|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:00 am: Edit|
A Time magazine poll shows President Bush has opened an eleven point lead over Senator Kerry. I suspect the polls will narrow as we get closer to the election, but President Bush clearly has the momentum.
BTW, Simba, isn't Time one of those magazines on your side of the fence?
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit|
Though it doesn't necessarily show anything. Most magazine polls are phone calls and they only poll what, like ~1000 people?
We'll all find out in November.
|By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:21 am: Edit|
Wow Vancat...that was an impressive statement from you...*applauds* Just kidding. I actually think you make pretty good points at times.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:30 am: Edit|
That's RIGHT BOY!
Now go tell that to Scubasteve on our USA basketball thread
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit|
things should tighten up after the debates. maybe the candidates will surprise us and actually debate the issues, rather than speaking in vague generalities and platitudes like most of the republicans did during their convention. i'm glad kerry has gotten a little tougher on his critics. he should be swinging harder. he oughtta realize that the republicans are thugs and are willing to do ANYTHING to win.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 12:53 am: Edit|
vacent, all the polls are between 500-1500. You cannot judge anything by one poll, you need to see what the other polls say and look at them as a whole. I thought the convention was extremly effective, but I did not think this kind of bounce was possible. Dick Morris said Bush would get an 8 point lead, and O'reilly thought that was generous.
I think it will narrow to around a 4-6% Bush lead as kerry starts attacking, although his rebuttle speeches have been bad. I dont think the debates will change much unless one of them fumbles. By that time, almost everyone will have made up their minds, and neither are great or horrible debaters.
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 02:13 am: Edit|
lol vancant... beat me 1on1 in bball and i will concede to your view
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:05 am: Edit|
Sen. Kerry and the democratic candidates have slandered the President for over two years. Now that Pres. Bush and the republicans have had the opportunity to respond, the obvious logic of their views is sounding favorably among voters.
|By Matth (Matth) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:38 am: Edit|
If by slander you mean speaking the truth, then I guess they're guilty.
|By Vancat (Vancat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit|
" lol vancant... beat me 1on1 in bball and i will concede to your view "
You just admitted you were wrong by changing and/or avoiding the subject.
|By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit|
"Most magazine polls are phone calls and they only poll what, like ~1000 people?"
Aren't ALL polls like that? The cost far exceeds the slight gain in accuracy as you poll any more than about 1000 people. And how would you propose people be interviewed besides telephones?
|By Driver (Driver) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit|
I was skeptical about the Time poll as well...and then the Newsweek poll today just confirmed it. Hope they're right. God bless W.
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit|
Anything but Kerry/Edwards. Can you imagine having to listen to the bore and the snake oil salesman for 4 years? And it would just be 4.
|By Driver (Driver) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 02:20 pm: Edit|
Kerry is one of the few people I can think of who truly "intones" when he speaks. I pray that I will not be hearing much from him after November.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 02:51 pm: Edit|
kerry and edwards are bigger bores and snake oil salemen than george bush? god, do you guys read anything beyond the republican platitudes? take a look at the so-called tax relief? who is it really helping? take a look at no child left behind. it's not funded as promised. take a look at the results of the war in iraq. does the world want to help us fight the war on terrorism? are there more or less terrorists now? get beyond the simplistic republican rhetoric and pandering to patriotism and please really think. you can love your country and still criticize it in the hope of making it better. bush's policies are bad for the country and the world--so say a majority of world leaders, former US generals, former US diplomats of both parties who have a hell of a lot more experience than george . . . and any of us on this message board.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 03:01 pm: Edit|
Newsweek, another left leaning mag., has a poll showing Pres. Bush up by 13 over Sen. Kerry. Newsweek's Evan Thomas must be in tears right now.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit|
yes, most of the free-thinking world is probably in tears. but, you must consider that an incumbent president leading only by 11-13 points at this point in the election year is actually a sign of weakness of the bush campaign. things should not have been as close as they have been, he should be leading by more. he will probably get a bump from the convention, then it will close up again during the debates. it's a close one. bush should be doing better, but he isn't.
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 03:11 pm: Edit|
Ah youth! Annakat, Clinton was the king of unfunded educational mandates. Who is believing platitudes?
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 03:13 pm: Edit|
mom101, clinton's in a hospital right now awaiting surgery. he's not running for president. george bush is in the white house.
why can't you argue that george bush is doing a good job, rather than attacking a former president? i also raised issues about taxes and the impact of bush's decision to go into iraq. what do you think about those things?
and why the snake oil salesman metaphor? what makes you say that? please, tell me.
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 03:22 pm: Edit|
I'm not a Bush fan. Though Bush over Kerry all the way. I'm simply giving you the history of the feds, dems and republicans, presiding over unfunded mandates in education. Everything is not black or white. Everyone not a Bush or Kerry supporter.
Snake oil? Just my personal response to what I see in Edwards as an individual and what I know of his legal career. My favorite Edwards quote, at a campaign stop to a girl about 8: "yes little darlin, I can protect you from terrorists." Yuk.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 03:28 pm: Edit|
my brother is an attorney, and he does pro-bono work representing poor people in personal injury lawsuits. yes, there are a lot of lawyers out there to make a buck, especially in the personal injury field. but there are also people, like edwards, doing it to help the little guys get as much legal help as the big companies they're going up against. there is strong financial incentive in many lines of work. why do you think some doctors choose the specialties they choose? sure, there is interest, but there is a financial incentive as well. just as there is in every profession. why do you think more people don't go into teaching?
and how is edwards' comment to the 8 year-old worse than bush reading to kids after knowing the country he leads was under attack? do you guys remember bush saying he watched the second plane going into the WTC? now apparently it's been shown that he was sitting in that classroom for a while.
|By Thermodude (Thermodude) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit|
For me, a main reason I support Kerry is due to the environmental policies of the Bush administration. Bush has essentially repealed environmental acts made by several of the past administrations. Taking care of the environment and the earth we live in is an agenda that does not belong to a political party, but to humanity in general. Reckless environmental policies in the long run could potentially pose more of a threat to human life than any other issue. I fear Bush does not understand this, and caves in to the interests of big corporations.
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit|
What should Bush have done Annakat, jumped up and told the kids we were under attack? Do you think he could have stopped the second plane? Please! More Moore drivel. And yes Annakat, Edwards' refusal for tort reform is based on his incredibly charitable nature. He just wants to help poor oppressed people for his 33% that he then invests in Asian funds while critizing outsourcing.
|By Hayden (Hayden) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit|
What about the 3rd plane, and the 4th? What if there had been a 5th, 6th, or 7th?
There is a huge range of options between sitting there for all that time, and jumping up and telling people we were under attack. The explanation that he didn't want to scare the kids doesn't hold up - after all, they found out fairly soon on their own, and the pictures were pretty scary. All he had to do was smile and say his staff needed him just as the principal sometimes needed to speak to their teacher, and leave. You think that if he did that the kids would start screaming in fear?
The reasons many of us who are not Bush supporters focus on this is because it touches on one of the fears some of us have that when under strong personal pressure on himself, he doesn't react well.
One of the CEO's whose company lost a lot of people in the WTC attack had started a strategy to map out what his people needed between the first and second plane strike. That's how a leader acts.
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 08:46 pm: Edit|
I think it absurd to think that Bush should have reacted any faster. A good leader takes time to digest. Moores footage actually showed Bush to be in a seemingly contemplative lock. I would have given it some deep thought, too. And I'm no Bush lover.
|By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 09:05 pm: Edit|
"Newsweek, another left leaning mag., has a poll showing Pres. Bush up by 13 over Sen. Kerry. Newsweek's Evan Thomas must be in tears right now."
That poll oversamples Republicans by 3 percent and undersamples Democrats by 7 percent.
Voter registration in the US has recently been 38 percent Democrat 35 Republican, but Newsweek interviewed 31 percent Democrats and 38 percent Republicans.
|By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit|
Actually the thing Bush should have done would have been to say..."Kids, I'm very sorry but I have to leave right now. Some Presidential business about the country has come up, but I applaud your reading skills and keep working hard in school." and walked out of the school leaving the kids safe. If the President would have been a target that way I'm sure people could have found out where he was going and the kids at that school would have been in very serious danged (ala Russia).
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit|
And then done what Jauq? What's the most important decision you have had to make that concerned numerous others? To down play contemplation is just silly.
|By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 09:21 pm: Edit|
Believe me, while I don't think Bush is entirely stupid, I don't think he contemplates about much. I don't see why you are defending him when leading conservatives have even called into question his actions.
He leaves the school, gets on Air Force One, talks to his advisors and makes a plan. But the #1 thing he does is get up and leave the school so that the children are no longer in danger.
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 09:24 pm: Edit|
I don't care what "leading conservatives" think. I know I would take some time to think before acting.
|By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit|
Then Mom, I'm glad you arent President.
You aren't proving a point right now and are senselessly defending Bush. And if you are thinking, why don't you get out of the school so you can think with your advisors?
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit|
mom101, bush should have told the kids he had something very important to take care of, and excused himself. not just sit there. i agree with jaug1.
if contemplation without any information was his first instinct upon being told that the country is under attack, then do you really want him as your commander-in-chief? he should have excused himself and found out what was going on.
as for your criticism of edwards . . . we're not debating the pros and cons of capitalism. i think we all agree for the most part that making money is not a bad thing. but at least he makes money and wants to help people. they're not mutually exclusive things. so that argument that making money makes you a hypocrite or somehow insincere about wanting to help people is weak. he's doing something to help people from his position of power and privilege because he can. not because he has to.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit|
After one of the planes hit the Pentagon, Sen. Kerry waited over 30 minutes before he did anyting at all. He just sat there stunned like everyone else in the Country. The real question is who got the job done after everyone realized we were hit by terrorists and the answer is pretty clear that Pres. Bush didn not waste much time before taking care of business in Afghanistan.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 10:35 pm: Edit|
well, thinkingoutloud, the difference here between kerry and bush, and the glaring flaw in your argument is that bush was president. kerry wasn't. kerry probably did the same thing most senators there did that day. it was bush's job to do something, to react more quickly, to make a decision. not kerry's. so try another argument. one with substance.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, September 04, 2004 - 11:07 pm: Edit|
Annakat, Why would you focus on something so irrelevant? If Pres. Bush would have acted immediately, are you suggesting the course of events would have occurred differently? What decision was President Bush supposed to make that would have saved the day? If Sen. Kerry had been President at the time, are you saying he would have jumped up and done something? What would Sen. Kerry have done and so what? Your argument is just another cheap shot at the President because you don't like his policies. Try a better argument -- one that matters.
|By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:25 am: Edit|
bush's reaction to the country coming under attack isn't relevant? what do you mean? i'm not harping on the course of events that day. i'm questioning bush's reaction as commander-in-chief. you know what decision he should have made when he was told the country was under attack? he should have decided to get up and find out what was happening. it's pretty simple. i don't need a better argument. this one does matter.
AND if you think it doesn't matter, then why did you make the comparison between bush and kerry's actions? this is just another one of your ramblings to mask the illogical in your postings. just like your postings on other topics, such as affirmative action. weak, thinkingoutloud. so i say again . . . try another argument. one with substance.
|By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:40 am: Edit|
what do you think kerry would have done used his superpowers to fly out there and use his lungs to blow out the fires that made the structures fall down. what was there for bush to do imeditally, and also where was bush to go the whight house? dont forget the pentagon got hit also what if the terrorist were to hit another building, one where bush was in. it was the secreat service who probably told him to stay put.
|By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:51 am: Edit|
lol...socalnick...sometimes the ignorance on this board is staggering...
Ari Fleisher, the press secretary at the time (who has now resigned) walked up to President Bush and said "the nation is under attack." Now, if I were President I would immediately get up just to keep the children safe, get on Air Force One to get as much information as I could and make a decision from that point on. Sitting and staring blankly doesn't do this country any good in a time of crisis.
|By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:55 am: Edit|
so let me ask you this Jauq1 what would you have done once you got on air force 1.
|By Phantom (Phantom) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit|
Personally, I think it's alright that Bush reacted the way he did. His administration was busily gathering information at that point (they wouldn't have been gathering info any more faster had Bush excused himself). If there was anything urgent, he would have been immediately notified. Ari Fleischer was holding up a sign at the back of the classroom with the words, "Don't say anything yet." After the 7 minutes, he would have been given more reliable information to act on. I don't think there was anything he could've done at that point that would have made a difference in how things turned out.
What if the president had been targeted? Well, Bush hung around the elementary school afterwards to give a speech anyway, so intelligence probably didn't feel that was a threat.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:13 am: Edit|
Good research, Phantom. Here is a link explaining what really happened and showing Moore's garbage you liberals swallow whole. And, Annakat, you can repeat your argument as many times as you would like, it still does not make any difference. If Sen. Kerry had been President on 9/11 and his communications person held up a sign saying not to say anything yet, then Sen. Kerry would not have said anything either. Pres. Bush's reaction on that day was normal -- your focus on it is not.
|By Sandwraith (Sandwraith) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:17 am: Edit|
i think it's more senseless to attack someone for their actions in a national emergency than to attack them on the basis of their actual policies... how can you be so sure kerry would do any better in that situation? now i don't like bush that much, but i have to say his economic policies make a LOT more sense than kerry's. that man has no idea what he's talking about when he discusses tax cuts and outsourcing and the such. he reminds me of the back-country hicks from South Park screaming "they took our jobs!". bush is a complete moron when it comes to foreign policy, ill agree. someone like kerry might be able to patch up our foreign affairs, but i don't know if its better to have the world love us as we slowly dig ourselves into poverty, or to have half the world think we're while we at least maintain a decent economic course. and for those of you that think the bush tax cuts are 'unfair' because they give a larger percentage cut to the wealthy, that's just how it works. the rich have a higher propensity to invest in industry and technology, a major indicator of future economic growth. those are the kinds of things that tick off the general populace but when looked at in the long term really make sense. i guess if you read what ive said it becomes apparent that i don't think either one does the whole job right, but you gotta choose what you think will be more beneficial in the long run... and kerry looks like those guys from "raiders of the lost ark" when they open up the ark of the covenant and their faces all melt off (kinda like when you use a magnifier with your army men....)
|By Phantom (Phantom) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:21 am: Edit|
"i think it's more senseless to attack someone for their actions in a national emergency than to attack them on the basis of their actual policies..."
agreed. move on. I enjoy reading these debates, but not when they stagnate on one point which can never be resolved.
|By Baseketball22 (Baseketball22) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:39 am: Edit|
hahah this election is gonna be the biggest landslide election since reagan's days.
|By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:45 am: Edit|
Basketball, if you actually say that then you really are ignorant. The debates haven't even come up yet, that poll was 38% Republicans and 31% Democrats only...good lord...people really need to understand that polls dont mean anything...
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:12 am: Edit|
"After one of the planes hit the Pentagon, Sen. Kerry waited over 30 minutes before he did anyting at all. "
That is absolutely idiotic... what do you expect Kerry to do? He was a senator from Mass. at the time. Should he hold a press conference and declare war? Some people really need to start using their heads...
Anyone who calls this election a "landslide" is an uniformed moron (pardon the french). Do you even have any historical knowledge of past Presidential elections?
Typically, the incumbant should be up close to 20% in September, with an approval rating over 50% to be safe.. and even then you would not predict a "landslide"
And yes, Jaug makes a very good point with the polling. On top of all of that, the undecided vote is not taking into account. And you better expect upper of 95% of the undecided vote to swing Kerry (as it is traditional for the undecided to vote Democratic)
...If anything, Bush is in trouble..
|By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:20 am: Edit|
Jauq1 why wont you accept that some people see things differently then you. although even i think that baseketballs comment isnt true i dont call him stupid. if your going to comment on someone elses post dont offend them. although i dont agree with you on some things i dont call you a moron or an idiot. I respectfully dissagre with many people but i will never say anything bad about them, and if i do i mean it jokeingly. lay off the personal insults.
baseketball22 i dont kno if you ment your post jokeingly but i personally think the election may come as close as the 2004 election, but the debates will play a large part in the outcome.
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:23 am: Edit|
jauq, you got another fact wrong, it was not ari fleisher, it was Andy Card, the chief of staff.
Second, I am not going to judge Bush by the way he excused him self or how many minutes or seconds it took. I judge him by the way he responded to the attacks and to the war. He passed with flying colors.
jauq, can you show me the info about the % break down of the poll in terms of party. According to the posted article, it was 35% rep, and 31% dem.
Also, while that might be skewed a little, remember that republicans vote in higher numbers and that the poll had a lot more womenn than men, and women are more democratic, so that more than balences out. What really shocked me about the poll is overall Bush was up on kerry by 11%, but for those questioned after Bush's speech, Bush was up 16%! I dont see how so many could change overall, and I did not think his speech was that powerfull. I thought it was good, but I did not think it could have this much impact.
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:49 am: Edit|
"Second, I am not going to judge Bush by the way he excused him self or how many minutes or seconds it took. I judge him by the way he responded to the attacks and to the war. He passed with flying colors. "
I hear this often from Bush supporters. I am not trying to be a jackass Jlq, but can you kindly explain why Bush's response was so fantastic?
I mean what did he do? He declared war on Afghanistan and the Taliban. Do you honestly think there is a single President who would not take the same action???... Democrat or Republican
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:03 am: Edit|
No, I am not saying he is the only president who would have performed well. So by your logic, you should not support kerry because he isnt the only president who can take the same actions he supports.
You get more rediculous the more and more you talk.
|By Bunmushroom (Bunmushroom) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:06 am: Edit|
jlg, bravo. You seem like one of the few people who can employ logic. Scubasteve is illogical, and jaq is just plain not informed.
|By Masterchris (Masterchris) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:13 am: Edit|
I strongly second bumushroom.
These debates are good at first, until someone like jaq or simba comes in and messes it up with hate or twisted info.
|By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:17 am: Edit|
Lol...so all liberal info is either hate or twisted?
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:22 am: Edit|
"No, I am not saying he is the only president who would have performed well. So by your logic, you should not support kerry because he isnt the only president who can take the same actions he supports. "
Don't talk me about logic. The only illogical thing said was what is quoted above. Declaring war on Afghanistan and the Taliban after receiving the worst attack on American soil in the history of the US is such an obvious decision, that you would have to be an idiot not to do so.
How does this make Bush such a superior post 9/11 leader? What he did was non indicative of party. Anyone would have done it.
Your comment about kerry is illogical because what you refer to is partisan politics. Sure other Democratcs can take the same actions he supports, but Republicans wouldn't and vice versa. This difference is where you make the decision who to support.
Policy is a lot more complex than declaring war on those responsible for 9/11. The former is the basis for different political parties and should be responsible for which candidate you support. The latter is such an obvious decision, shared by everyone regardless of party.
I mean have you ever met ANYONE agaisnt taking out the Taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan?
|By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 03:23 am: Edit|
both sides give hatefull and twisted information
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:12 am: Edit|
Give Jauq a break. How could he possibly see more than one side? Simba is his father. Hopefully 4 years of college will deprogram him.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 10:47 am: Edit|
"That is absolutely idiotic... what do you expect Kerry to do? He was a senator from Mass. at the time. Should he hold a press conference and declare war? Some people really need to start using their heads... "
That is precisely my point. Sen. Kerry and Pres. Bush reacted the same as most of us did -- we stood there like deer in headlights. This had never happened before, we all needed time to process. To suggest that Pres. Bush was somehow a flawed leader because he reacted like a human and complied with Ari Fleisher's request has no bearing on anything.
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:24 am: Edit|
I never agreed with the Bush comment about Bush being a flawed leader because he took 7min to leave the school. That is trivial and serves as a good bit for the late night shows to poke fun of at best.
You however, when on the attack against Kerry for not doing anything when there was nothing he could do.
I don't agree with either comment.
|By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 12:58 pm: Edit|
I think we are saying the same thing. I substituted a comment about Sen. Kerry in order to illustrate that the same can be said of him and if we view Sen. Kerry's reaction and conclude "big deal" we should also conclude "big deal" about Pres. Bush's reaction. Thus, I would take your comment and say:
"I never agreed with the Bush (or Kerry) comment about Bush (or Kerry) being a flawed leader because he took 7min to leave the school. That is trivial and serves as a good bit for the late night shows to poke fun of at best."
If we apply the same analysis and standard, I think we get the same conclusion -- it's better to focus on some substantive policy difference instead.
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 01:33 pm: Edit|
Originally, I just quickly glanced over your original Kerry comment and did not realize you were being sarcastic in order to illustrate your point. I apologize
So yes we both agree
|By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 02:15 pm: Edit|
Wow. Mom, you may seriously be one of the most twisted and messed up people out there...I'm programed?!
Luckily your vote counts for basically nothing because Kerry is gonna take California and the fact is that when someone does independent research and then you tell them that a) you're lying, b)you're programmed and c)it's drivel, you may be doing more harm than help to your side.
Believe me, I see both sides. My best friend and roomate this summer at Columbia was a conservative who would constantly say, "Vote War, Vote Bush." He made very logical points about both sides and was very convincing in why he would vote for Bush (too young by about 2 months) and I respect him and agree with him on some points. To say that I cannot see more than 1 side is purely ignorant. You don't know me as a person so I think its funny that you thing you can judge me.
If you are going to go and attack me, please refrain because it doesn't do anything except make you look stupid.
Also, my name is Jaug, not Jauq.
|By Hayden (Hayden) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 04:56 pm: Edit|
I preface my comments by saying that, like many of you, I suffered personal losses on 9/11. My reaction is perhaps too strong as a result of that.
First, I think what Kerry did or didnít do is not relevant. He heard the news the same way all the other senators did - from TV, radio, etc. He had neither the access to information nor the responsibility to do anything.
Bush is a good man, and I know he means well. But in this instance, he blew it.
Bush couldn't have been "contemplating" because as Annakat said, he didn't have any facts to think over. At that point, according to Card, he only knew that 2 planes had hit the Towers, and as Card told him "America is under attack". What could he have contemplated? Keep in mind that the FAA folks had known that something was up for a long time before the second plane hit. Why wasn't his first set of questions, "Two planes have hit us; are there any others? What does the FAA know? Is SAC in the air? Is Cheney in a safe place? Is there a plane on its way to the White House? Is Laura safe?" Let's be honest here. Aren't these the first things that would pop into your head? And wouldn't you need to know the answers from people who had the answers, not just "contemplate"? And I donít really care if someone was holding up a sign, or sending him a certified letter. Heís the president, for Godís sake, not Andy Card.
I can tell you that within 1 minute of the first attack, we were in action. One minute after the first plane. Not 7 minutes after the 2nd plane.
Thinkingoutloud - as for whether things would have been different: We'll just never know, will we?
|By Aim78 (Aim78) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 05:04 pm: Edit|
Total lack of choice in this election. I guess I'd go for Kerry because of his stance on stem cell research and the environment, but he's not a whole lot better than Bush. At least we've seen that Bush can get the job...done.
I think that Bush will go all out to catch Bin Laden before the election and win because of it.
|By Mom101 (Mom101) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 05:11 pm: Edit|
Son of Simba, yes, the messed up State of California will vote your views. And look where these views got the State. We have some of the worst public schools in the country, we had to recall a Dem govenor for total ineptitude and vote in an actor (a conservative Rep one, though Dems don't seem to have noticed), a budget crisis a few years after a tremendous surplus, people lining up to file for bankrupsy, a business climate that makes companies leave.......Yep, the State will vote overwhelmingly for Kerry.
|By Wisc_Away (Wisc_Away) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 09:47 pm: Edit|
For those of you who are draft age, or have children who are, for the record, 19-20 is considered prime time, look at the changes that were made to the Selective Service act after Viet Nam.
The student deferment that existed back then is no more. Being in college will not keep you out of Iraq or anywhere else W decides to send you when and if the draft is reinstated.
The current SS Act calls for a only a one semester deferment (you can finish the semester) unless you are a senior and then you can get your degree. Then it's 1A status, translated that means you're in the army now!
Those of you who haven't really thought about the way that W, Rumsfeld and Cheney manufactured the war in Iraq better look a little deeper before you are looking at it in person!
|By Songman (Songman) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit|
an 11 point lead means nothing. Heck no one ever called me for a poll and I am independent. So don't count us swing voters out! While some of us have no use for Kerry, I'll bet most of us are Po'ed at Bush. The most interesting election I have ever seen in my lifetime....
|By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 10:44 pm: Edit|
An 11 point lead means nothing, espessially after both conventions have been completed, the number of undecideds being less than 11%, and only one jobs report left?
|By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, September 05, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit|
there is not going to be a draft. if they did decide to instate the draft it would be political sewercide to any one remotely accociated with the draft. we are gradually pulling troops out of Iraq theres no need for more.
|By Pcrunner17 (Pcrunner17) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 07:22 am: Edit|
The draft..? Are you serious?
This is idiotic, or, at best, an instance of outright deception.
Propagating these messages about the draft is just a pathetic scare tactic. Give us some facts here.
|By Pcrunner17 (Pcrunner17) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 07:36 am: Edit|
"That is absolutely idiotic... what do you expect Kerry to do? He was a senator from Mass. at the time. Should he hold a press conference and declare war? Some people really need to start using their heads... "
Actually, the point these people should have been making is that, at some point or another, Kerry was denouncing Bush's actions immediately after the attacks, saying that he would have immediately taken action and told those kids politely that, "The president has important business to attend to." In Kerry's quotes on that day, he talks about how he and (perhaps?) Daschle sat in the Pentagon completely dumbfounded, unable to speak and unable to "think" (I think the quote runs something like, "We just sat there. No one could think."). After some time in this state of confusion, the second plane hits.
It's very true that Kerry was not president at the time, but the point that people should be highlighting is not that he didn't do anything, but rather that he himself stated that he was unable to do anything -- or to even "think" anything, apparently. I am not criticizing the actions of either Bush or Kerry, but for Kerry to declare that he would have acted in the RIGHT way (comparing himself to how Bush acted) by immediately taking action and leaving the school is certainly not the place to attack Bush, considering his own actions on that day, which are indicative not merely of his range of powers as a senator but also of his reaction to times of crisis. After all, being president does not magically give you courage.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|