Why does it seem like every non-theist is a Kerry voter?

[Saw11_2000]

I do feel safer with Saddam gone. I would feel even safer if we went after North Korea and Iran. Sure there's a huge target on our heads for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, but if we try to get rid of as much of our enemies as we can, they won't be able to do much.

 

[Melody]

Well when the Cole was attacked how much did Clinton do? Now look at how much Bush has done. Of course Bush is an idiot. But he knows how to handle terrorism better than Clinton could.

Saw,
Explain how you think Bush has handled terrorism better (than anyone).

He has managed through his little sound bites to convince the people in this country that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

When he was finally called on that enough to warrant attention, he then started spouting nonsense about weapons of mass destruction.

When they could find WMD, he then said we had to save the citizens of Iraq from Saddam.

While they're steadily chipping away at our civil liberties to "make us safer", I have yet to see exactly how we're safer when we are in fact creating a training ground for terrorists.

 

[Melody]

I'd trust him sooner than a man that's crashed every company he's run into the ground.

Frubals to you!

 

[Melody]

I also think that Kerry is very undecided. He at first endorsed the Patriot act, and is now agaisnt it. He doesn't want to provide extra armor for soldiers in Iraq, and at first supported the war, now he doesn't. He seems to sway with whatever is "popular" so he appears "popular". Thanks for debating though Jensa I do appreciate all the input to my topic.

Check your facts. He was "for" when Bush's plan had a way for paying for it. When the final bill came through, the method for paying was removed....so he was "against."

 

[Saw11_2000]

What about the Patriot act? What about not voting to increase armor on the Humvees and such in Iraq?

 

[Melody]

I do feel safer with Saddam gone. I would feel even safer if we went after North Korea and Iran. Sure there's a huge target on our heads for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, but if we try to get rid of as much of our enemies as we can, they won't be able to do much.

Ummm....Huh?

 

[Saw11_2000]

I'm saying if we eliminate ALL of the terrorists, there won't be any terrorism will there? So is it better to go on the offensive, or the defensive?

 

[Jaymes]

It's not a matter of eliminating terrorists, but eliminating the problems that cause terrorists.

Invading countries under pretenses of finding nonexistant WMDs causes terrorists. Twisting religious scriptures causes terrorists. Many things cause terrorists. You can't point to one thing, attack it, and say "this has eliminated howevermany terrorists."

 

[BUDDY]

While they're steadily chipping away at our civil liberties to "make us safer", I have yet to see exactly how we're safer when we are in fact creating a training ground for terrorists.

So then, you haven't noticed that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11? But your right, we are much safer now than we were on 9/10/01. And how are we creating a training ground for terrorism? I don't see the link? We do not support or create anything that is pro terrorism, so I fail to see how that statement is factual.

Explain how you think Bush has handled terrorism better (than anyone).

Well I don't know what the writer of this statement meant, but we are in a situation right now that we cannot compare to anything we have ever faced before, so there is really no comparison. In like manner, you cannot say he has done worse than anyone else ever has either, for the same reason.

Check your facts. He was "for" when Bush's plan had a way for paying for it. When the final bill came through, the method for paying was removed....so he was "against."

Actually, that is incorrect. Kerry did not ever support the patriot act openly, and his open criticism of the bill started when his fellow democrats started opposing it (about the same time he decided to run for the big house). The war on the other hand he did flip flop on and he used budget reasons as his excuse, even though it was explained very well by McKay that the vote was for the approval of the war. Final figures on cost for military operations are always presented after approval for the military action is given by congress. To ask for money for war before asking for permission to go to war is putting the cart before the horse and may be an impeachable offense. Kerry knew this when he said to the American people that he supported the war but was told that it would cost so much. So either he is liar or he is not familiar with parliamentary procedure. I don't know which one is more scary.

As far as Bush being an idiot is concerned....does an idiot get elected twice as governor of Texas and reelected as president of the United State? If that's the case I could be king of America. "It's good to be the king"

 

[Melody]

What about the Patriot act? What about not voting to increase armor on the Humvees and such in Iraq?

Again...look at the *reasons* he changed his mind. Kerry is not a stupid man.

About a month before the election, our PBS station did a very non-biased view of Kerry and Bush from the time they graduated from college up to the present. From what I could see, Bush was a failure at everything until he went into politics.

His detractors aside, Kerry *did* serve honorably in the Vietnam War. Bush did the typical rich kid national guard duty...and did that incompetently (some would question whether he did it at all).

After he was honorably discharged, he spoke out about the need to end the war and bring our soldiers home. Even those who disagreed with him, admired him for his intelligence and eloquence. He did make a run for a political seat but when he lost, went back to college for his law degree, following that up with a career in both the prosecutor's office and as a defense attorney. During this time, Bush was busy sinking a few businesses along with the money his daddy's friends invested.

He continues to act like a rich little boy, spending money he doesnt have and cutting our domestic budget to fund his little war. He is bankrupting our future....and for what.

Anybody with two brain cells knows this was never about terrorism. It was about a little boy who lived his mediocre life in the shadow of his overachieving father and was looking to do what daddy couldn't. He was not happy when his dad refused to march on Baghdad and apparently didn't agree with daddy's view that it couldn't be done. He thought this was his chance to one up daddy.

Please....I want a man in office. Not a little boy.

 

[Melody]

I'm saying if we eliminate ALL of the terrorists, there won't be any terrorism will there? So is it better to go on the offensive, or the defensive?

So you're advocating a rerun of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on a global scale? Because that is the only way you're going to eliminate terrorism completely. It also means you're going to have to do the same here in the U.S.

 

[Saw11_2000]

No I'm not, I'm saying invade militaristic states that are our enemies. That includes countries like North Korea and Iran. I hope Arnold runs in 2008 though, he would make a good president. I'm serious. lol

 

[Jaymes]

So then, you haven't noticed that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11? But your right, we are much safer now than we were on 9/10/01. And how are we creating a training ground for terrorism? I don't see the link? We do not support or create anything that is pro terrorism, so I fail to see how that statement is factual.

Though I'm sure you were thinking of a less literal link...

 

[BUDDY]

It's not a matter of eliminating terrorists, but eliminating the problems that cause terrorists.

So, according to some Muslim fundamentalist's, America is the problem and democracy, and judaism. Do we need to elimanate ourselves and Israel?

So you're advocating a rerun of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on a global scale? Because that is the only way you're going to eliminate terrorism completely. It also means you're going to have to do the same here in the U.S.

What in the world are talking about? You eliminate terrorism by providing freedom and democracy to the world. This allows people to act and participate freely in society and for society to rule itself.

 

[Melody]

So then, you haven't noticed that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on the United States since 9/11? But your right, we are much safer now than we were on 9/10/01.

You're assuming that this was not an isolated incident. Terrorist have been around for decades and we hadn't been attacked before. You're more likely to get hit by a car than killed by a terrorist. Even after 9/11 that hasn't changed.

And how are we creating a training ground for terrorism? I don't see the link? We do not support or create anything that is pro terrorism, so I fail to see how that statement is factual.

We don't have to support terrorist to train them. They learn all by themselves in an environment that we have created....Iraq's current battleground.

Actually, that is incorrect. Kerry did not ever support the patriot act openly, and his open criticism of the bill started when his fellow democrats started opposing it (about the same time he decided to run for the big house). The war on the other hand he did flip flop on and he used budget reasons as his excuse, even though it was explained very well by McKay that the vote was for the approval of the war. Final figures on cost for military operations are always presented after approval for the military action is given by congress. To ask for money for war before asking for permission to go to war is putting the cart before the horse and may be an impeachable offense. Kerry knew this when he said to the American people that he supported the war but was told that it would cost so much. So either he is liar or he is not familiar with parliamentary procedure. I don't know which one is more scary.

First, I did not specifically respond to the Patriot act. Second, you are saying it's an "excuse" because he's a liar or ignorant of parliamentary procedure. I see it as refusing to be blocked in by the usual political bs. It may not have been SOP to get approval on expenses before the war, but it sounds like common sense to me. Oh wait....it even sounds intelligent.

As far as Bush being an idiot is concerned....does an idiot get elected twice as governor of Texas and reelected as president of the United State?

Obviously they do.

 

[Melody]

No I'm not, I'm saying invade militaristic states that are our enemies. That includes countries like North Korea and Iran. I hope Arnold runs in 2008 though, he would make a good president. I'm serious. lol

Oy.....please tell me you're still not going to be eligible to vote in 2008....assuming they change the law so that Ah-nold *can* run.

 

[BUDDY]

Though I'm sure you were thinking of a less literal link...

Got ya!

Well, while our invasion brought all the terrorist's to one place and we are fighting them there, I think that is a good thing. I mean, the alternative is that we would be fighting them here or on the land of one of our allies. Personally, I think this is one of the reasons Bush said, "bring it on". In the military, you always want to choose the place where the battle takes place, rather than giving that choice to your enemy.

 

[Jaymes]

So, according to some Muslim fundamentalist's, America is the problem and democracy, and judaism. Do we need to elimanate ourselves and Israel?

The true problems are the horrible situations in the Middle East--Sudan, anyone?--and twisted religious scriptures that cause resentment for the US to grow in the first place.

I believe if people were taught--actually taught, not just having some random Joebob from the street say something--what's going on and what the religious scriptures really say, there would be far less terrorists.

What in the world are talking about? You eliminate terrorism by providing freedom and democracy to the world. This allows people to act and participate freely in society and for society to rule itself.

There seem to be plenty of terrorists in the US, so I guess there goes the "democracy = no terrorists" argument.

 

[Melody]

So, according to some Muslim fundamentalist's, America is the problem and democracy, and judaism. Do we need to elimanate ourselves and Israel?


What in the world are talking about? You eliminate terrorism by providing freedom and democracy to the world. This allows people to act and participate freely in society and for society to rule itself.

At the risk of being politically incorrect, we (America and Israel) probably are the problem. We condemn terrorism and yet have supported the Israelis who weren't content with the land they were given (albeit by stealing it from the people who were already there), but then proceeded to encroach year after year on land that they weren't given. Looks like terrorism to me but then what do I know.

Re: providing freedom and democracy to the world. Yep, that's worked really well in Chile and Nicaragua. Yep....I can see your thinking.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Yes, in 2008 I will be able to vote, and yes if Arnold is running, he is getting my vote.