Kerry appeals for end to election advertising war

Originally posted by clips
kerry hurt himself early on in the campaign..he\'s been indecisive on all issues.."i voted for the 83 billion before i voted against it"  yea in that commercial they cut the rest of it, but still to make a comment like that,..and not only that i\'ve watched kerry through this whole campaign and trust he\'s not the stronger leader...

i don\'t like bush\'s foreign policy at all..he can say what he wants i will never agree with him on anything concerning those issues, but what i respect is that is stands firm on what he believes in..and i gotta respect him for it and i believe that he needs to clean up the iraqi mess..i wouldn\'t want to come in and have to deal with that...it\'s already been said that france, russia or china will still stand by their decision even if kerry is pres..

How is it beneficial for us to have this "strong leader" when what he\'s doing is wrong?  The thing that scares me about Bush is that he believes he\'s always right no matter what.  He is incapable of admitting he was wrong about anything, acknowledging that he made any mistakes, or altering his response to any situation.  It\'s not advantageous to keep hammering away at a problem with the same solution when it\'s not working, and in fact it\'s making things worse.  That\'s dimwitted.

An intellegent person would have forseen some of the pitfalls we\'re encountering in this war, and prepared accordingly.  Then when the situation required it, that leader would have changed his approach; changed his strategy; gone with something that WORKS.  Of course that\'s impossible for Bush because to him, changing the plan is viewed as a sign of weakness.  It\'s a childish leadership style that I\'ve witnessed before in companies and other small organizations.

..kerry has been indecisive on all issues...and he wants to raise taxes... definite no-no in my book..bush wants permanent tax cuts..and i\'m sure nobody was complaining when they got that check in the mail...as much as i hate to say it...bush 4 mo..yrs...

Let me try to put this simply.  Setting aside all the normal arguments about the increasing division between the extremely wealthy and the brutally poor...  Just think about this:  How can a nation cut taxes, and invade the world at the same time?  It doesn\'t take a lot of reflection to see that it cannot work.  It has no long term viability, particularly since this war is probably going to become MORE expensive.  Our country plunges into debt so that Halliburton and Fluor Corp and DynCorp and Vinnell Corp can have the most profitable year on their books, overcharging the Federal Government on Iraq-related contracts.

So what are you trying to say Core - there should be a mass redistribution of wealth?  Sorry, but that is not what America is about.

When you say brutally poor - I hope you aren\'t referring to anyone in the US - to see brutally poor one would have to go to a Third World country and quite frankly we don\'t owe countries like Haiti and the Sudan anything.

[clips]

core,..i\'ve already stated i don\'t like bush\'s foreign policy..so i can\'t comment on the war..do i like how he\'s handled it?..nope, but he didn\'t buckle when critics was up his ass when s**t started to hit the fan in iraq..

how can one cut taxes and still go to war? just as easy as it is to sign a bill for the 83 billion for the war, which went a long way with me with companies makin all these profits and sayin we can\'t afford this or that. bush gave back to the people and i don\'t even think clinton had done anything like that..(and i\'m a huge clinton fan)...even tho the economy is in the shape it\'s in, bush felt the people needed some money in their pocket to jumpstart the economy, if he did it from his heart or for political reasons makes no difference...

i actually was on the dean bandwagon until he fell out of the race...he actually was against the war, and stood firm on it...

Originally posted by GigaShadow
So what are you trying to say Core - there should be a mass redistribution of wealth?  Sorry, but that is not what America is about.

When you say brutally poor - I hope you aren\'t referring to anyone in the US - to see brutally poor one would have to go to a Third World country and quite frankly we don\'t owe countries like Haiti and the Sudan anything.

Sorry, I keep forgetting that America is about making it easier on the rich.  Keeping the tax code the way it was before is not a "mass redistribution of wealth."  Meanwhile, cutting taxes and retaining those tax cuts during a time when we are occupying another country and running up a massive deficit is extremely wreckless.

Definitions of poverty are obviously relative, but I think we should aspire to be better than backwards third world nations in that regard.  Saying that we have poor people "but at least they\'re not as poor as Haiti and Sudan" is not very inspiring.

Originally posted by clips
core,..i\'ve already stated i don\'t like bush\'s foreign policy..so i can\'t comment on the war..do i like how he\'s handled it?..nope, but he didn\'t buckle when critics was up his ass when s**t started to hit the fan in iraq..

OK, you disagree with Bush about his foreign policy, you don\'t like how he handled the war, yet you support him simply because he has persisted in inflexibly pushing his dangerous and demonstrably wrong views and policies? :screwy:   This makes no sense to me.  Stubborness when you\'re wrong is not an admirable quality.

[clips]

Originally posted by Coredweller
OK, you disagree with Bush about his foreign policy, you don\'t like how he handled the war, yet you support him simply because he has persisted in inflexibly pushing his dangerous and demonstrably wrong views and policies? :screwy:   This makes no sense to me.  Stubborness when you\'re wrong is not an admirable quality.

i like his domestic plans for the country,..and those plans affect me right here right now...i don\'t want a pres. that caters to EVERY whim of the public, i want a pres to be firm on his decisions.

just because i don\'t agree with him 100% on everything doesn\'t mean he\'s not right for the country on domestic issues,..trust whoever is pres. you are not going to agree with him 100% on everything...kerry is just all over the place on issues...i\'ve watched him through the whole campaign and i consider myself a dem..but kerry has no real solutions and is very drab and boring when he describes what it is he is going to do...

not that you have to be charasmatic (spel) when you talk, but whenever something goes bad in iraq or anywhere kerry will say "see if i was pres i would have done it this way" that\'s bulls**t where was your IDEA\'S before the supposed event happened? kerry waits until something happens to rise to the occassion to speak on it..and if you want a pres that\'s gonna be twindling his fingers until something happens..fine by me...

i said it before i\'m not really big on either candidate, but bush is the better leader here...

Originally posted by clips
i like his domestic plans for the country,..and those plans affect me right here right now...i don\'t want a pres. that caters to EVERY whim of the public, i want a pres to be firm on his decisions.

You\'d rather have a stubborn leader who\'s to proud to admit he\'s wrong?

not that you have to be charasmatic (spel) when you talk, but whenever something goes bad in iraq or anywhere kerry will say "see if i was pres i would have done it this way" that\'s bulls**t where was your IDEA\'S before the supposed event happened?

It\'s very evident that the two don\'t share the same outlooks on how to handle this war and many of the domestic policies.   After tonight\'s debate it couldn\'t be more clear.  Kerry has stood by his idea that there needs to be a stronger coalition and he\'s repeated that he knows Iraq was/is a threat however he doesn\'t agree that Bush went about it the right way.  Especially when the real enemy was elsewhere.  When has this changed?  

kerry waits until something happens to rise to the occassion to speak on it..and if you want a pres that\'s gonna be twindling his fingers until something happens..fine by me...

It\'s better than having an impulsive clod.  Bush has proved that he\'s stubborn, stubborn enough to stand by his bad decisions.

Originally posted by Ginko



It\'s very evident that the two don\'t share the same outlooks on how to handle this war and many of the domestic policies.   After tonight\'s debate it couldn\'t be more clear.  Kerry has stood by his idea that there needs to be a stronger coalition and he\'s repeated that he knows Iraq was/is a threat however he doesn\'t agree that Bush went about it the right way.  Especially when the real enemy was elsewhere.  When has this changed?

First, France and Germany have already stated they will not send troops to Iraq.  Kerry is not living in reality if he thinks for one second that new countries are going to step into Iraq - especially to help a President that has labeled the war a "diversion" and a "mistake".  

You speak of the "real enemy".  Where is this real enemy that we are supposed to be fighting?  It certainly isn\'t one man.  Killing or capturing bin laden will not end the war on terror.    

Originally posted by Ginko


It\'s better than having an impulsive clod.  Bush has proved that he\'s stubborn, stubborn enough to stand by his bad decisions.

Kerry has proven to be inconsistant and insulting to our current allies in Iraq and even to the interim President of Iraq.  Kerry has no conviction or answers to the war on terror.  His claim of "I can do better" is a joke.  His version of doing better is doing the same thing Bush does only it will be better because he is doing it. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by GigaShadow
First, France and Germany have already stated they will not send troops to Iraq.  Kerry is not living in reality if he thinks for one second that new countries are going to step into Iraq - especially to help a President that has labeled the war a "diversion" and a "mistake".

God, you sound just like Bush did last night.  There are far more countries than France and Germany.  It\'s painfully obvious that the coalition is in need of repair.  How can you deny that?    

You speak of the "real enemy".  Where is this real enemy that we are supposed to be fighting?  It certainly isn\'t one man.  Killing or capturing bin laden will not end the war on terror.

Well, 9/11 sparked the war and Bush\'s response was to go after Iraq.  Bin Laden should have been the absolute focus, not Iraq.  Instead of sending the world\'s best troops into the mountain while Bin laden was cornered Bush focused on Iraq and out sourced capturing Bin Laden to Afghan(sp?).

Now before you go putting a spin on my words, Iraq was/is a threat but the WMD and labeling Saddam as an immediate threat has proven to be false.  Perhaps diversion is the the appropriate word

In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, “you can\'t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they\'re both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”

In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: “We\'ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Though he added that “there\'s no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were “equally bad.”

The Sept. 11 commission found there was no evidence Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

   

Kerry has proven to be inconsistant and insulting to our current allies in Iraq and even to the interim President of Iraq.  Kerry has no conviction or answers to the war on terror.  His claim of "I can do better" is a joke.  His version of doing better is doing the same thing Bush does only it will be better because he is doing it. :rolleyes:

Are you even paying attention to the fact that the Iraq situation seems to be getting worse.  More soldiers dying every subsequent month...that\'s ridiculous.  There\'s a major issue with security Bush just keeps saying "mission accomplished" and "it\'s hard work".  Mission is not accomplished and "it\'s hard work" is not comforting.

Originally posted by Ginko
God, you sound just like Bush did last night.  There are far more countries than France and Germany.  It\'s painfully obvious that the coalition is in need of repair.  How can you deny that?

Where are these phantom countries that you and Kerry keep referring to?  Who do you believe is going to send troops to Iraq in sufficient numbers so we can pull out?    

Originally posted by Ginko

Well, 9/11 sparked the war and Bush\'s response was to go after Iraq.  Bin Laden should have been the absolute focus, not Iraq.  Instead of sending the world\'s best troops into the mountain while Bin laden was cornered Bush focused on Iraq and out sourced capturing Bin Laden to Afghan(sp?).

Bin Laden was the focus.  We still have a significant presence in Afghanistan and no one is even really sure if he was in Tora Bora at the time.  As far as deploying more American troops in that region of Afghanistan, the terrain is so inhospitable that you could literally deploy two full divisions in one area and Bin Laden could be in the next valley over and they would never know it.

Kerry is wrong in his assertion that we have not pursued Bin Laden aggressively enough.  For all we know he could be dead in a cave somewhere.  

 

Originally posted by Ginko

Are you even paying attention to the fact that the Iraq situation seems to be getting worse.  More soldiers dying every subsequent...that\'s ridiculous.  There\'s a major issue with security Bush just keeps saying "mission accomplished" and "it\'s hard work".  Mission is not accomplished and "it\'s hard work" is not comforting.

This is exactly why Kerry shouldn\'t be President.  He can\'t get the job done.  He has no realistic plan and he would do nothing different from what Bush is doing now.  One thing Kerry can not escape from even if Bush didn\'t bring it up in the debates is Kerry\'s voting record when it comes to military.  He is the one who voted against the 87 million to provide better equipment for our troops.  Kerry is still living in a September 10th 2000 world and doesn\'t fully realize the dangers that our country faces.

Where are these phantom countries that you and Kerry keep referring to? Who do you believe is going to send troops to Iraq in sufficient numbers so we can pull out?

It seems it wasn\'t completely out of thin air as Bush didn\'t ever bother to comment on the issuse.  Bush knows he could strenghten our allied forces but doesn\'t make it an issue and that\'s one of my biggest disagreements.

Kerry has not stated that we would pull out completely but rather we could begin to pull out granted that he get more help.  I\'d rather have a president who\'s adamant about rebuilding allied forces than Bush who rest on what we have.

Bin Laden was the focus.

Funny that Bush always reverts to the threat of Saddam when fighting the war on terror.  

We still have a significant presence in Afghanistan and no one is even really sure if he was in Tora Bora at the time.

Why does intelligence speak otherwise?  They had more reason to believe Bin Laden was in those mountains than the supposed WMD from Saddam.  Afgha should have been the primary focus, not second on the list.

This is exactly why Kerry shouldn\'t be President. He can\'t get the job done. He has no realistic plan and he would do nothing different from what Bush is doing now.

What is Bush\'s plan?  More of the same?  It\'s blantantly obvious that just isn\'t working.

Originally posted by Ginko
Where are the countries, but it seems it wasn\'t completely out of thin air as Bush didn\'t ever bother to comment on the issuse.

Kerry has not stated that we would pull out completely but rather we could begin to pull out granted that he get more help.  I\'d rather have a president who\'s adamant about rebuilding allied forces than Bush who rest on what we have.

For the fifth time - what allies?  What countries are you referring to.  You see - you don\'t even know what Kerry\'s plan is because it is so damn vague.

Please join us for the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. :rolleyes:  Great message Kerry!  I am sure the allies will come pouring in!

Originally posted by Ginko

Funny that Bush always reverts to the threat of Saddam when fighting the war on terror.

What is even more funny is the fact that Kerry repeatedly agreed with Bush stance on Saddam.

Originally posted by Ginko


Why does intelligence speak otherwise?  They had more reason to believe Bin Laden was in those mountains than the supposed WMD from Saddam.  Afgha should have been the primary focus, not second on the list.

 

Do you fail to realize that we are still in Afghanistan?  Do you also fail to realize that the terrain in southern Afghanistan does not favor deploying large numbers of troops?  Tommy Franks even stated last night that we did not divert any resources from Afghanistan to Iraq.  Would you deploy our entire armed forces in Iraq to find one man?  

Originally posted by Ginko


What is Bush\'s plan?  More of the same?  It\'s blantantly obvious that just isn\'t working.

It isn\'t?  Has the US been attacked again?  How many terror plots have been foiled since 9/11?

For the fifth time - what allies? What countries are you referring to. You see - you don\'t even know what Kerry\'s plan is because it is so damn vague.

Isn\'t NATO still on the fence?  Arab and Muslim nations?

I\'ll admit I\'m not in the know because last night was the first I\'ve sat in on anything these two have to say.  Bush made it clear that he\'s not budging, even on the issues that need to be readdressed.  Kerry made it clear he\'s wanting to seek damage control.

To be honest I don\'t see either one having a solidified plan.  Bush\'s current plan needs to be restructured, that\'s obvious to anyone who picks up the paper on watch\'s the occasional news.  
His absolute stubborness is unsettling and the fact that he was getting flustered just isn\'t admirable.

Please join us for the wrong war at the wrong war at the wrong time.  Great message Kerry! I am sure the allies will come pouring in!

Great, now you sound exactly like Bush.  There is absolutely no mistake that Iraq was/is a threat, there were obvious mistakes for going to war.  Kerry wants to reconcile, what\'s wrong with that?

It isn\'t? Has the US been attacked again? How many terror plots have been foiled since 9/11?

What\'s with the major holes in security?  What\'s with the increasing dangers other than Iraq?

Alot hasn\'t been addressed by either party.

Originally posted by Ginko
Isn\'t NATO still on the fence?  Arab and Muslim nations?

I\'ll admit I\'m not in the know because last night was the first I\'ve sat in on anything these two have to say.  Bush made it clear that he\'s not budging, even on the issues that need to be readdressed.  Kerry made it clear he\'s wanting to seek damage control.

NATO will not be going to Iraq - France will not allow it regardless of who is President.  France and Germany are pretty much the only other NATO countries that are not involved in Iraq and they won\'t be coming.  In contrast to what Kerry said "Help is not on its way."  As for Arab and Muslim nations?  They want no part in what could be perceived as occupying another Arab/Muslim country.

Originally posted by Ginko

Great, now you sound exactly like Bush.  There is absolutely no mistake that Iraq was/is a threat, there were obvious mistakes for going to war.  Kerry wants to reconcile, what\'s wrong with that?

You really need to keep up with events more.  "Wrong War at the wrong time" is a John Kerry/Moveon.org original.

Originally posted by Ginko


What\'s with the major holes in security?  What\'s with the increasing dangers other than Iraq?

Alot hasn\'t been addressed by either party.

Yes there are still holes in our borders and national security, but anyone who is a realist knows not everything can be done at once and for Kerry to insinuate that he can get everything done in 4 years is absurd.

Are you just ignoring that there\'s weakening support in regards to Iraq?  That Bush\'s reasoning for going to war with Iraq is unfounded?  It doesn\'t bother you that every subsequent month there are more deaths in Iraq?  It doesn\'t bother you that there are major holes in our homeland security? North Korea and Iran becoming more dangerous...

Bush didn\'t touch any of those topics and it\'s what I need to hear from him if I\'m going to take him seriously.  

Kerry on the other hand has made it clear he\'s aware of the issues and pushes for resolve.  

Neither of them has a solid idea of what to do, Kerry is just more convinicing.  Bush would rather defend himself than sell his future plans.