So for you, Jumper, it's basically a vote against Bush rather than a vote for Kerry?
I'm still really puzzled that he got the nomination to begin with. IMO Liberman would have been a much better choice.
reason wrote:
[quote}If we allow someone to corrupt the foundation of this country for political means, we are all in trouble.[/quote]
The Constitution has been amended in the past. Why was it OK then and not OK now?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wars are costly, I'm sure you know that. So is creating Homeland Security in the wake of 9/11. Even if Gore had won, we'd still be in the red.Originally posted by Jumper69:
He's put our country into debt not seen since Reagan. But without the benefits that Reagan saw.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">While this sounds like Bush bashing, it really is nothing more than an assement of his mastery of language. If I were to pick between the two candidates regarding their abilities to tell the populace why we have over 100,000 soldiers in Iraq, I'm betting on Kerry to do the better job.Bush doesn't have English as a first language?
Because Bush hasn't done it, nor do I think he's quite sure why we have. I'm angry that he hasn't been able to provide a consistent message as to why we're doing what we're doing.
Kerry is no orator, but he's better than Bush.
(And for the record, I'm not particularly enamored with Kerry, despite the fact he's getting my vote.)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has it always been ok?The Constitution has been amended in the past. Why was it OK then and not OK now?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's not a question about the war Lake. The tax cuts were enacted before 9/11 (I think). However comma the logical thing in my mind would be to repeal the tax breaks until after the war.Wars are costly, I'm sure you know that. So is creating Homeland Security in the wake of 9/11. Even if Gore had won, we'd still be in the red.
But you can't do that when you don't know when the "end" is and you also can't do it when the majority of the population doesn't support the war in the first place.
Based on your quote above, the tax cuts, to me, seem like pandering rather than any real meaningful economic reform.
So, that's two votes against Bush, but not really for Kerry.
Would either of you care to comment on Kerry's statement that if he's elected president, he'll wage a more "sensitive" war?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know, it really doesn't bother me that Bush "misunderestimates" things.Kerry is no orator, but he's better than Bush.
Waging a "more sensitive war", on the surface, has to be one of the DUMBEST statements I've ever heard a politician make.
I think he was trying to make the point that he would be more sensitive towards what the muslims consider holy. Not that he would be less lethal.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can do both effectively.
I really really really wish I could look Kerry in the face and tell him he has my vote but I find him to be one of the slimiest politicians I've ever seen.
I wish I could tell him that it is truly pathetic that he has about 30 years in government and all he can show the public that he's qualified to be President is a 4 month stint in a war that happend over 30 years ago.
Ugh...I'm so disappointed in my choices for Prez.
What about Kerry's Senate record?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Has it always been ok?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You tell me. <===LinkOriginally posted by reason:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Constitution has been amended in the past. Why was it OK then and not OK now?
The only one I can speak to is #26, because, I was, you know, there man. That amendment was completely political.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks