|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 403
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 403 |
Decide for yourself (I personally believe them). http://swiftvets.com/
96 Sport 2.0L - 190,XXX miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682 |
You mean there are people that dislike certain politicians? Say it ain't so!
98.5 Contour SVT
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country"
--US President George W Bush
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Originally posted by daenku32:
You mean there are people that dislike certain politicians? Say it ain't so!
I have nothing against Kerry as a person, so I can't say that I dislike him.
But I'm not so keen on his voting record in the Senate.
I don't hold those who call names on either side of the aisle in very high esteem.
So if your best argument is that Bush is a chimp or Kerry got Botox injections, spare me the trouble.
Now if you want to talk about records in office, bring it on, but please cite specifics and not just stuff like Kerry was in the Senate during the internet boom.
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 403
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 403 |
96 Sport 2.0L - 190,XXX miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
it's annoying how far people will go to try and discredit kerry's service or belittle the fact that he actually fought in a war.
i find it more interesting why none of bush's reserve buddies have come out to vouch for him performing his reserve duties in the 3 months or so of his service that seem to be lost in time...
in addition i don't think it's fair for people to point to kerry's voting record as a senator as indicative of his expected service as our eventual president. there are so many other battles being fought in the senate that you can't take someone's voting record at face value imo. however, we do know that kerry's current qualifications to be president are more than what bush had at the time he was elected.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by BP:
it's annoying how far people will go to try and discredit kerry's service or belittle the fact that he actually fought in a war.
What's more annoying is how Kerry thinks his service in Vietnam alone qualifies him to be president.
Originally posted by BP:
i find it more interesting why none of bush's reserve buddies have come out to vouch for him performing his reserve duties in the 3 months or so of his service that seem to be lost in time...
Why should they have to? Just because McAuffile made some loony statements doesn't mean they should be responded to.
Originally posted by BP:
in addition i don't think it's fair for people to point to kerry's voting record as a senator as indicative of his expected service as our eventual president. there are so many other battles being fought in the senate that you can't take someone's voting record at face value imo.
BS If that's true, then we can't take Bush's record as president as any indication of decisions he would make, because "there are so many other battles being fought". 
Originally posted by BP:
however, we do know that kerry's current qualifications to be president are more than what bush had at the time he was elected.
And what qualifications would those be? His record in the Senate? You just said we can't take them as any indication of what he would do as president. His service in Vietnam? We can't consider the things his fellow soldiers have said. Try for a second to not be so contradictory!
I don't really care what Kerry did when he was in Vietnam. If he killed innocent civilians, then so be it. I've always said what happens on the battlefield stays on the battlefield, because no one who wasn't there can imagine the psychological conditions of warfare.
The significance of these accusations, however, is that Kerry is using his Vietnam service as a backbone of his campaign. If he talks himself up to be some great hero whose fellows soldiers adored him, then evidence to the contrary should be considered. He's the one that has brought his Vietnam service into the campaign, so he should accept the positive and the negative of doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667 |
Originally posted by BP:
it's annoying how far people will go to try and discredit kerry's service or belittle the fact that he actually fought in a war.
i find it more interesting why none of bush's reserve buddies have come out to vouch for him performing his reserve duties in the 3 months or so of his service that seem to be lost in time...
I also find it rather annoying that people still try and discredit Bush's service based on THREE MONTHS in question. I agree with Dave (surprise) that he shouldn't think military service alone qualifies him to lead our country, and I disagre with the fact that people are trying to "belittle" him... rather, they're trying to point out the glaring contradictions in Kerry's past.
Originally posted by BP:
in addition i don't think it's fair for people to point to kerry's voting record as a senator as indicative of his expected service as our eventual president. there are so many other battles being fought in the senate that you can't take someone's voting record at face value imo.
I agree with this completely... however, I'm not taking Kerry's voting record at face value. Individual votes are far too complex, with lots of hidden provisions, pork barrel legislation, etc. I don't particularly find fault with his individual "votes".
HOWEVER, I take major issue with his serious swings in policy and thought. Outside of just his "votes", the fact that he served "so valiantly" in Vietnam, then came back and declared his fellow soldiers "war criminals", (pretended to) throw his medals at Congress, then ran for president a few years later and pretended to be a war hero again. The fact that he spoke out publicly against Saddam and in support of the war in Iraq (despite voting AGAINST the first war), and now says that we "never should've gone in." Or how about the fact that the NUMBER ONE taker of special interest money in the Senate criticizes Bush for "being in bed with Enron, Halliburton, etc."
Originally posted by BP:
however, we do know that kerry's current qualifications to be president are more than what bush had at the time he was elected.
I disagree... why does being in the Senate make you any more qualified than being Governor? There are TWO senators from every state, but only ONE governor, so in theory its more difficult to get elected to be governor. The President governs our nation, so the job is more akin to governor than senator, who is simply a legislator. Does the fact that he's had plenty of years inside the beltway to become corrupt like all other politicians make him more qualified? I, for one, would prefer an outsider. Sure he may not know the ins and outs of navigating the political backwaters, but he'd surely be much more in touch with the rest of America, and those American's that the President serves and represents.
Diesel owns you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
I disagree... why does being in the Senate make you any more qualified than being Governor? There are TWO senators from every state, but only ONE governor, so in theory its more difficult to get elected to be governor. The President governs our nation, so the job is more akin to governor than senator, who is simply a legislator.
While I agree with your point, it should be noted that being a Governor in the State of Texas is about the easiest, least responsible political job that one can have in the nation. He can do literally nothing more than suggest legislature. The Lt. Governor has, literally, far more power than the Governor does in this state. The Governor of Texas is a figurehead, nothing more.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by sigma:
While I agree with your point, it should be noted that being a Governor in the State of Texas is about the easiest, least responsible political job that one can have in the nation. He can do literally nothing more than suggest legislature. The Lt. Governor has, literally, far more power than the Governor does in this state. The Governor of Texas is a figurehead, nothing more.
Hahaha.....sigma to the rescue!!!
So were all the criticisms of Bush as governor unfounded?
|
|
|
|
|
