Originally posted by: charrison
Well you right, Kerry would have waited to get approval from france before invading a country, even if it was in the best interest of the US to do so, but this is about current policy.
Well, that's exactly what you've just done. You sounded like some GOP talking point parrot. It's as if you were watching the speech with subtitles and no audio. Plus, you're just hypocrisy was showing in your response.Originally posted by: glenn1
No, you've proven to be baseless in your criticisms. I doubt more from you would actually be fruitful.
That's fine. Seal yourself up in your echo chamber and don't listen to an honest opinion from someone who doesn't have an emotional stake in the race. Just tell yourself that everyone else in the country feels the same way you do and don't listen to a damn thing any of us undecideds have to say. Way to go :thumbsup:
You didn't answer my question.Originally posted by: charrison
Well you right, Kerry would have waited to get approval from france before invading a country, even if it was in the best interest of the US to do so, but this is about current policy.Originally posted by: conjur
And that makes him equal to Bush on pre-emptive strikes in *what* way?
Originally posted by: conjur
Well, that's exactly what you've just done. You sounded like some GOP talking point parrot. It's as if you were watching the speech with subtitles and no audio. Plus, you're just hypocrisy was showing in your response.Originally posted by: glenn1
No, you've proven to be baseless in your criticisms. I doubt more from you would actually be fruitful.
That's fine. Seal yourself up in your echo chamber and don't listen to an honest opinion from someone who doesn't have an emotional stake in the race. Just tell yourself that everyone else in the country feels the same way you do and don't listen to a damn thing any of us undecideds have to say. Way to go :thumbsup:
BTW, nice way to avoid any type of thoughtful response to my post.
He didn't vote to send troops to Iraq.Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry did vote to send troops to Iraq. Regardless of the supposed conditions of his vote, the fact that the undecided voter wil see is that he did indeed vote for it. He just pledged to increase the number of troops. He's playing up his Vietnam duty. Basically he's trying to portray himself as a tough wartime president. Ok, neocon is an exaggeration, but he is trying to act like the wartime president that so many criticize Bush for being.
Well, that's exactly what you've just done. You sounded like some GOP talking point parrot. It's as if you were watching the speech with subtitles and no audio. Plus, you're just hypocrisy was showing in your response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
glenn.....I really don't know what turned you off so much about this speech, but I as well as just about every analyst on every network that I have watched tonight thought it was pretty darn good, in fact most thought it was well above what they thought Kerry could do.
Yes, many parts of it were typical politician blabber. I really am starting to not like this whole postiveness/optimism BS in speeches, now I kinda wish they went back to mudslinging
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno. I guess I was hoping for a Clintonesque style and prescription for governing, instead it sounded like some recycled Dukakis or Mondale blather. I've been hearing all this week about how the strategy was to re-create the policies and attitudes of the Clinton years, and feel disappointed that it wasn't even close. I've gotten a look at Kerry now, and while I still prefer him over Bush at the moment I'm not excited about him in the least. He sounds like a perfect bureaucrat/egghead/policy wonk who'd be perfect for putting together Agriculture Department reports, not the potential leader of the free world. Instead I'm reduced to hoping that Bush's speech doesn't sound like some late night TV show and am not thinking I'm going to be pleasantly surprised.
BTW, nice way to avoid any type of thoughtful response to my post.
Originally posted by: conjur
He didn't vote to send troops to Iraq.Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry did vote to send troops to Iraq. Regardless of the supposed conditions of his vote, the fact that the undecided voter wil see is that he did indeed vote for it. He just pledged to increase the number of troops. He's playing up his Vietnam duty. Basically he's trying to portray himself as a tough wartime president. Ok, neocon is an exaggeration, but he is trying to act like the wartime president that so many criticize Bush for being.
He voted to authorize the use of force *if* diplomatic means and inspections failed.
Bush chucked those two aspects aside and rushed right into Iraq.
No, it's not a belief! It's FACT!Originally posted by: Turgon
conjur, that is your belief. Think in terms of the 10% that are moderate and undecided. How do you convince them to vote for Kerry?Originally posted by: conjur
He didn't vote to send troops to Iraq.
He voted to authorize the use of force *if* diplomatic means and inspections failed.
Bush chucked those two aspects aside and rushed right into Iraq.
The economy is improving at a good clip, and it may be a non-issue by November. National security is a strength of Bush, considering that there has not been another attack. So the other major issue is Iraq. If they are similar on that issue, which they increasingly are, what reason is there for the moderate to vote Bush out of power?
Originally posted by: conjur
No, it's not a belief! It's FACT!Originally posted by: Turgon
conjur, that is your belief. Think in terms of the 10% that are moderate and undecided. How do you convince them to vote for Kerry?Originally posted by: conjur
He didn't vote to send troops to Iraq.
He voted to authorize the use of force *if* diplomatic means and inspections failed.
Bush chucked those two aspects aside and rushed right into Iraq.
The economy is improving at a good clip, and it may be a non-issue by November. National security is a strength of Bush, considering that there has not been another attack. So the other major issue is Iraq. If they are similar on that issue, which they increasingly are, what reason is there for the moderate to vote Bush out of power?
Bush did not attempt diplomatic measures to get Saddam to disarm (well, considering Saddam didn't have anything, kinda hard for him to have done that, eh?). Bush did not allow inspections to continue. He cut them WAY short, even after Hans Blix reported they had access to any requested site. Also, the members of UNSCOM were requesting information from the Bush administration for sites where these supposed stockpiles were known to exist.
It was almost a year after diplomatic action started before we went to war. This is on top of 12 previous years. And you call this no diplomatic attempt? We did not start good cooperation with Saddam until our troops started showing up in Kuwait. At this point we were still unable to interview scientist because they feared they would be killed for talking. Even then Saddam was still playing games and was still beleived to have WMD by damn near every intel agency in the world.
Why did Bush end inspections early? Hmmm??
Was tired of the game Saddam had been playing for the past 12 years.
It is a shame that Saddam did not offer full cooperation.
It's because he knew the WMDs were not going to be found because the intel his administration used (via Chalabi and the INC) was faulty and he knew it. If inspections had been allowed to continue and the fact that Saddam had no WMDs nor no coherent WMD programs, Bush would then have had no further justification for an invasion.
Originally posted by: conjur
No, it's not a belief! It's FACT!Originally posted by: Turgon
conjur, that is your belief. Think in terms of the 10% that are moderate and undecided. How do you convince them to vote for Kerry?Originally posted by: conjur
He didn't vote to send troops to Iraq.
He voted to authorize the use of force *if* diplomatic means and inspections failed.
Bush chucked those two aspects aside and rushed right into Iraq.
The economy is improving at a good clip, and it may be a non-issue by November. National security is a strength of Bush, considering that there has not been another attack. So the other major issue is Iraq. If they are similar on that issue, which they increasingly are, what reason is there for the moderate to vote Bush out of power?
Bush did not attempt diplomatic measures to get Saddam to disarm (well, considering Saddam didn't have anything, kinda hard for him to have done that, eh?). Bush did not allow inspections to continue. He cut them WAY short, even after Hans Blix reported they had access to any requested site. Also, the members of UNSCOM were requesting information from the Bush administration for sites where these supposed stockpiles were known to exist.
Why did Bush end inspections early? Hmmm??
It's because he knew the WMDs were not going to be found because the intel his administration used (via Chalabi and the INC) was faulty and he knew it. If inspections had been allowed to continue and the fact that Saddam had no WMDs nor no coherent WMD programs, Bush would then have had no further justification for an invasion.
Originally posted by: Turgon
Originally posted by: conjur
No, it's not a belief! It's FACT!Originally posted by: Turgon
conjur, that is your belief. Think in terms of the 10% that are moderate and undecided. How do you convince them to vote for Kerry?Originally posted by: conjur
He didn't vote to send troops to Iraq.
He voted to authorize the use of force *if* diplomatic means and inspections failed.
Bush chucked those two aspects aside and rushed right into Iraq.
The economy is improving at a good clip, and it may be a non-issue by November. National security is a strength of Bush, considering that there has not been another attack. So the other major issue is Iraq. If they are similar on that issue, which they increasingly are, what reason is there for the moderate to vote Bush out of power?
Bush did not attempt diplomatic measures to get Saddam to disarm (well, considering Saddam didn't have anything, kinda hard for him to have done that, eh?). Bush did not allow inspections to continue. He cut them WAY short, even after Hans Blix reported they had access to any requested site. Also, the members of UNSCOM were requesting information from the Bush administration for sites where these supposed stockpiles were known to exist.
Why did Bush end inspections early? Hmmm??
It's because he knew the WMDs were not going to be found because the intel his administration used (via Chalabi and the INC) was faulty and he knew it. If inspections had been allowed to continue and the fact that Saddam had no WMDs nor no coherent WMD programs, Bush would then have had no further justification for an invasion.
conjur, all that I am asking you is what motivation does the non-political undecided moderate voter have to vote Bush out of power? This is my observation of the undecided voter that's somewhere in the middle of left and right. It is based on my daily interaction with so many different people in my company. Both Bush and Kerry "voted for the war." The economy is improving. Bush is doing a good job with national security as there have not been new attacks since 9/11. Taxes are lower.
How do you convince the average joe to vote for Kerry?
Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry did vote to send troops to Iraq. Regardless of the supposed conditions of his vote, the fact that the undecided voter wil see is that he did indeed vote for it. He just pledged to increase the number of troops. He's playing up his Vietnam duty. Basically he's trying to portray himself as a tough wartime president. Ok, neocon is an exaggeration, but he is trying to act like the wartime president that so many criticize Bush for being.
Originally posted by: Turgon
And remember, Bush speaks like the common man. I sometimes wonder if that is by design.
Originally posted by: Turgon
And remember, Bush speaks like the common man. I sometimes wonder if that is by design.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry did vote to send troops to Iraq. Regardless of the supposed conditions of his vote, the fact that the undecided voter wil see is that he did indeed vote for it. He just pledged to increase the number of troops. He's playing up his Vietnam duty. Basically he's trying to portray himself as a tough wartime president. Ok, neocon is an exaggeration, but he is trying to act like the wartime president that so many criticize Bush for being.
The whole Senate voted to give Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq, provided that all other means had been exhausted and that Iraq was an imminent threat. No one voted For the War.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry did vote to send troops to Iraq. Regardless of the supposed conditions of his vote, the fact that the undecided voter wil see is that he did indeed vote for it. He just pledged to increase the number of troops. He's playing up his Vietnam duty. Basically he's trying to portray himself as a tough wartime president. Ok, neocon is an exaggeration, but he is trying to act like the wartime president that so many criticize Bush for being.
The whole Senate voted to give Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq, provided that all other means had been exhausted and that Iraq was an imminent threat. No one voted For the War.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry did vote to send troops to Iraq. Regardless of the supposed conditions of his vote, the fact that the undecided voter wil see is that he did indeed vote for it. He just pledged to increase the number of troops. He's playing up his Vietnam duty. Basically he's trying to portray himself as a tough wartime president. Ok, neocon is an exaggeration, but he is trying to act like the wartime president that so many criticize Bush for being.
The whole Senate voted to give Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq, provided that all other means had been exhausted and that Iraq was an imminent threat. No one voted For the War.
If that is the case, the war could not have happened. Only the senate can give approval. The senate gave approval. The president cannot go to war without approval.
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry did vote to send troops to Iraq. Regardless of the supposed conditions of his vote, the fact that the undecided voter wil see is that he did indeed vote for it. He just pledged to increase the number of troops. He's playing up his Vietnam duty. Basically he's trying to portray himself as a tough wartime president. Ok, neocon is an exaggeration, but he is trying to act like the wartime president that so many criticize Bush for being.
The whole Senate voted to give Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq, provided that all other means had been exhausted and that Iraq was an imminent threat. No one voted For the War.
If that is the case, the war could not have happened. Only the senate can give approval. The senate gave approval. The president cannot go to war without approval.
Yet it happened.
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Turgon
Originally posted by: conjur
No, it's not a belief! It's FACT!Originally posted by: Turgon
conjur, that is your belief. Think in terms of the 10% that are moderate and undecided. How do you convince them to vote for Kerry?Originally posted by: conjur
He didn't vote to send troops to Iraq.
He voted to authorize the use of force *if* diplomatic means and inspections failed.
Bush chucked those two aspects aside and rushed right into Iraq.
The economy is improving at a good clip, and it may be a non-issue by November. National security is a strength of Bush, considering that there has not been another attack. So the other major issue is Iraq. If they are similar on that issue, which they increasingly are, what reason is there for the moderate to vote Bush out of power?
Bush did not attempt diplomatic measures to get Saddam to disarm (well, considering Saddam didn't have anything, kinda hard for him to have done that, eh?). Bush did not allow inspections to continue. He cut them WAY short, even after Hans Blix reported they had access to any requested site. Also, the members of UNSCOM were requesting information from the Bush administration for sites where these supposed stockpiles were known to exist.
Why did Bush end inspections early? Hmmm??
It's because he knew the WMDs were not going to be found because the intel his administration used (via Chalabi and the INC) was faulty and he knew it. If inspections had been allowed to continue and the fact that Saddam had no WMDs nor no coherent WMD programs, Bush would then have had no further justification for an invasion.
conjur, all that I am asking you is what motivation does the non-political undecided moderate voter have to vote Bush out of power? This is my observation of the undecided voter that's somewhere in the middle of left and right. It is based on my daily interaction with so many different people in my company. Both Bush and Kerry "voted for the war." The economy is improving. Bush is doing a good job with national security as there have not been new attacks since 9/11. Taxes are lower.
How do you convince the average joe to vote for Kerry?
If you realize that the average joe doesn't share all your opinions (like Bush is doing a good job with national security and the economy is improving), then you'll answer your own question.
Also, I'm sick of the "no terrorist attacks since 9/11" angle. Everyone forgets about anthrax. Everyone forgets about the acts of terror being committed against Americans overseas (not just in Iraq either).
In US history, there have only been three (3) terrorist attacks against the US on our own soil. Being President during the most catastrophic and terrible one isn't much of a positive...
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Turgon
And remember, Bush speaks like the common man. I sometimes wonder if that is by design.
You insult the intelligence of the American people by claiming that.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Turgon
Kerry did vote to send troops to Iraq. Regardless of the supposed conditions of his vote, the fact that the undecided voter wil see is that he did indeed vote for it. He just pledged to increase the number of troops. He's playing up his Vietnam duty. Basically he's trying to portray himself as a tough wartime president. Ok, neocon is an exaggeration, but he is trying to act like the wartime president that so many criticize Bush for being.
The whole Senate voted to give Bush the go ahead to invade Iraq, provided that all other means had been exhausted and that Iraq was an imminent threat. No one voted For the War.
If that is the case, the war could not have happened. Only the senate can give approval. The senate gave approval. The president cannot go to war without approval.
Yet it happened.
Because the senate gave approval to go to war. That is why it happened. The senate did not give approval to bluff.
Originally posted by: Turgon
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Turgon
And remember, Bush speaks like the common man. I sometimes wonder if that is by design.
You insult the intelligence of the American people by claiming that.
#1. You have no sense of humor. It's not healthy to be so serious.
#2. You have no imagination if you don't think it's a possibility that this is partially done by design. Who gives Bush the most support? Here's a hypothetical question - would average joe rather have a beer at the local bar with Bush or Kerry?