone can even suggest Ashcroft hasn't done a great job... unless they consider Al Qaeda's total failure to deliver on their threats to attack the US again is somehow a bad thing.

I'm far from 100% happy with how the Bush administration has handled this war. Insisting Islam is a "Religion of Peace" is not something the President of the US should be doing--but he is putting tremendous pressure on the Muslim world to fight terrorism, and many a Muslim/Arab leader has bowed to that pressure to the consternation of the Arab/Muslim "street." Witness repeat assassination attempts against Musharref...

But to suggest the UN-worshipping, anti-war, anti-military Democrats would do a better job fighting Islamism--as they compare Bush to Hitler--is absurd.

It's true many Jews agree with "I am David." More so than agree with me. But it's also true that the overwhelming majority of Jews were taught from childhood that the Democrats are for the oppressed and the Republicans are a bunch of anti-Semitic WASPs. Unfortunately, many Jews think abortion is the most important issue in their lives... it's pretty pathetic to hear an 80-year old Jewish lady say she could never vote for Bush because of his stand on abortion. The lock the Democrats have on Jewish voters is arguably pathological.

[Kev]

It's true many Jews agree with "I am David." More so than agree with me. But it's also true that the overwhelming majority of Jews were taught from childhood that the Democrats are for the oppressed and the Republicans are a bunch of anti-Semitic WASPs. Unfortunately, many Jews think abortion is the most important issue in their lives... it's pretty pathetic to hear an 80-year old Jewish lady say she could never vote for Bush because of his stand on abortion. The lock the Democrats have on Jewish voters is arguably pathological.


Thanks Ibrodsky for shaking some sense into me for this is a feeling I have just has as of late, and wasn't sure if I was being somehow persuaded by the left, as well as the recent David Kay news.

There is a paper, albeit, not the most intellectual of newspapers here in Toronto, The Toronto Sun, which I have always supported for its very pro Israel and Jewish views.

Before Iraq, the editor, a Jewish fellow whose columns I always enjoyed, felt very strongly that Iraq was the proper war to fight at the time, and I couldn't have agreed more.

Last week, he wrote a column stating he had been fooled, the WMD was a lie, etc etc etc.
I must say, having followed that editor, I was shocked to see him abruptly change his views so rabidly.

That may have been the first time I truly wondered lately if I myself had been wrong in believing that the final outcome of this US led war would bring upon great change, or disaster in the form of another Islamic government.

This was really the only point I have been concerned about and no one seems to be able to answer me when I ask, in a manner of which that shall convince me that if this were to happen, with yet another Islamic government in power, how does this bode well for us in the long run, or does it negate all the positive steps forward we have made...........many of which you have mentioned above and which I agree wholeheartedly upon with you.


That's really my only fear.

That said though............

Before I joined this forum, I met some people via Jpost Letters who were a combination of Israeli Jews and the Christian Religious Right and I was signed up to receive about 50 emails per day from them all.
After a few months I asked to be removed from this list as I became increasingly angry with the hatred spewed constantly towards Bush, his upcoming war in Iraq...........well, to be honest, what David says above, is a much milder version of what I was flooded with daily.

At that time I was also very surprised and wondered if perhaps again I had it all wrong.
I came here shortly afterwards and felt at home amongst those that seemingly for the most part shared the same ideals that I did and had forgotten about those other views, until I read David's posts yesterday and the same old questions came flooding back that I had been asking myself upon receiving those 50+ emails per day.
I also left for I am not religious and although I respect those that are, I was being flooded with biblical references to the future Armageddon I couldn't relate to or understand.



Perhaps it is a temporary lapse of judgment, perhaps I am capable of being influenced more by the 'left" than I give myself credit for..........but admittedly, it is still this one possibility of a possible future Islamic state that concerns me, all else I feel very comfortable with.
Or at least accept some of the weaknesses as I understand the perfect situation is impossible to achieve.


EDIT: i should add that many Jews here in Toronto I know have also hold vitrolic views.....but I have always expected these for many of the same I am referring to also suffer it seems from the typical upper-class mentality I see here, which often is, someone who is a trust fund baby, without any real experience working in their lifetime, but who often shows great sympathy to the left, homeless, poor, but to an extreme I often feel is derived perhaps from their own wealth....and, a view that is sometimes held for Americans as a whole.
I for one have never agreed, but often when it seems everyone else around you feels differently than you do, you do begin to question your own sanity and I have always assumed I was right and everyone else was wrong----so I just needed to question whether it was myself that was wrong and not the others!

< admittedly, the ones I refer to here do get all of their news from CNN, etc and I doubt they have dug any deeper >

[ibrodsky]

Kev, another way to look at is this: how could it be bad for the War Against Islamist Terrorism to overthrow the Butcher of Baghdad? The evidence that Iraq used poison gas against the Kurds, gave safe harbor to terrorists, and was seen by the Arab ME as the one country that could stand up to anything the US could throw at it is indisputable.

It's also true we haven't found WMDs in Iraq. But as a result, we've found WMDs in Libya.

Of course, I haven't even mentioned that Iraq was one of Israel's most hostile enemies, having unleashed a torrent of anti-Semitism and 40 scud missiles when the world--led by Bush Sr.--kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. Seeing Iraq's occupation and rape of Kuwait reversed was a sad day for the Palestinians who never miss an opportunity to support evil causes and evil-doers... Plus, Saddam Hussein paid $15,000 to every Palestinian family that sacrificed a child to mass murder Israelis.

Of course, "I am David" is probably still seething that Gore failed to steal the election. Were Gore President, we'd probably still be sending Madeliene All-Dumb to persuade Mullah Omar to put Osama bin Laden under house arrest. Meanwhile, the media and the leftwing of the Democrat Party would be blaming 9/11 on our support for Israel.

[I am David]

Of course Ibrosky, because I oppose Bush, automatically my views are called "politically motivated" and it is assumed that I automatically support democrats all the time. ("Of course, 'I am David' is probably still seething that Gore failed to steal the election" And, "Of course, you would prefer we go back to the Clinton admin that forced the phony Oslo Peace Process on Israel--that forced Israel to negotiate with Yaser Arafat.") . I do not "Prefer" democrats, I prefer the best candiadate, the smartest, fairest person.

Well thanks anyway Ibrosky for making those assumptions.

Please don't make such assumptions about me, they really bennifit the debate :) I neither like how Clinton handled the Middle East or really care that Gore be president. Again, I am not your typically Lefty that just supports his party automatically.

This brings us to the Bush argument. Of course, your views are even more stereotypically right than mine are left. You think Bush has done a good job fighting terror, exagerating the importance of the things hes done with Syria/Iran, comparing him what he has done to what Gore/Clinton would do, and you have said that since there have been no Al-Quada attacks on the US, it must be because of Bush. That would be like the democrats saying, when we were attacked again, "it was Bush's fault because we DID get attacked again, its his fault!", both those views are unfair, and both are extreme. You have also give the stereotypical "If we had it your way, a brutal dictator would still be in power". Do you know where that argument even came from? It arose with the Bush speeches once the lack of WMD evidence required Bush to "prop up" his Iraq argument with something else. It is however not an argument for going into Iraq.

It's also ridiculous how you assume the democrats "compare Bush to hitler", when they have done no such thing(I mean politicaly active democrats in the goverment that are of any importance). John Kerry hasnt even called Bush a liar. He supports going to the united nations only because they COULD be used to the advantage of America, IE simply USE them for what good they are, nothing else. He never opposed the war in theory, he only opposed the rushed way Bush went into war. Kerry does not think we are going "too tough" on terrorists, on the contrary, he looks forward to fighting the REAL war on terror, the one that Bush hasnt really been fighting.

You claim Bush has signed some accountability act for Syria, that it has arrested some terrorists in the United states. So what? Is that proof somehow that Bush is handling these situations properly? Absolutly not. In fact, they outline perfectly how in fact, weak bush is handling them. Signing some act against Syria is not enough, Bush should be putting them on the political frontline and threating the eventual use of invasion, even bombing terrorists headquarters in Syria. Thats whats REALLY needed to be done with Syria. I wont even go into Iran, but Bush has done next to nothing with them, while we should have started with them a long time ago. They are 50 times the threat that Iraq was.

Again, where is Bush's massive, front line effort to get Pakistan to properly and fully cooperate with US military to capture Osama? You have not answered that question save for claiming it was politically motivated. If you are a true conservative intent on fighting terror, you should be critisizing Bush even more than me on this issue. Yet all you say is "thats politically motivated". Where do you even get that from anyway?

The fact that I am claiming Bush should be fight terror BETTER, attacking more countries, etc, the complete opposite of a political lefty, should mabye hint that I am not motivated as they are. I wonder what it would be like to have a debate on this subject without being assumed to be a lefty because I oppose Bush, and what it would be like to have pro-Bush arguments that are other than your average "Bush is great on security" examples which is ALL you have given. I wonder...

BTW, Bush has critisized Israel for attacking militants, they have critisized them for the fence, and for many other ridiculous things.

[varian]

First I want to point out that I really don't give a rats aunt about American politics. I no longer vote for the "better of two evils." Bush's proposed "guest worker" legislation has been met by less than enthusiastic response in much of the Southwestern US. After the recent outbusrts at an Olympic qualification match between the USA & Canadian soccer teams at a neutral site in Mexico, Bush's plan will most likely be opposed with a renewed and more volitile fervor. It doesn't bother me that the Mexican citizens at the match booed during the American national anthem, or that they booed after the American goals, (final score: USA 2; Canada 0). The incident that will cause the most backlash is that the perdominately Mexican crowd started to chant "Osama, Osama..." after the match was over to show their disdain for the US. Even American citizens with hispanic heritage have expressed outrage at this behavior. Many of Bush's voter base in the Southwest have expressed their intent not to vote for G.W. based on this issue alone. Bush's reelection is not a lock. The other side of the aisle doesn't offer any leadership either. U.S. politics as usual; the best of the worst, or the cream of the !!!

[RichardP]

Originally posted by varian
First I want to point out that I really don't give a rats aunt about American politics. I no longer vote for the "better of two evils." Bush's proposed "guest worker" legislation has been met by less than enthusiastic response in much of the Southwestern US. After the recent outbusrts at an Olympic qualification match between the USA & Canadian soccer teams at a neutral site in Mexico, Bush's plan will most likely be opposed with a renewed and more volitile fervor. It doesn't bother me that the Mexican citizens at the match booed during the American national anthem, or that they booed after the American goals, (final score: USA 2; Canada 0). The incident that will cause the most backlash is that the perdominately Mexican crowd started to chant "Osama, Osama..." after the match was over to show their disdain for the US. Even American citizens with hispanic heritage have expressed outrage at this behavior. Many of Bush's voter base in the Southwest have expressed their intent not to vote for G.W. based on this issue alone. Bush's reelection is not a lock. The other side of the aisle doesn't offer any leadership either. U.S. politics as usual; the best of the worst, or the cream of the !!!

Well said, Varian... the US is not the only democracy that suffers from a lack of top-knotch "leadership choice"... it's the same in Canada!

[I am David]

Actually, I think the proffession of politics in general has a dearth of intelligent people :rolleyes: :o

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
Of course Ibrosky, because I oppose Bush, automatically my views are called "politically motivated" and it is assumed that I automatically support democrats all the time. ("Of course, 'I am David' is probably still seething that Gore failed to steal the election" And, "Of course, you would prefer we go back to the Clinton admin that forced the phony Oslo Peace Process on Israel--that forced Israel to negotiate with Yaser Arafat.") . I do not "Prefer" democrats, I prefer the best candiadate, the smartest, fairest person.

No, these claims don't stand up to scrutiny. You made the unsubstantiated claim that "Kerry understands what a real war on terror is (at least better than Bush), and hopefully when he starts campaiging he can get that message out."

I visited John Kerry's campaign website and examined his positions on fighting terrorism at home and abroad. You imply that Kerry will do something about Syria and Iran. Well, that certainly is not what his campaign website says.

Here are the key features of his plan, to the limited extent he has one:

"A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease."

In other words, Kerry's "real war on terror" would mix fighting Islamism with fighting poverty and disease. First, this suggests that poverty and disease cause terrorism, which is nonsense. Second, it absurd and unwarranted for the US to link the war against 21st century Nazism with these other causes, as worthy as they are, because it would defocus and dilute our efforts.

Kerry also complains about "President Bush’s flawed policies of unilateralism and preemptive war..." So contrary to your claims of toughness, Kerry considers support for terrorism and violating terms agreed to end the first Gulf War as insufficient to justify military action. On that basis, there would be an even weaker case for going to war with Syria or Iran.

Thus, the only reason I can see for you to support Kerry is that he is a Democrat.

This brings us to the Bush argument. Of course, your views are even more stereotypically right than mine are left. You think Bush has done a good job fighting terror, exagerating the importance of the things hes done with Syria/Iran, comparing him what he has done to what Gore/Clinton would do, and you have said that since there have been no Al-Quada attacks on the US, it must be because of Bush. That would be like the democrats saying, when we were attacked again, "it was Bush's fault because we DID get attacked again, its his fault!", both those views are unfair, and both are extreme. You have also give the stereotypical "If we had it your way, a brutal dictator would still be in power". Do you know where that argument even came from? It arose with the Bush speeches once the lack of WMD evidence required Bush to "prop up" his Iraq argument with something else.

This is nonsense. In all likelihood we will be attacked again, and the fault rests solely with the attackers. However, you pretend nothing has been done to secure the homeland and go after the bad guys, which anyone who isn't blinded by ideology can see is not true. We thoroughly destroyed Al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan and drove the Taliban out of power for hosting them. We knocked out the Palestinian and Arab hero Saddam Hussein. We've killed and captured hundreds of Al Qaeda leaders--not just in Afghanistan but also places like Yemen. We've cut off funds to Palestinian terrorist groups. We've forced governments in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere to capture or kill terrorists. We didn't ask or wait for UN permission to do any of this as Kerry has made clear he would do.

In fact, the claim that we acted unilaterally is a Big Fat Lie. We've had pre-war, combat, and post-war support from dozens of countries. The Brits played a major role in the invasion of Iraq, yet Kerry insists on repeating the lie that we acted alone.

Look at your own words: you are less concerned about the fact we removed an Arab strongman who supported terrorism and that doing so convinced Ghaddafi to throw in the towel. Instead, you are busy complaining that Bush gave the wrong reason, as if we did the wrong thing.

It's also ridiculous how you assume the democrats "compare Bush to hitler", when they have done no such thing(I mean politicaly active democrats in the goverment that are of any importance). John Kerry hasnt even called Bush a liar. He supports going to the united nations only because they COULD be used to the advantage of America, IE simply USE them for what good they are, nothing else. He never opposed the war in theory, he only opposed the rushed way Bush went into war. Kerry does not think we are going "too tough" on terrorists, on the contrary, he looks forward to fighting the REAL war on terror, the one that Bush hasnt really been fighting.

This is simply false. MoveOn.org is obviously connected to the Democrat Party, as Donna Brazile is quoted or mentioned in several of their press releases. They have created an ad that clearly suggests Bush is a new Hitler.

If Kerry hasn't called Bush a liar, it is merely a matter of semantics. For example, today's headline at MoveOn.org is "Censure Bush for Misleading Us." Yep, technically, this is not calling Bush a "liar," but in practice it is. Kerry claims our foreign policy is "unprincipled" but offers no proof. His website also makes the despicable claim that "President Bush has sought to avoid blame, repeatedly stonewalling the 9/11 Commission and Congressional efforts to understand the intelligence mistakes that led up to September 11th." Clearly, Bush has been busy as Commander-in-Chief fighting and defeating terrorist groups and states that support them, while Kerry and the Democrat candidates have focused on politics and innuendo.

You claim Bush has signed some accountability act for Syria, that it has arrested some terrorists in the United states. So what? Is that proof somehow that Bush is handling these situations properly? Absolutly not. In fact, they outline perfectly how in fact, weak bush is handling them. Signing some act against Syria is not enough, Bush should be putting them on the political frontline and threating the eventual use of invasion, even bombing terrorists headquarters in Syria. Thats whats REALLY needed to be done with Syria. I wont even go into Iran, but Bush has done next to nothing with them, while we should have started with them a long time ago. They are 50 times the threat that Iraq was.

In fact, those "threats" have been delivered in the most credible form: we overthrew the regime next door and took some Syrian soldiers prisoner after a pitched battle.

But what's absurd about your claim is that Kerry makes it clear he is opposed to the pre-emptive and unilateral action you claim is needed.

Again, where is Bush's massive, front line effort to get Pakistan to properly and fully cooperate with US military to capture Osama? You have not answered that question save for claiming it was politically motivated. If you are a true conservative intent on fighting terror, you should be critisizing Bush even more than me on this issue. Yet all you say is "thats politically motivated".

You are making alot of accusations, but the fact is that Pakistan has arrested a number of Al Qadea operatives. I've seen numerous reports, including video, showing the Pakistani army going into the Islamist hinterland and conducting raids. That doesn't mean I trust them to take care of things properly, but that plus the fact we used their territory to overthrow the Taliban does show that significant pressure was applied and Pakistan yielded.

The fact that I am claiming Bush should be fight terror BETTER, attacking more countries, etc, the complete opposite of a political lefty, should mabye hint that I am not motivated as they are. I wonder what it would be like to have a debate on this subject without being assumed to be a lefty because I oppose Bush, and what it would be like to have pro-Bush arguments that are other than your average "Bush is great on security" examples which is ALL you have given. I wonder...

..and yet you want a President who is against pre-emptive and "unilateral" action. There is an obvious contradiction here.

Re: the Clinton admin, I brought that up because there is some continuity in philosophy between different members of the same party. Everything Kerry is saying suggests a return to more reliance on diplomacy and, when the military is used, less focus on fighting the bad guys and more focus on fighting poverty, as if Billionaire bin Laden is just looking for a US-financed welfare program for Muslims.

BTW, Bush has critisized Israel for attacking militants, they have critisized them for the fence, and for many other ridiculous things.

And I've heard plenty of Democrats say we give too much support to Israel and not enough to the poor, oppressed Palestinians.

But the *facts* are that the US has consistently supported Israel's right to self-defense; the US has presented peace plans that require the Palestinians to dismantle terrorist groups and stop inciting violence; the US has deposed Israel's most powerful enemy who fired missiles at Israeli population centers a decade earlier; the US has warned Syria and Iran; the US has neutralized another implacable foe of Israel, Libya; and the US supports Israel in not only arguing the Int'l Court has no business reviewing Israel's security fence, but in lining up major support for that position from the EU.

[I am David]

Your first point, I never claimed Kerry would fight a perfect war on terror, in fact I cant predict how he'll fight it. My dissasfaction with how Bush is fighting the war is not directly linked with my like for Kerry as a Candidate. I am not saying the Bush is fighting it wrong, but Kerry will fight it right. I am saying that Bush is fighting it wrong, on the other hand I like Kerry for so and so reasons. My mind is not completely made up about Kerry and there are many things I dislike about him. Many.

Thus, the only reason I can see for you to support Kerry is that he is a Democrat.

Oh give me a break. That is such a pathetic accusation. I support Kerry because I think his overall effect on the country will be much better than the effect President Bush had. I like most of his policies better, and do think that in the end, he will fight a better war on terror. That's just personal judgement based on what I picked up on his intelligence, policies etc. Notice that in the passage you quoted from his site, he meantions destructive weapons, nor does his passage make the accusation that poverty is responsible for islamic fundementalism or whatever you claimed it did. I have absolutly no clue where you get that from. And what he says makes sense. Do you think North Korea would be a threat if it was a peacefully democracy like South Korea? Denial of democracy is a threat because it allows evil people to stay in power.

So I support kerry for those reasons, but if you want to believe I support him "because he is a democrat", go right ahead, but thats absurd, I was never known for my left-wing stances, especially on this board. I have no political affiliation, none whatsoever. Get over it, will you.


However, you pretend nothing has been done to secure the homeland and go after the bad guys, which anyone who isn't blinded by ideology can see is not true.

Am I reading this wrong? How in the world did you ever deduce thats what I meant. I believe plenty has been done against terrorists, and for our security. Read that last sentence again, I DO believe plenty has been done for our security. Now my REAL point was that there are REAL and SERIOUS issues that the Bush admininstration hasnt been ADRESSING PROPERLY. I layed out my arguments specificly in my last posts, and you have done nothing to counter them. You simply sight what has been done, then act like thats proof that Bush has done enough on those issues. Sorry, that just doesnt cut it.



This is simply false. MoveOn.org is obviously connected to the Democrat Party, as Donna Brazile is quoted or mentioned in several of their press releases. They have created an ad that clearly suggests Bush is a new Hitler.

Im sure they have, but can you sight a high level democrat in the goverment that has done so? If you can, then I was wrong, but my point was only that if some democrats called Bush Hitler, that doesnt make, say John Kerry any less of a good candidate.


In fact, those "threats" have been delivered in the most credible form: we overthrew the regime next door and took some Syrian soldiers prisoner after a pitched battle.

You are too content with too little, too content with whatever Bush does do. What has been done with Syria/Iran/etc is not enough, not nearly enough to neutralize their threats. Thus, the Bush admin has not done enough.


You are making alot of accusations, but the fact is that Pakistan has arrested a number of Al Qadea operatives. I've seen numerous reports, including video, showing the Pakistani army going into the Islamist hinterland and conducting raids. That doesn't mean I trust them to take care of things properly, but that plus the fact we used their territory to overthrow the Taliban does show that significant pressure was applied and Pakistan yielded.

Again, too content with too little. I will ask again: where is Bush's massive, front line effort to get Pakistan to properly and fully cooperate with US military to capture Osama?

But the *facts* are that the US has consistently supported Israel's right to self-defense; the US has presented peace plans that require the Palestinians to dismantle terrorist groups and stop inciting violence; the US has deposed Israel's most powerful enemy who fired missiles at Israeli population centers a decade earlier; the US has warned Syria and Iran; the US has neutralized another implacable foe of Israel, Libya; and the US supports Israel in not only arguing the Int'l Court has no business reviewing Israel's security fence, but in lining up major support for that position from the EU.

Once again, too content with too little. You are citing the good, while ignoring the bad. The truth is, while the US has done these things, they have done many things that are against Israel. I am not content just because SOME times the administration has been for Israel, I want a president who consistently is on the side of freedom and democracy, not one who just praises or condemns Israel when they think the world will "view it apropriatly" I mean, why the hell would Colin Powell even condemn the fence?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David

You are too content with too little, too content with whatever Bush does do. What has been done with Syria/Iran/etc is not enough, not nearly enough to neutralize their threats. Thus, the Bush admin has not done enough.



It all boils down to the above.

I'm glad that we both want to see action taken against Syria and Iran. But you have not shown any evidence that Kerry would do more than Bush.

And you are ignoring the fact that (1) it would be unwise for us to have opened three or four battle fronts during Bush's first term, and (2) the biggest obstacle to doing what needs to be done about Syria and Iran is political opposition from the Europeans in the UN and the Democrats in Congress.

Now, if you can prove to me that Kerry has plans to use the necessary force to end Iran's WMD programs, kick Syria out of Lebanon, and force Syria to stop supporting terrorists, and that Bush is opposed to achieving these goals, then I'll vote for Kerry.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
It all boils down to the above.

I'm glad that we both want to see action taken against Syria and Iran. But you have not shown any evidence that Kerry would do more than Bush.

And you are ignoring the fact that (1) it would be unwise for us to have opened three or four battle fronts during Bush's first term, and (2) the biggest obstacle to doing what needs to be done about Syria and Iran is political opposition from the Europeans in the UN and the Democrats in Congress.

Now, if you can prove to me that Kerry has plans to use the necessary force to end Iran's WMD programs, kick Syria out of Lebanon, and force Syria to stop supporting terrorists, and that Bush is opposed to achieving these goals, then I'll vote for Kerry.

Good luck, I am David... but I don't believe he is the man willing or able to pull it off! Then again, prove me wrong... who knows!

[I am David]

I dont think I really can, and I dont know if he even will. If Kerry becomes president and does not adress the issues, then I'll critisize him just as much as Bush.

Although I did not mean that in order to deal with Syria and Iran we had to go war. We need to adress the situations fully, which we have not been doing.

My support for Kerry (aside from domestic issues) comes from the fact that

a. I believe Bush has not been fighting the war on terror right

and

b. Kerry faults Bush for exactly this, and makes a whole lot more sense then Bush when speaking about the issue.

Other than that theres nothing else to say, and I'll be willing to pull my support from Kerry if hes the same or worse then Bush.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
I dont think I really can, and I dont know if he even will. If Kerry becomes president and does not adress the issues, then I'll critisize him just as much as Bush.

Although I did not mean that in order to deal with Syria and Iran we had to go war. We need to adress the situations fully, which we have not been doing.

My support for Kerry (aside from domestic issues) comes from the fact that

a. I believe Bush has not been fighting the war on terror right

and

b. Kerry faults Bush for exactly this, and makes a whole lot more sense then Bush when speaking about the issue.

Other than that theres nothing else to say, and I'll be willing to pull my support from Kerry if hes the same or worse then Bush.

Well, we have a fundamental disgreement.

The way to stop Iran's Islamo-fascist regime from developing nukes is a pre-emptive strike. The only exception would be if the regime is overthrown. It would be foolish to think Iran's Islamist leaders, who hope to annihilate Israel and kill 5 million Jews, can be persuaded to give up their Evil cause.

Assad, I think, doesn't have a leg to stand on. We can probably threaten him to either pull out of Lebanon or join his fellow Arab dictator Saddam Hussein in prison. He will probably see that he has no choice and comply. But we need a president who is willing to assemble the military force to follow through--not some anti-war activist who throws away medals in protest.

Kerry, I suspect, would pursue better "relations" with rogue states, and they will gladly play along. In the end we will pay a much higher price in lives and money for that mistake.

[Alfred]

I believe that George W. has caught the "Bush Disease." That is the disease that caused his Daddy to go from 93% approval rating to the Clinton disaster. He is dissing his conservative base and that may lose him the election...you cannot make liberals love you (and vote for you) by passing liberal programs...but you can get your conservative base to not vote for you by doing it.

But I will hold my nose and vote for Bush for four reasons:

1. The Muslims fear him
2. The Europeans hate him
3. The Canadians hate him
4. The Left hates him

Those are excellent reasons to vote for anyone :)

(Besides, Kerry is a certified Gold-Digger....anything and anyone for money $$$$$$)

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Alfred
I believe that George W. has caught the "Bush Disease." That is the disease that caused his Daddy to go from 93% approval rating to the Clinton disaster. He is dissing his conservative base and that may lose him the election...you cannot make liberals love you (and vote for you) by passing liberal programs...but you can get your conservative base to not vote for you by doing it.

But I will hold my nose and vote for Bush for four reasons:

1. The Muslims fear him
2. The Europeans hate him
3. The Canadians hate him
4. The Left hates him

Those are excellent reasons to vote for anyone :)

(Besides, Kerry is a certified Gold-Digger....anything and anyone for money $$$$$$)

Very good, Alfred, but not all Canuckistanis hate him!!!

[merkava4]

There are millions of illegal Mexican immigrants inside US already. There is no use to kick them out. They provide the majority of the labor-intensive work in Calidornia. Bush's idea of giving them temporary-work status is a good one. He is the first president to recognize the contribution of Mexicans to the labor force, especially in California. Unfortunately, Democrats will push to take advantage of this maneuver by saying it's not enough. Many are critical to Bush due to the war in Iraq. In my opinion, I would be more worried if US did not attack, who knows what Saddam would have done. Most likely, many of the Iraq's WMD wopuld have moved to Syria. Bush gave Iraq basically 6 months to remove all WMDs. Any dictator with half a brain would've hid the weapons very well. Then again, Saddam's an idiot. But maybe he thought he had a chance against American military. Now John Kerry, the vietnam veteran who admitted he had murdered innocent vietnamese in vietnam is declaring Bush has done things wrong. Easy to say with just words, but Bush has done a great job with all things considered. No Democrat would have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, that's a 100% positive. Liberals are declaring themselves as anti-war. The truth is they are anti-American in some ways. They support the troops yet believe the war is wrong? The message to the soldiers is good job, but you should'nt be doing this. That is ridiculous and that is why the vast majorit of Armed Services members are Republicans. In my opinion, there has not been a President like Bush who has done something so important for American's security. Go Bush 2004.

[ibrodsky]

The Democrats are demagogues. Basically, they promise to unfairly tax the rich and redistribute the money to any and all interest groups. It's a clever way to buy votes.

Add to that voting fraud and you have a party that has dominated US politics for decades. In big cities all over the US, the Democrats join forces with union thugs, cynical leftists, and people who simply don't know right from wrong to steal votes.

I've lived in two major cities and Democrat voting fraud is massive in both. Of course, since they run the major cities they not only get away with it--they succeed in intimidating anyone who dares fight it.

[Kev]

IamDavid;

There is no doubt you do make some very good points but upon further reading of Kerrys website, I must concurr with Ibrodsky.

Upon reading his website all I hear are the typical Democrat promises that will never come to fruition.

There mere fact that Teddy Kennedy supports him should have been enough to warn me about his policys, and although I appreciate your passionate beliefs that John Kerry is the man to get the job done.................I cannot see that he is at all, not one bit!

Despite my reservations at times towards Bush.......unless someone else rises out of nowhere is that even possible at this point?............I would have to stick with Bush.



The only question I dont have any answer to is how an Islamic state in Iraq, if one should happen, can be good for us. :(

[merkava4]

I have a gut feeling that Bush will reveal information about Iraq's WMD before the election. This is the reason he has not fired Tenet and also the reason he is not rushing for an inquiry into the subject matter. The Democrats only half-assed argument against the war will work against them. The Democrats are playing politics so Bush is as well. Before everyone starts talking about how the war is unjustified, just wait a couple months. Spectacular info about Iraq's WMD program will be revealed soon. Not that I care if it is found or not, but many Democrats will be knocked out.

[Kev]

Originally posted by merkava4
I have a gut feeling that Bush will reveal information about Iraq's WMD before the election. This is the reason he has not fired Tenet and also the reason he is not rushing for an inquiry into the subject matter. The Democrats only half-assed argument against the war will work against them. The Democrats are playing politics so Bush is as well. Before everyone starts talking about how the war is unjustified, just wait a couple months. Spectacular info about Iraq's WMD program will be revealed soon. Not that I care if it is found or not, but many Democrats will be knocked out.


Good Point.
I have always believed the same, that before election time, Bush would pull something out of his hat and right now, he is allowing the Dems to carry on as expected so I do hope you are right!
:)

Interesting what you say about George Tenet as for the life of me, I couldnt begin to understand why he wasnt replaced, for like Powell, I believe they work against him and therefore the security of the US +


OT a bit:

I dont know if anyone has been watching Dennis Millers new TV show these past 2 weeks?

If so, make sure you do, however, on Friday evening, I believe it was, he mentioned that one night this week, President Bush is going to be on TV being interviewed by Tim Russet on CNBC.

Miller, a fan of Bush's was suprised he would do this and claimed that Bush must really feel under attack at this present time to do so but fears that Tim Russert may, in the end, do more harm for Bush than good, so, if one hasnt heard of this interview, it may be interesting to watch!

[Alfred]

In my opinion, Russert is the only non-Fox News talking head who can give a fair interview. He is a liberal but not a flaming one.

I hope Bush has some news in his pocket and I agree that once the election starts in ernest, Kerry/Dean will not have the lone soapbox as they do now.

You can count on the media doing its very worst over the next 8 months. Probably the most blatant since the early 1900's Yellow Journalism. You can count on Hollywood to be out in force. You might even see the Europeans trying to influence the election. You can also count on Al Qaeda bombing us somewhere in the US.....even if it is a firecracker, they will get something off I am sure.

So the next 8 months will be very interesting and very very divisive. You will see the country split as never before....well, since Clinton's impeachment.

As much as I do not like some of Bush's domestic attempts to win over democrats, I think it would be a disaster to elect a democrat; and I would be sickened to see the Arabs and Europeans dancing in the street over a Bush defeat. The French would throw a major victory celebration.....but then again, they haven't seen a French victory since Napolean so who knows :)

So for that reason, and for the reason that I like Bush personally, I will vote for him. If we send more Republicans to Congress then we can defeat some of these domestic nightmares that Bush and others are proposing.

I am still undecided on immigration. I understand what Bush is attempting to do.....I like a Guest Worker program. But, without a solid border it would be a disaster. Bush should put the National Guard on the border. Unfortunately, the force structure post Clinton is such that the National Guard is no longer in the States to "nationally guard." They are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Time for form up citizens militias to patrol the border....hmmmm, what a novel idea. Sounds like something George Washington might say. The alternative is to bring back the National Guard.

[L@mplighterM]

Last I heard Bush was running neck and neck with Kerry but of course in politics things like that can change quickly.

I think Bush will have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to have an assured win.

Running massive deficits at a time when inflation is low does have its negative consequences. I think that the Euro was worth around 90 cents against the dollar when Bush was elected and it’s worth around $ 1.20 at the moment. A low dollar is great for exporters and can create a robust economy but imports become more costly.

The fight against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism was necessary but it’s also costly and it’s difficult to say exactly where it’s headed. In the end this fight might end his political career like it claimed his fathers.

[I am David]

Kev:



IamDavid;

There is no doubt you do make some very good points but upon further reading of Kerrys website, I must concurr with Ibrodsky.

Upon reading his website all I hear are the typical Democrat promises that will never come to fruition.

There mere fact that Teddy Kennedy supports him should have been enough to warn me about his policys, and although I appreciate your passionate beliefs that John Kerry is the man to get the job done.................I cannot see that he is at all, not one bit!

Despite my reservations at times towards Bush.......unless someone else rises out of nowhere is that even possible at this point?............I would have to stick with Bush.



The only question I dont have any answer to is how an Islamic state in Iraq, if one should happen, can be good for us.


A presidential candidate should not be dismissed so quickly and easily. It is not a good reason to dismiss Kerry just because he is a democrat and most democrats promise the same thing, and therefore assume that none of his plans will come to fruitation. It truelly takes a while to "figure out" a candidate, to see how much they really care about solving the issues, and how hard they are going to fight it. Look at Bush, he promised great things, none of them have come to fruitation. Bush is all talk, no action, no sencirity.

And Ted Kennedie may support him, but this is no reason to make ANY assumptions about his policies. Ted Kennedie may have done bad things, but that is no reason to dismiss Kerry either. I think that campaigning with Kennedy in Iowa was a wise move on Kerrys part, even if deep down he doesnt think much of him.

Now kerry may just be another democrat with democratic policies, but he seems to be a candidate who will trully fight for his policies, and who really wants to get them done. This isnt the kind of thing you can just look up on a website, it has be anylized over a long period of time just watching the candidate.

In any case, if you actually investigate wholeheardly the Bush policies and everything he has done, from enviroment to tax cuts to funding of programs, you will find a much less pretty picture than you even thought. Match this against Kerry's genuine enthusiasm to get things done for the country and Kerry is looking quite a lot better than Bush.



Ibrosky:

The Democrats are demagogues. Basically, they promise to unfairly tax the rich and redistribute the money to any and all interest groups. It's a clever way to buy votes.


I think it was even more clever for Bush to give tax cuts to rich people that increased as you got richer, like Donald Trump getting a $380 million dollar tax cuts, and then tell the american people that his tax cuts were actualy targeted at the economy. If you look at the effect of Bush's tax cuts, and the effect that a solely middle class tax would have, it seems ridiculous to critisize the democrat's tax cut but not Bush's. Raising the taxes on wealthy is a very intelligent move, wealthy people have a huge amount of money that they just do nothing with, not even spend it, and certainly not invest it in jobs, so redistributing a little of this is a good way to help the economy.

And voting fraud happens on both parties, it doesnt invalidate either parties candidates.

[merkava4]

Bush has done many great things since he became President. He's striking hard against the terrorists overseas. He attacked and liberated Iraq. Tax Cuts for EVERYONE, not just the rich and not just the poor. A Medical Plan that CLinton for 8 years couldnt do. A space vision and plan that will hopefully be carried out. The fact is Bush doesnt talk much. He is not a smooth talker like Clinton who did a decent job in seducing the country to like him. Basically, Bush is not a whore like Clinton was. He's not a good politician, he's a good leader. He doesn't get head under his Oval Office table from a fat girl while talking to the national security advisor. If Trump did get $380 million, well he used that many for hotels, for jobs, for growth. Sure he saves some of it but a lot he gives back to the economy in Good ways. Not welfare checks for crack moms. These "evil" tax cuts for the rich are helping the poor because it is the rich who gives the poor jobs. And in that way some poor people become rich themselves. Democratic politicians are basically extremely rich people (Kerry's wife is worth $500 million). Nothing wrong with being rich, yet they attempt to act as the champion of the working class. They divide America into classes because that is the only way the Democrats thrive. They need divisiveness to survive, they need racism, they need class warfare. They champion the little guy when actually they keep the little guy down. And Ted Kennedy is just a drunk fake.

[I am David]

Um, Trump himself said that he would rather the middle class get that $380 million, he thought it would do much better there. And the medicare bill, that was beyond pathetic, even the extreme right wingers disagree with that bill, it was a horrible bill. And the tax cuts werent given to wealthy people in a way that would promote job growth. The money basically stagnated. This is all examples of mistruths that get spread around are assumed true by Bush supporters. The fact is, those facts are simply wrong. And you fault Kerry for being rich, well Bush isn't exactly poor is he? And Kerry, however rich he may be, cares far more for the average American than Bush does.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
Um, Trump himself said that he would rather the middle class get that $380 million, he thought it would do much better there. And the medicare bill, that was beyond pathetic, even the extreme right wingers disagree with that bill, it was a horrible bill. And the tax cuts werent given to wealthy people in a way that would promote job growth. The money basically stagnated. This is all examples of mistruths that get spread around are assumed true by Bush supporters. The fact is, those facts are simply wrong. And you fault Kerry for being rich, well Bush isn't exactly poor is he? And Kerry, however rich he may be, cares far more for the average American than Bush does.

There are many wealthy people who are Democrats. They can afford the best tax consultants money can buy. The tax system has been structured so that the upper middle class and newly wealthy get soaked the most.

We should look at tax policy not in terms of political slogans (calling a tax cut that applied to everyone who pays taxes a "tax cut for the wealthy" is not honest) but in terms of fairness and efficacy.

I support fair taxation. This means there should be a flat rate and simple tax code so anyone can accurately figure out what they owe and don't owe. With a flat rate, if you make ten times as much money you pay ten times as much tax. The Dems are the leading champions of "progressive taxes" that punish poor people for finding work, and provide loopholes for rich Democrats (of whom their are plenty) along with other rich people.

The simplistic reaction that rich people should never get tax reductions--the assumption seems to be that people who are financially successful must have done something wrong--is based on lack of knowledge of how our economy works.

Wealthy people don't usually hide their money under a mattress or spend it all on frivolity. People become wealthy through wise investments, and that's a habit that's hard to break. The punchline is that wealthy people invest in new and growing businesses. Their investments help create jobs, expand markets, and sometimes even create entirely new industries (like personal computers and biotech).

Though it's dishonest to say Bush's tax cut was just for the wealthy, even if it had been it wouldn't have had the negative impact that Democrats are counting on you to believe. The implication is that these people are just hoarding their money. The reality is that Bill Gates' personal fortune is mainly tied up in Microsoft, a company employing what... 35,000 people?

[I am David]

The tax cuts were not JUST for the wealthy, they were mostly for the wealthy. Nor am I relying on democrats or any politicians at all for my deductions. Nor am I saying that the rich are just "hoarding their money". But really, if you think through the tax cuts, its hard to see where the bennifit is. Sure, its nice to think that "tax cuts for wealthy == investment in jobs etc." But its not that simple, you have to take into account human psych, not just where the money is technically going. The question is will people invest more, or spend more, with that extra money? Or just as important, is investment whats really needed in this type of economic situation? It wouldnt seem so, since in a recession, there are existing bussiness that are doing bad, we dont need even more bussiness to share the limited consumer spending. What we need is increased consumer spending, to creat the profitability then for those new bussiness. Simply put, if a lot of companys are suffering profit wise, its better to give the money to the consumer most to boost company profits, then give tax cuts to wealthy in hopes that they would invest in companys that arent even doing that good.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
There are many wealthy people who are Democrats. They can afford the best tax consultants money can buy. The tax system has been structured so that the upper middle class and newly wealthy get soaked the most.

We should look at tax policy not in terms of political slogans (calling a tax cut that applied to everyone who pays taxes a "tax cut for the wealthy" is not honest) but in terms of fairness and efficacy.

I support fair taxation. This means there should be a flat rate and simple tax code so anyone can accurately figure out what they owe and don't owe. With a flat rate, if you make ten times as much money you pay ten times as much tax. The Dems are the leading champions of "progressive taxes" that punish poor people for finding work, and provide loopholes for rich Democrats (of whom their are plenty) along with other rich people.

The simplistic reaction that rich people should never get tax reductions--the assumption seems to be that people who are financially successful must have done something wrong--is based on lack of knowledge of how our economy works.

Wealthy people don't usually hide their money under a mattress or spend it all on frivolity. People become wealthy through wise investments, and that's a habit that's hard to break. The punchline is that wealthy people invest in new and growing businesses. Their investments help create jobs, expand markets, and sometimes even create entirely new industries (like personal computers and biotech).

Though it's dishonest to say Bush's tax cut was just for the wealthy, even if it had been it wouldn't have had the negative impact that Democrats are counting on you to believe. The implication is that these people are just hoarding their money. The reality is that Bill Gates' personal fortune is mainly tied up in Microsoft, a company employing what... 35,000 people?

Excellent retort, ibrodsky!

[Alfred]

Maybe we should learn a lesson from our former Communist enemies.....Russia.


A FLAT TAX

[Mil]

No matter who comes to power:

1. Jobs would still be going over-seas as is.
2. The mechanisms of controlling economic factors would remain as is. This includes tax cuts and interests rates. Are there any other major mechanisms at government's disposal to boost national economic performance? The Democrats have not been asked this as of yet....
3. War on terror and the focus on the Middle East would remain as is.


NOTHING WILL CHANGE!!!! I'll be voting Bush anyways.

[I am David]

Though it's dishonest to say Bush's tax cut was just for the wealthy, even if it had been it wouldn't have had the negative impact that Democrats are counting on you to believe.

The impact has certainly been negative. The tax cuts on the wealthy has mostly stagnated, and the end result for the middle class is that their taxes went up because of increased state taxes because of less federal money.

[Mil]

I personally have not been affected by the Tax-cuts yet. My paycheck became bigger - that's true. The only taxes to rise were property taxes. But they rise every year anyways.

[I am David]

Neither have I. But I hate to say that you and I are not everyone :)

[Mil]

If the Democrats would want to attract business back to America they would have to make tax concessions. This means more tax cuts....

[I am David]

But then those tax cuts would be different. And they would be worth it. The tax cuts Bush put in place did not do anything for bussiness outsourcing overseas. It requires a specific, targeted type of tax cuts to pursuade bussiness to not outsource. The thing is, Bush wont do anything to adress this, and if he does it will be half-heartedly and to no real effect. Candidates like Kerry seem a LOT more intent on getting this done, as well as everything else :rolleyes:

[Mil]

Good luck to Kerry!!!! May be he knows something I don't.

[I am David]

He knows how to send Bush back to Texas :cool:

I hope :o

[Alma]

Originally posted by I am David
He knows how to send Bush back to Texas :cool:

I hope :o


One thing for sure: Bush is going to use the scare tactics employed by some guys on this thread against Kerry. The truth is it's doubtful Kerry would be a "weak" president, especially after 9-11 and after the Bush administration, even though Bush will try hard to play that card. Kerry certainly has a MAJOR shot at the presidency, no matter what anybody wants or believes. Re Israel, Kerry may be even better than Bush, although that depends of course on your Israeli peace philosophy. By the way, has anybody heard about the Boston Globe's research into Kerry's roots? Turns out his grandparents on his father's side (named Kohn) immigrated to the US at the beginning of the century, became Catholics, and changed their name to Kerry. His younger brother married a Jewish woman and converted to Judaism not knowing about his Jewish roots.

[I am David]

Yep, I believe he also has a Jewish grandparent on his other side, so that makes him half Jewish :D

Also you right, Kerry has a very good chance at the presidency. The last election was so close, and Bush hasnt exactly done anything so great to make people change their minds. I think Kerry is also just a more friendly and likeable candidate than cold Bush, so yeah. We'll see though.

[Donna]

Kerry just oozes sincerity and warmth.

[Alma]

Originally posted by Donna
Kerry just oozes sincerity and warmth.



Yeah. And he's gonna get even better. I bet Bush's wetting in his pants.

[Kev]

There is one point about Kerry I would like to have clarified and my lousy Googling skills hasnt yet come up with the answer.

Is there any truth to what I heard yesterday that Kerry was against the Gulf War and if so why?

I heard that spoken of on CNN yesterday, after the Tim Russert Interview, which we all know now, was held yesterday morning and not one evening this week as I had first been told.


I must say, that one thing that truly bothered me yesterday listening to all of the Dems speak after the interview was the way they kept hounding on the North Korea issue, knowing full well this is just a herring in a sense that will win some support for those that dont really get that involved in news or the campaigns.

I wasnt impressed with Bush in this interview, but I have long understood he isnt his best with the spoken word.
Not everyone is.
Some like Clinton were, but it was all flash and no substance, so Bushs inability in this area doesnt concern me in the slightest.


Yes Lamplighter, it isnt looking great for Bush right about now, but I suspect he is just letting the Dems play their game and later on he will reverse this with action.

Of course we also heard last night on Dateline NBC that Bush is mounting an offensive early spring in the mountain region of Afghanistan bordering Pakistan again,which is good news and may quieten those that were aginst his pulling out of that area before Iraq.


IamDavid:

One thing that does suprise me about your support of Kerry, is that on his web page and in speeches, I have heard him allude to needing the UN, when I believe strongly that the UN does more harm than good........and I cant begin to understand how you believe if he is looking towards the UN, he has ANY plans on handling the war on terrorism as you believe he may?

[Kev]

edit: meant to respond to this quote in the above post...

Kerry certainly has a MAJOR shot at the presidency, no matter what anybody wants or believes.


One point I kept hearing yesterday, during the 5-6 hours I had CNN on were the media speculating on whether Kerry would remain in the lead.

Interestingly, I heard a few of them claim he may not, and although they understood their own arrogance in that they, the media can often make or break a candidate, they alluded to their doing so with Howard Dean.

Now, I for one didnt think that the scream he did was worthy of the attention it received but it certainly did help to sink his run, and they kept alluding to the chance that Kerry may end up the same way.

So, Im not so sure I would definetelysay that Kerry will remain in this position all the way through!



< gotta learn that spellcheck and preview are my best friend > :eek:

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by I am David
The tax cuts were not JUST for the wealthy, they were mostly for the wealthy. Nor am I relying on democrats or any politicians at all for my deductions. Nor am I saying that the rich are just "hoarding their money". But really, if you think through the tax cuts, its hard to see where the bennifit is. Sure, its nice to think that "tax cuts for wealthy == investment in jobs etc." But its not that simple, you have to take into account human psych, not just where the money is technically going. The question is will people invest more, or spend more, with that extra money? Or just as important, is investment whats really needed in this type of economic situation? It wouldnt seem so, since in a recession, there are existing bussiness that are doing bad, we dont need even more bussiness to share the limited consumer spending. What we need is increased consumer spending, to creat the profitability then for those new bussiness. Simply put, if a lot of companys are suffering profit wise, its better to give the money to the consumer most to boost company profits, then give tax cuts to wealthy in hopes that they would invest in companys that arent even doing that good.

I am David, your argument does not make sense. I don't see how "human psych" overrides ""where the money is technically going." Where the money is going is the key issue, isn't it?

You seem to be arguing that it's a bad idea to invest in new business creation during a recession. This makes no sense to me, but in fairness I'm willing to review the evidence. When has investment in new businesses exacerbated a recession?

You say the Bush tax break was mainly for the wealthy, but the fact is that most middle class families received a tax break ranging from a few hundred to several hundred dollars. My business has suffered for the last three years, but I received a nice refund check early in the year and business picked up considerably during the second half.

I don't think you really understand the process of new business creation. New businesses don't just compete for limited consumer spending. In fact, most new businesses are in tech areas, and during the first two or three years they focus on product development. (It's not unusual for them to not even release their first product for 2 or 3 years.) So the investment more often goes to job creation and business-to-business buying than creating redundant sources of established consumer products.

Having said all of this, I will tell you there is one area in which I am very angry with the Bush administration: its warning that Israel must not impose a unilateral settlement on the Palestinians by separating from them. It is outrageous that the US demands Israel remain entangled with these barbarians, particularly when unilateral separation would allow the Palestinians to establish the state they claim they are fighting for.

But I see no evidence that Kerry would support Israel in imposing a settlement. And your claim that we must give Kerry a more extensive hearing is weak. The guy has been in politics for decades. He has an established record in the US Senate. He doesn't claim to have morphed into something different, so I see no reason why we can't judge him by his record plus his campaign website. What more is there for him to say?

P.S.: Kerry is also a bit of a hypocrite. I just read a quote from him in 1992 defending Bill Clinton's lack of military service and criticizing another candidate for even bringing it up. Yet Kerry is already denouncing Bush for "only" serving in the National Guard where he learned to fly fighter jets. That's way more than Clinton did, and as we see in Iraq the National Guard is not a way to avoid combat.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Alma
One thing for sure: Bush is going to use the scare tactics employed by some guys on this thread against Kerry. The truth is it's doubtful Kerry would be a "weak" president, especially after 9-11 and after the Bush administration, even though Bush will try hard to play that card. Kerry certainly has a MAJOR shot at the presidency, no matter what anybody wants or believes. Re Israel, Kerry may be even better than Bush, although that depends of course on your Israeli peace philosophy. By the way, has anybody heard about the Boston Globe's research into Kerry's roots? Turns out his grandparents on his father's side (named Kohn) immigrated to the US at the beginning of the century, became Catholics, and changed their name to Kerry. His younger brother married a Jewish woman and converted to Judaism not knowing about his Jewish roots.

Yes, it's amazing how every Democrat running for President has recently discovered his "Jewish roots." No doubt Al Sharpton's Ethiopian connection is next.

But to what "scare tactics" against Kerry are you referring? "Scare tactics" refers to rumors and unsubstantiated allegations.

John Kerry states quite plainly on his campaign website that he opposes pre-emptive military action. Kerry considers the coalition that the Bush admin assembled to be "unilateral"; the thousands of Brits who fought in the war will be disappointed to hear they weren't there, but the parents of Brits who died fighting will be glad to hear it was all a mirage. The soldiers from Poland, Italy, Spain, Japan, etc. serving in Iraq right now should not be so lightly abused by Kerry and his supporters. These are facts, not tactics.

However, implying that Bush joined the National Guard to avoid combat after having richly condemned those who criticized Clinton for not serving in any way, shape, or form... is what?

Speaking for myself, I never said Kerry doesn't have a good shot at the Presidency. Though I don't trust Newsweek polls, I'm sure if the election were held today it could go either way. Add to that the usual Democrat vote fraud, and Kerry is a winner. (Sorry, but the Democrats control most major cities, and that's where most vote fraud occurs.)

As for Kerry's newly discovered Jewish roots, a reasonable person must ask how these things just happen to be discovered/revealed during political campaigns. An intelligent person would ask what this has to do with policies and leadership. Do you really think this type of manipulation is a good sign?

[I am David]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
I am David, your argument does not make sense. I don't see how "human psych" overrides ""where the money is technically going." Where the money is going is the key issue, isn't it?

You seem to be arguing that it's a bad idea to invest in new business creation during a recession. This makes no sense to me, but in fairness I'm willing to review the evidence. When has investment in new businesses exacerbated a recession?

You say the Bush tax break was mainly for the wealthy, but the fact is that most middle class families received a tax break ranging from a few hundred to several hundred dollars. My business has suffered for the last three years, but I received a nice refund check early in the year and business picked up considerably during the second half.

I don't think you really understand the process of new business creation. New businesses don't just compete for limited consumer spending. In fact, most new businesses are in tech areas, and during the first two or three years they focus on product development. (It's not unusual for them to not even release their first product for 2 or 3 years.) So the investment more often goes to job creation and business-to-business buying than creating redundant sources of established consumer products.

Having said all of this, I will tell you there is one area in which I am very angry with the Bush administration: its warning that Israel must not impose a unilateral settlement on the Palestinians by separating from them. It is outrageous that the US demands Israel remain entangled with these barbarians, particularly when unilateral separation would allow the Palestinians to establish the state they claim they are fighting for.

But I see no evidence that Kerry would support Israel in imposing a settlement. And your claim that we must give Kerry a more extensive hearing is weak. The guy has been in politics for decades. He has an established record in the US Senate. He doesn't claim to have morphed into something different, so I see no reason why we can't judge him by his record plus his campaign website. What more is there for him to say?

P.S.: Kerry is also a bit of a hypocrite. I just read a quote from him in 1992 defending Bill Clinton's lack of military service and criticizing another candidate for even bringing it up. Yet Kerry is already denouncing Bush for "only" serving in the National Guard where he learned to fly fighter jets. That's way more than Clinton did, and as we see in Iraq the National Guard is not a way to avoid combat.

My argument makes perfect sense. You assume that since the money goes to wealthy people, that those people will then invest in more bussiness, new startups, etc. This is a wrong assumption "human psych" does not OVERIDE where the money goes, it is an integral part of it. Just imagine your average goe who makes 500k a year, and he gets however many thousands in tax returns. What do you expect him to do with it? Why would you assume he'd take those extra thousands, and invest it? Why would it he instead, not just ask his personall assistent to file it away in the bank, like all "extra" money he makes each week anyway. Do you think everytime that persons pay/revenue check increases by a few thousand for whatever reason, they think "op! time to be super efficient and invest!". Sorry, it doesnt work like that.

As far as the Bush tax cuts being mostly for the wealthy, it is not important how MANY middle class people got money back, but how much the total AMOUNT of money was. If I had a minny country and gave a one billion dollar tax cut to one rich person, then a one penny tax cut to a hundred middle class people, would you really say that the middle class people got more of a tax cut than the rich person?

Please don't assume I dont "really understand the process of new business creation.". It would be nice to have a debate where instead of making personal jabs at me, you just explained your argument, and left it at that.

And I am not assuming that investing in new bussiness is a bad idea in the recession. My point was would your average slightly-rich investor invest, even in a new bussiness, when economy is doing so great? Not everyone is so confident with their money that a new bussiness, wether high-tech or not, would get good returns when the economy has been bad for several years. And I dont know why you think most new bussinesses are tech bussiness. Do you have a statistic for that?

And your arguments against Kerry are just the standard, right wing-rehtoric. It's akin to how the leftys complain about Dick Cheney and Haliburton all the time. Nitpicking, dirt digging, name calling and labelling. That's all it is.

You should give Kerry another, (many) chances because the senate is not the presidency. I dont even know why you would dislike Kerry for his senate record, and you seem to have discounted his website because of that one passage you misunderstood? Also I'm sure this "pre-emptive" strikes he refers to are the kind Bush did for Iraq, not the kind that Israel did in the '67 war.

[I am David]

And what is this nonsense about "so-called" Jewish roots, as if it was some lie for political gain? If his roots were Jewish, then would it matter that he told people? And Wes. Clark is half Jewish as well.

Sharpton, Kuccinich, wont be announcing their "jewish roots" anytime soon beleive me :rolleyes:

[Alma]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Yes, it's amazing how every Democrat running for President has recently discovered his "Jewish roots." No doubt Al Sharpton's Ethiopian connection is next.

But to what "scare tactics" against Kerry are you referring? "Scare tactics" refers to rumors and unsubstantiated allegations.

John Kerry states quite plainly on his campaign website that he opposes pre-emptive military action. Kerry considers the coalition that the Bush admin assembled to be "unilateral"; the thousands of Brits who fought in the war will be disappointed to hear they weren't there, but the parents of Brits who died fighting will be glad to hear it was all a mirage. The soldiers from Poland, Italy, Spain, Japan, etc. serving in Iraq right now should not be so lightly abused by Kerry and his supporters. These are facts, not tactics.

However, implying that Bush joined the National Guard to avoid combat after having richly condemned those who criticized Clinton for not serving in any way, shape, or form... is what?

Speaking for myself, I never said Kerry doesn't have a good shot at the Presidency. Though I don't trust Newsweek polls, I'm sure if the election were held today it could go either way. Add to that the usual Democrat vote fraud, and Kerry is a winner. (Sorry, but the Democrats control most major cities, and that's where most vote fraud occurs.)

As for Kerry's newly discovered Jewish roots, a reasonable person must ask how these things just happen to be discovered/revealed during political campaigns. An intelligent person would ask what this has to do with policies and leadership. Do you really think this type of manipulation is a good sign?


Re the scare tactics -- Without making a value judgement, I'm saying that Bush will use the fear factor, I'm sure. That if God forbid another 9-11 happens, Kerry wouldn't be able to deal with it. Bush would. Whether Bush or Kerry are better is of course unclear. One thing is clear though: Bush has shown to have balls in dealing with terrorism and defense. And he gets credit for doing so without precedance and pursuing it like a bulldozer without any support from anyone (except Blair). So, nothing is going to be the same re. terrorism in the future no matter who sits in the White House. Bush deserves credit for that. Re Kerry's Jewish roots -- I'm not sure what to think about it exactly. For two reasons: One -- why would it help him? and, two -- from what I hear (and I haven't followed it closely) his brother (who convereted years ago) didn't know either. So unless the whole thing is a gross manipulation (unlikely) it's remains just as an interesting story. Personally, the Jewish "thing" is not going to make me vote for him or not. And finally, as far as his support for Israel, it looks like it's going to be the Clinton-type support. And whether you like it or not really depends on your Israeli peace philosophy, beliefs and concept for the future. Remember when Bush was running against Gore, all the Jews supporetd Gore, not because of Lieberman, but because they wanted another Clinton.

[ibrodsky]

"I am David,"

OK, I simply don't agree with your understanding of how the economy works. Wealthy people do not put most of their money in banks. They do, in fact, invest their money because they understand that the average yield on a bank account or even money market is lower than inflation. I'm not sure that most new businesses are tech-related; but I'm positive that most new businesses that receive significant venture capital funding are tech-related.

I also don't agree the economy is a zero-sum game. History and experience have proved to me that new businesses create new sources of wealth. The economic boom of the 80s and 90s was mainly due to personal computers, the Internet and biotech--none of which existed in the 1970s.

My arguments against Kerry are based on his voting record and his positions as described on his website. There's no rhetoric and name-calling involved. He believes we must fight Islamism strictly through the UN. He is opposed to pre-emptive military strikes against dictators.

We are in the midst of WW III. Yet every Democrat candidate is worried that we deposed Saddam Hussein for the the wrong reason. They are more worried about advancing their careers than fighting evil.

The bottomline: who is tougher in dealing with rogue states that wish to harm us and our allies--Bush or Kerry?

And yes, you should be asking yourself why so many Democrats trot out their Jewish roots (real or claimed) during political campaigns. We've had Hillary Clinton (while running for the Senate), Wesley Clark, and now John Kerry do this. As someone quipped, "Good thing he managed to get Jewish grandparents in time for the New York and Florida primaries."

P.S.: I never referred to Kerry's "so-called" Jewish roots nor did I ever imply that they were fake. So please do not misrepresent my views. My only point is that I find it rather cynical of these people to discover or disclose this during campaigns. Obviously, they feel that Jewish support/votes is important, and apparently they believe that Jewish support can be secured merely by showing some Jewish blood in their background.

[I am David]

"ibrodsky",

That argument still does not take into the dynamics of the economy and human psych. Rich people DO save money in banks, its really the only "solid" place to have money along with some mutual funds. Stocks are just too risky and are a more "active" way of actually making money. But banks themselves are part of the investment process anyway so it doesnt matter. The point is that when the money is given back to the wealthy class in this way it stagnates. You are giving it back to ALL people of a certain wealth class, so there is a pretty even distribution of where that money is invested. What happens then is that a bunch of companies will see a small, insignificant rise in investment, but not enough to really effect anything significantly. That's just what happens with money when it gets spread out, the actual dollar value of that money becomes less meaningfull. Its like giving every american taxpayer back just $1. Do you really think it would revive the economy to any significant importance? No, however, if you took that money, and concentrated it, you would have a sum to the tune of about $50-100 million dollars, in which you could found a high tech company and create several thousand new steady jobs.

And you may be able to cite some instances where the tax cuts helped a company to a large degree, but whats important is what happens to the majority of that money.

Kerry: thats still the same old right-wing rehtoric. Whats the problem with using the UN, if it can be to our benifit. The UN is here to stay, for a while, wether you like it or not. Might as well use it to our benifit. Kerry is smart like that as opposed to Bush. Its just nonsense to say that Kerry is weak on defense, security, anything because he disagrees with how Bush went to war.

[Kev]

Well, it is about to get WORSE for Bush.


Al Qaeda plotting Iraq civil war: US (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1041704.htm)


Northern Iraq inches towards civil war (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4A325F43-3F0E-4C09-AE67-080953E4BBD0.htm)

[InrepBerkExpl]

As an American with some political experience, I think it's really much too early for arguments over predictions of the November 2004 results.

The country appears fairly equally divided now, as in 2000, which suggests another close election, especially in the Electoral College. The acrimony between Democrats and Republicans has clearly increased since Bush took office.

Thus, Bush has been a divider, not a uniter, which is one of his many broken campaign promises.

And let us not forget a special tradition in American political history started by President Adams and his son. Both members of the Adams family, father and son, were one-term Presidents, defeated for re-election.

The first President Bush has done his part to keep the pattern going. Now, George II has a real opportunity to join with John Quincy Adams in maintaining this American tradition against family dynasties.

Dave

[Mediocrates]

Do you think that John Adams and JQ Adams did a bad job?

[InrepBerkExpl]

Mediocrates,

John Adams, in my opinion, did a terrible job because the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during his administration. These laws put the President's political opponents in jail for what they wrote and said against Adams. It was clearly a violation of the First Amendment, probably the worst Federal anti-free speech/press statute in American history.

Thomas Jefferson easily defeated Adams in 1800, partly because of revulsion against such policies. Jefferson freed all the political prisoners. John Adams is also famous for leaving Washington D.C. to avoid participating in Jefferson's inaugural. To the best of my knowledge, no subsequent defeated President has been such a bad loser as regards attending the inauguration. (Of course Adams and Jefferson had been friends earlier during the Revolution, and renewed their friendship in a famous correspondence later.)

John Quincy Adams came into office having lost the 1824 popular vote to Andrew Jackson, with no candidate receiving a majority of the electoral votes, although Jackson led. That threw the contest into the House of Representatives, where Adams was victorious thanks to an alliance with Henry Clay, the "Corrupt Bargain" to Jackson supporters, since Adams appointed Clay as Secretary of State. (There is a George W. Bush parallel here, since he also lost the popular vote, and what happened in Florida still strikes most Democrats as corrupt. The "Corrupt Bargain" President never connected with the electorate while in office, had no party backing him, no real program other than visionary concepts, and was probably doomed from the start to only serve one term.

Andrew Jackson decisvely beat John Q. Adams in 1828. (The second defeated Adams is justly credited for returning to Washington as a Congressman and leading the early, lonely fight against slavery.)

In summary, I believe both Adams I and Adams II were poor Presidents, similar to Bush I and Bush II. One difference is that each Adams was beaten in a re-match against his original opponent. That was not the case with Bush I (Clinton instead of Dukakis), and appears unlikely for Bush II (Kerry not Gore). But I will settle for the same result as in 1828, with the son joining his father as a one-term ex-President.

Dave

[scattergood]

I agree with InrepBerkExpl and his analyis of the two Adams presidencies. I also want to add that American democracy is very different than the palimentary style that is practiced in Europe and Israel.

We don't have the number of parties and the splinter politics that are created...which is why the Perot's Third Party campaign in 1992 really helped Clinton vs. Bush Sr. and it was Nader's Green Party run the siphoned off the necessary votes from Gore that put Bush Jr. in the White House this last election.

My views are that approximately 35-40% of the voting public will vote for Bush basically no matter what. And 35-40% of the voting public will vote for Kerry or whatever Democrat ends up getting the nomination no matter what. For these voters, they are casting their ballot AGAINST the other side as much as for their own.

The key to national politics in America is the soft, chewy center...the swing voter. Sometimes called Soccer Mom's, this year called Nascar Dad's, the middle 20-30% of the voters that really tip the election.

And that's where I squarely sit. And it is a really tough call. I like Bush's foreign policy, and think it would have been a disaster if Gore was in office after 9/11. But I think his taxation, spending, immigration, and morality police are a disaster just waiting to happen. As for the Democrats, I don't know yet...but Kerry does have the most liberal voting record in the Senate recorded over the last 20 years.

All I can say is that this election will be the most divisive, bitter, and horrid expression of US politics in my lifetime.

[Alfred]

Well the democrats should be happy in any case. All this "war hero" JF Kerry stuff had to be giving them the hives in secret. Now we have Kerry Bimbo eruptions and that should bring back memories of past democratic greats.

Does Kerry like cigars?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
Mediocrates,

John Adams, in my opinion, did a terrible job because the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed during his administration. These laws put the President's political opponents in jail for what they wrote and said against Adams. It was clearly a violation of the First Amendment, probably the worst Federal anti-free speech/press statute in American history.

...



Thanks for the knowledgeable and well articulated post, Dave.

It's easy to criticize John Adams for the Alien and Sedition Act, but in fairness we should note that the country was still feeling its way along at that time. Drawing a line between loyal opposition and treason is not in and of itself a bad idea, though Adams was way off the mark.

John Adams is a great example of a great coach but lousy player. He was a leading architect of our system of checks and balances--our independent Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive branches--was he not?

I don't know much about John Quincy Adams, but from what I've read he was much more successful as a player. Sure, he was a one-term President, but he was a Senator and Secretary of State before that, and House Rep. for years after as you noted.

It's too bad that you gloss over the Adams' tremendous contributions and instead focus on coincidents and what you consider parallels to the Bush father/son presidents.

While I very much support GW Bush over the alternatives, I don't think he and his father can be justly compared to John and John Q. Adams. The Adams made their share of mistakes, but they were brilliant statesmen with a firm attachment to principles. Unfortunately, today's politicians are more media-savvy talking heads.

But I will credit GW Bush with one characteristic reminiscent of the Founding Fathers: he at least has the common sense to prefer Good over Evil. Too many contemporary politicians show nothing but disdain for moral choices.

[TheyAre]

One simple reason George W. Bush will be reelected:

He is the current President of the United States. And he is in control of an organized, cash-bloated political machine that the Democrats simply cannot match.

The only poll at the moment that matters is Bush's approval rating in the South. Where does it stand? 60%. If George W. Bush wraps up the South like he did in 2000, like the Republicans have since Nixon, this campaign is over.

Bush is overwhelmingly favored by white male voters. He's drawing hispanic and white female votes to him. Since Nixon, the Democrats have depended on the white female and minority vote to counterbalance the Republican's overwhelming dominance of the white male demographic.

Karl Rove has George W. Bush sitting there, turning the other cheek, while John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe consistently blast him day in and day out. Does anyone really believe that Kerry would be within ten percentage points of Bush if Dubya made a speech every day refuting what Kerry says and attacking him the way Kerry is at the moment?

If you repeat your message, lie or not, often enough, it sticks. If George W. Bush was gallivanting across the country making appearances nearly every day and cranking out press releases and going on TV and radio all the time, he'd be beating John Kerry handily. Kerry's advantage at the moment comes from the near total lack of counterattacks from the GOP.

Last week I was disgusted with Karl Rove. Bush was getting hammered on every front. It appeared that Rove was just letting the President sit there and take it.

And then Bush went on Meet the Press, and he looked like, for lack of a better term, a wimp.

And then Matt Drudge came out with this 'sex scandal' and Bush released his Vietnam records, and if you don't see the turnaround coming, then you're blind. Karl Rove had Bush playing the ptarmigan feigning a broken wing to draw the fox away from the nest.

The Democrats have brought out their big guns, and the best they can get is 52-43 with a five percent margin of error?

To think that George W. Bush is going to lose when he hasn't even begun to fight yet is folly. The man is sitting on what will become the largest political war chest in history. He has a voter base that delivered him a stunning midterm victory in 2002.

Its already being predicted that the Republicans are going to be picking more House and more Senate seats in 2004, and are going to solidify their majorities there.

Once summer comes, this election is going to be transformed. You're going to have a $200,000,000 juggernaut traveling across the country, meeting the opponent blow for blow instead of sitting back and allowing itself to be hit.

The one thing to remember is that the Presidential campaign hasn't even started. The Democrats haven't chosen a candidate. The elephant is still standing in its enclosure while the donkey is stampeding through the barn. What do you think is going to happen once Karl Rove lets the elephant out?

[Noam]

"One simple reason George W. Bush will be reelected:

He is the current President of the United States. And he is in control of an organized, cash-bloated political machine that the Democrats simply cannot match."...

I hope you are wrong.

If Bush is not re elected BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REALIZE that what he is doing in the world (FIGHITING TERRORISM AND TYRRANY) is worth giving him the reigns for 4 more years....
If he does not have the support of the AMERICAN PEOPLE in leading America in fight to ERADICATE FANATIC ISLAM

If his victory does not seem a global, enthusiastic support for this CLASH OF CIVLIZATIONS---

then it is for NAUGHT.

Only if the Arabs recognize that the AMERICAN PEOPLE are behind the leader and the Armed forces--will they comply and try to change. As long as they feel that their terrorism can marr and defeat the American SPIRIT--they Fanatic elements will continue.

ANd these new internet AL Aqeda youngster--understand the power of media and mob psychology--rather well.

Funny thing is that watching the administration lately, I am somewhat less confident in my original post.
Perhaps Mother History is more patient than me.

[Sana]

Originally posted by RichardP
Excellent retort, ibrodsky!


~maybe we should vote for Ibrodsky for President...but since he isn't running for President...My vote is for BUSH!~ :)

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Sana
~maybe we should vote for Ibrodsky for President...but since he isn't running for President...My vote is for BUSH!~ :)

Just to make it official, I hereby authorize my legions of followers to work and vote for George W. Bush. :D

[Alfred]

Thanks but it won't do any good. The media has already declared Kerry the winner. :)

[red crabtree]

Dave, have you read the most recent biography of John Adams? It is extremely good and unlike other biographies it is a much more balanced view of Adams I believe.

The only thing about Bush I like is his war on terrorism, and even then I am appalled at the lack of planning in Iraq. One of my best friends all the way back from elementary school is stationed in Hawaii with her Navy husband. I talked with her the other night, and if what she says is any indication there are more than a few in the military who were original enthusastic supporters of Bush, but are looking at it much harder now as, from what she was saying, they feel that they have been hung out to dry with the poor planning. Her husband's youngest brother will be on the ground in Iraq within the month. He is a transport truck driver, he will be very much at risk.

I can't vote simply on the terrorist threat either. In Michigan we have factories closing up and going to Mexico left and right. 6 have announced plans to go in just the last couple months. Where my husband works every time there is a problem and the union says anything, the factory management tells them that if they don't like it then the factory can just pack up and move to Mexico. Was having coffee this morning and a gal at another table was talking, the place her husband is working at just told them yesterday they too are going south of the border. My brother in law is now out of work after his factory closed, after 23 years. He went to work there right out of high school and has never worked anywhere else. At the same time the top 1% is getting tax cuts. Don't tell me there is a recovery, if there is one we haven't see it in Michigan.

[InrepBerkExpl]

red crabtree,

American history has always been one of my favorite subjects.
Unfortunately, a combination of the internet, plus my world travel/video editing hobby, (28 travel videos as The Intrepid Berkeley Explorer), has pretty much extinguished my time for reading books.

So I have not read the new John Adams biography you refer to.

I am now so oriented to visual presentations that the clearest picture I have of John Adams is still from the musical "1776". My hunch remains that the creators of "1776" got most of it right.

Bush has failed as Commander In Chief, botching the War on Terrorism by invading Iraq without a decent reason or plan. I hope you will vote for the Democratic candidate, presumably Senator Kerry.

[red crabtree]

We have something in common then. I love history, all of it. The drama of reality is ever so much better than fiction.

In regards to Adams, I think it is necessary to understand that he was under tremendous pressure from his own party, as well as his wife, to pass the Alien and Sedition Act. At that time we were in a quasi-war with France and there was great fear that a real war would break out. Remember the signing of the Alien and Sedition Act was after the XYZ affair. It is also useful to recall that one of the journalists targeted under the act was Thomas Callender, a man who published what today would have probably only made the National Enquirer and most of what was published against Adams and his party, but Adams in particular, was from Thomas Jefferson who paid Mr. Callender to publish it. It is interesting to note that after Callender ran for office and did not receive the support of Jefferson as he expected and then lost his bid, he was the very first to write that Jefferson had fathered children with Sally Hemmings. The dirty dealings by politicians in this general time frame make what happens today quite tame by comparison. None of which frankly, makes me admire the founders any less, as all of them had the courage to stand for basic rights of people at a time it meant death to do so. They all held very strong convictions, but thanks to a well written constitution and the belief that it must stand, a young country survived and was stronger for it's growing pains.

In defense of Adams I also wish to note that he was the author of the oldest constitituional framework when he wrote the Constitution of Massachusetts, he was the first to put in writing a bill of rights, as the beginning to that Constitution. It was he that requested the bill of rights to the American Constitution, and all one must do is read the Mass. Constitution to know that the American Bill of Rights took the Mass. Bill of Rights as it's mother. It should also be noted that after the infamous Boston Massacre it was Adams who defended the British soldiers as he believed so deeply that all deserved a fair trail. It was a grave and difficult decision he made, especially for the man who was one of the first to call for separation from England. He lost some 30 law clients over it, no small thing in that time frame.

It should also be noted that Woodrow Wilson placed limits on freedom of speech during WWI under the Epsinage and sedition acts of 1917. And that Lincoln during the Civil War placed restrictions on the freedom of the press and civil rights, and that was done without consulting Congress. I think Adams gets a bad rap for doing basicly the same thing as others during times of National stress and wars because he was a cocky little bantam rooster who made enemies easily with his outspoken and stubborn nature. Was the Alien and Sedition Acts right? No, no more than the others I have cited as well as the Patriot Act. All of them throw out the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment and the US Constitution should not be discarded in that manner.
It's the easy way out to look as if you are being tough, when in reality it is does little in terms of real security, at least in my mind. History is never kind to this assaults on the Constitution either. In time history will not be kind to GW Bush for the same reasons.

It is not likely that I will vote for Bush. It takes much more to run a country than to throw your weight around and be tough. I supported the war in Iraq, but have been incredibly dismayed by the lack of planning and the belief that we could do what we are attempting to do with as few troops as are there. I don't need the govn't attempting to be the morality police, social pressures and social discourse need to be the driving force behind that. I am a traditionist I suppose and much of pop culture and it's breathen disgust the hell out of me, and therefore some things are simply not allowed in my house. I don't have a problem with govn't officials raising issues for debate, I do have a problem with govn't officials attempting to legislate their brand of morality. I think Bush is incredibly insensitive to those blue collar white guys in the south that are voting for him. Those "Nascar Dad's" or whatever one wants to call them this year. He has attempted to roll back veteran's benefits at a time we have our young soldiers dying for his vision of the world. Does anyone here realize how important it is in the south regarding military duty? Talk about spitting on those who brought you to the dance.

As I said, jobs in Michigan are a huge huge issue here right now. For myself, as a nurse, healthcare is also a tremendous issue. The new Medicare bill? It busts the bank and at the same time did little for those who need prescription benefits, but give all sorts of beenies to the insurance companies. Yea, the ones who will tell you they aren't paying for you to stay in a hospital after your hip is broke. Too bad go rehab at a nursing home. And I'm here to tell you that I worked in long term care for 5 years and there is not enough staff in a nursing home to do what they are now being asked to do. Open heart surgery? 4 days in the hospital bucko. That's called DRG's and guess who invented them? An accounting firm in Seattle, not someone in healthcare who knows what it takes to get someone back on their feet again. You've never seen anything quite as fun as someone with their chest hanging open from a none healing surgical wound from open heart surgery, gapping open even more with each breathe. I've actually been able to visualize patients lungs in this situation. And who is sending these people home before they are ready? The hospital who knows they will not be reimbursed if they do not. So they go home and get readmitted, so the insurance company can ultimately pay much more than if it was done right the first time. Talk about assinine policies. Don't for a minute think you have control over your healthcare unless you are independently wealthy. Whoever is your insurance provider has control, the same one's who Bush gave even more.

Funding for Community Colleges are slated to be cut at the same time Pell grants and other assistance to those who cannot affored college will be cut. Tutition will increase and funding to help pay that increase will decrease, so we can be a nation of undereducated folks who can't even get decent paying factory jobs because they are going to Mexico. And by the way while we are at it we'll allow those illegal aliens legal status and terrorists aren't bright enough to know they can come across the Mexican border too.

And if that were not enough to focus on, let's worry about steroid use in the State of the Union address. For God's sake that's freaking important when our supposed ally in the war on Terrorism refuses to let us cross the border and wipe out the rest of the Taliban, and also refuses to turn over the madman who gave nuclear secrets to every damn dictator that is an enemy of this country. But hell yes, Pakistan is our friend. Just ask Bush and he'll tell you so.

So no, it is not likely I'll be voting for the man who obviously doesn't know how to balance a checkbook or use much common sense. Not to mention allowing a tinpot Tammany hall boss Tweed wannabe to pull him around by the ear. I say a pox on all their houses!

[Alfred]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl


Bush has failed as Commander In Chief, botching the War on Terrorism by invading Iraq without a decent reason or plan. I hope you will vote for the Democratic candidate, presumably Senator Kerry.


I am shocked.....shocked, that anyone from Bizerkly would advise someone to vote for the democrat. First of all, I didn't think they still allowed voting in the PRB....secondly, I thought the democrats were too ultra- conservative for you.


:) :)

[InrepBerkExpl]

Alfred,

I would think there are enough false stereotypes floating around without any need for you to promote new ones.

Since your are probably from some part of the United States unfamiliar with City of Berkeley voting patterns, I am glad to explain these to you.

Berkeley's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic. Most of the Republicans have died or moved away. No Republican has been elected to any partisan office in Berkeley for over 35 years.

Thus, in the November 2000 Election for President, here is how Berkeley actually voted:

Gore 42,167
Nader 7,100
GBush 4,177

I do hope you are not shocked by Bush losing over ten to one in Berkeley, and coming in third.

So you don't have to worry for a single second about Berkeley doing its part to help California and the rest of the nation add George W Bush to the unemployment list on November 2, 2004.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl


Since your are probably from some part of the United States unfamiliar with City of Berkeley voting patterns, I am glad to explain these to you.

Berkeley's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic. Most of the Republicans have died or moved away. No Republican has been elected to any partisan office in Berkeley for over 35 years.

So you don't have to worry for a single second about Berkeley doing its part to help California and the rest of the nation add George W Bush to the unemployment list on November 2, 2004.

It's also home to a university at which an Arabic instructor promotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and a pro-Palestinian instructor included this gem in his course description:

. . . This class takes as its starting point the right of Palestinians to fight for their own self-determination. Conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections."

Plus, there was a well-organized effort at the home of the 1960s Free Speech Movement to prevent Daniel Pipes from speaking.

My niece is a grad student at UC Berkeley and reports she has seen bumper stickers around town that say "Israel Must Die!"

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Alfred
I am shocked.....shocked, that anyone from Bizerkly would advise someone to vote for the democrat. First of all, I didn't think they still allowed voting in the PRB....secondly, I thought the democrats were too ultra- conservative for you.


:) :)
As you will have no doubt noted in "whatshisname"'s reply, they seemed to have voted out having a sense of humor along with whatever else they felt did not fit their "vision" of the future.

[Alma]

Bush will indeed win big. Because of NADER! (He's just announced he's running...)

[Alfred]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
Alfred,

I would think there are enough false stereotypes floating around without any need for you to promote new ones.

Since your are probably from some part of the United States unfamiliar with City of Berkeley voting patterns, I am glad to explain these to you.

Berkeley's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic. Most of the Republicans have died or moved away. No Republican has been elected to any partisan office in Berkeley for over 35 years.



Actually, I grew up in San Jose during the mid to late1960's and early 1970's. So I am VERY familiar with Bizerkly and their, how does one say politely, phobias and idiocyncracies. It appears that many students during those lovely times never left campus or the 'hood they fell in love with (getting all those deferments and government grants you know). The PRB is a very interesting place and I wish you well living there. You must feel concerned however, in that Frisco next door is starting to out-flank Berkeley as the nations capital of ......uh.....hmmm....of....hmmm.

cheers :)

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by InrepBerkExpl
No one can get a Berkeley marriage license, regardless of gender or species. :) :)

A temporary anomaly I assure you.

[GenGates1776]

The truth is obvious. Bush is the only president for the betterment of Israel, and the Israeli people. The person who poseted this thread made it very clear. Vestiges of terrorism are crumbling in the middle east. That is evident enough that Bush should be reelected. Perhaps even a constitutional amendment for him to serve a third term! I don't see why not, if the people want him as president for a third term, why should the government stop them?

[Alfred]

Being a conservative constitutionalist, I am not happy with many of Bush's leftward leaning economic policies. On the whole however, I like the guy. I am willing to put up with them in the shortrun because we are at war. I do dread the day that a democrat comes to power with the Patriot Act under his belt however. We should put a time limit on the Act.

If I were Israeli? I would beg, borrow and steal money to contribute to Bush's campaign.

If a democrat gets into office you will witness the death or absorption of Israel. Europe will take over the leadership role and dictate Israels fate (France and Germany will lead this United Effort to solve the ME problem) These are different days than under the Clinton administration. It may not be a conscience effort by Kerry to kill Israel...but it will be the result.

That is my opinion of course.

[Kev]

Originally posted by Alfred
Being a conservative constitutionalist, I am not happy with many of Bush's leftward leaning economic policies. On the whole however, I like the guy. I am willing to put up with them in the shortrun because we are at war. I do dread the day that a democrat comes to power with the Patriot Act under his belt however. We should put a time limit on the Act.

If I were Israeli? I would beg, borrow and steal money to contribute to Bush's campaign.

If a democrat gets into office you will witness the death or absorption of Israel. Europe will take over the leadership role and dictate Israels fate (France and Germany will lead this United Effort to solve the ME problem) These are different days than under the Clinton administration. It may not be a conscience effort by Kerry to kill Israel...but it will be the result.

That is my opinion of course.


I would say that about sums up my feelings on the issue as well.

I may not love Bush but I do believe it will be far worse for Israelis and better for Islamists if Kerry or any Dem were to win.


As for Nadar ensuring Bush's win this time?
I've got to believe that the left is a bit better organized this time and won't allow the same mistake to be made.



However, I am noticing that it is mostly American or American Jews who are responding to this thread.

I would be curious to hear how the Israeli Jews feel about Bush and his presidency.................and/or how it affects them?


For up until this forum, most Israeli Jews I spoke to hated Bush with a passion and felt he was selling them down the road to oblivion with the Road Map.

I do however agree with Noam who suggests that unless all Americans are behind Bush instead of the left and the right in house fighting, it may all be for naught! ;-(

[Kev]

No Victory, No Peace
What Rumsfeld's Memo Reveals...and Other Lessons from the War So Far.




Interesting article, although some may not like the message, HERE (http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/winter2003/codevilla.html)

[Sana]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Just to make it official, I hereby authorize my legions of followers to work and vote for George W. Bush. :D




~Well since its official...I WILL VOTE FOR BUSH, only if you are not officially running for preisdent that is, ;) l~

[Sana]

Originally posted by Alfred
Thanks but it won't do any good. The media has already declared Kerry the winner. :)





~Then we will have to prove to the world that the Media doesn't control everything (like some say) ...Bush will win come election time just you wait and see.~

[Sana]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kev
[B]I would say that about sums up my feelings on the issue as well.

However, I am noticing that it is mostly American or American Jews who are responding to this thread.

I would be curious to hear how the Israeli Jews feel about Bush and his presidency.................and/or how it affects them?







~How about the Israeli Arab? Are you curious about that too? Ok just so you know my vote is for Bush, My husband is from Israel and he thinks Bush will do more to make peace in his country than anyone else. Right now he is upset with Bush for slipping from his work on the road map for peace in Israel, I've explain that right now he is having to defend his reasons for going to Iraq, that if he is elected he will again start working with Israel to obtain peace there. Hopefully he hasn't forgotten this. ~

[Noam]

"would be curious to hear how the Israeli Jews feel about Bush and his presidency.................and/or how it affects them?"

An Israeli STARTED the thread.

We are too worried about the mental status of Sharon (sugar level and what not) to worry about Bush.

If Bush loses, we think the region will fall back into Fanatic Islamic hands and that is very bad.

Realistically speaking-- NOTHING WILL MATERIALIZE until ISALM goes thru MAJOR REFORMS.

THE ONLY PROBLEM IN THE MIDDLE EAST is Arab dictatorships and EXPLOITATION OF 650,00,000 WOMEN.

However, Social changes are the SLOWEST PROCESS IN THE WEST (slower than Heinz Catsup..and now that Terry is going to be the First lady--Catsup becomes VERY VERY IMPORTANT!)

So we will face the same problems for MANY DECADES TO COME. THe one with the stamina will win.

Meantime the Blossom in Western Negev is ASTOUNDING!