M
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Thank you so much. I just watched all 12:19 seconds of this advertisement from the Republican National Committee. Boy, it sure is spooky.
But, when you get down to it, the election in November is going to be between the two republican candidates (Bush & Nader) and Kerry.
So the question becomes ... do you want a candidate who reads and thinks and opinions may change when new information is received and processed, or do you want Judge Roy Moore's Rock in the White House?
Mike
But, when you get down to it, the election in November is going to be between the two republican candidates (Bush & Nader) and Kerry.
So the question becomes ... do you want a candidate who reads and thinks and opinions may change when new information is received and processed, or do you want Judge Roy Moore's Rock in the White House?
Mike
Cruentus
Grandmaster
MisterMike said:
Ah...so let me see if I understand correctly....
John Kerry is a "flip flopper" because he BELIEVED THE LIES that OUR PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION told in 2001? Ummm...shame on who?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
Paul,
There is a definate eliment of truth in what you post here. But we also need to recognize why these attack are being created, and if they are going to be effective.
The argument goes that Kerry took his positions based on the "POLITICS" of running for president; that he will change his position based on what he thinks is good for himself, rather than what is good for the country. The argument is that Kerry is a 'Politician'; which disqualifies him from holding a political office, don't you know.
I can understand that many people feel that all the information coming from the Bush White House prior to the invasion of the war has been proven to be untruthful and we were all duped. I don't buy this argument, because I was aware of the fact that the Administrations arguments for war were weak, because I was looking at different news sources. Senator Kerry had access to much more information than most of us, so he should have been able to make a better decision.
Regardless ... Kerry can not say now that the war in Iraq was a bad idea and should not have been fought. He would get attacked from the right that 'Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man and John Kerry would have left him in power.'
This argument is 'Might Makes Right'. The United States unseated a vile dictator, so of course it is OK. "We're good. He was bad. What's the problem?"
The President has said "The world is safer now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power". I disagree with this statement. I do not feel the world is safer when one country can invade another country for no cause (there were no weapons, there were no delivery systems). I believe the danger to the world is the hubris of the United States.
So ... Kerry is untrustworthy as president because he is a politician; whereas Bush is a regular guy, who makes a decision and sticks to it. Of course, if anyone thinks Bush's tax cuts are political (It's your money - must stimulate economy), they are ignoring that all politicians are political.
Mike
There is a definate eliment of truth in what you post here. But we also need to recognize why these attack are being created, and if they are going to be effective.
The argument goes that Kerry took his positions based on the "POLITICS" of running for president; that he will change his position based on what he thinks is good for himself, rather than what is good for the country. The argument is that Kerry is a 'Politician'; which disqualifies him from holding a political office, don't you know.
I can understand that many people feel that all the information coming from the Bush White House prior to the invasion of the war has been proven to be untruthful and we were all duped. I don't buy this argument, because I was aware of the fact that the Administrations arguments for war were weak, because I was looking at different news sources. Senator Kerry had access to much more information than most of us, so he should have been able to make a better decision.
Regardless ... Kerry can not say now that the war in Iraq was a bad idea and should not have been fought. He would get attacked from the right that 'Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man and John Kerry would have left him in power.'
This argument is 'Might Makes Right'. The United States unseated a vile dictator, so of course it is OK. "We're good. He was bad. What's the problem?"
The President has said "The world is safer now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power". I disagree with this statement. I do not feel the world is safer when one country can invade another country for no cause (there were no weapons, there were no delivery systems). I believe the danger to the world is the hubris of the United States.
So ... Kerry is untrustworthy as president because he is a politician; whereas Bush is a regular guy, who makes a decision and sticks to it. Of course, if anyone thinks Bush's tax cuts are political (It's your money - must stimulate economy), they are ignoring that all politicians are political.
Mike
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
I was for the war, too. Then I learned that the President lied to us in order to get us into a war that he'd been planning since before his inauguration. So now I'm against the war.
Guess I'm just a flip-flopper.
Oh, and by the way, I think anyone who makes a decision and doggedly sticks to it no matter how wrong it turns out to be is an arrogant imbecile. I'll take the guy who reconsiders his opinions based on new evidence any day.
Guess I'm just a flip-flopper.
Oh, and by the way, I think anyone who makes a decision and doggedly sticks to it no matter how wrong it turns out to be is an arrogant imbecile. I'll take the guy who reconsiders his opinions based on new evidence any day.
OP
MartialArtist68
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #6
Personally, I beleive that no matter what the president tells us, we should always seek the peaceful solution. Who were we to decide what was cruel and wrong for the Iraqi people? I'm not saying that I support what Hussein was doing, I just believe that, as a country, we need to stop trying to dominate the world.
