|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Rogerm60:
Flip flopping on the war - web page
OK, the Bush marketing folks have stretched this to a fair degree (and totally miss the point that we gave Hussein a decade worth of chances), but what say you to the following...
From the article: "It's not only Bush who criticizes Kerry's inconsistency on that vote. Rival Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, a senator who also had voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq, said: "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." Lieberman spoke at a candidate debate in Detroit Oct. 26, 2003.
Another Democratic rival who criticized Kerry for that vote was Rep. Dick Gephardt, who said beforehand that he would support the $87 billion "because it is the only responsible course of action. We must not send an ambiguous message to our troops, and we must not send an uncertain message to our friends and enemies in Iraq."
Originally posted by Rogerm60:
Votes for tax increases - web page
From the article: "To be sure, such votes did express Kerry's general approval for the higher tax levels they contained.
Originally posted by Rogerm60:
Voting against military and intel spending - web page
Most of the recent military actions seem to be valid Cold-War shelving excercises on many programs that were no longer needed, but I'll go to town against any Republican or Democrat that shafted Intel spending, something that Kerry did during the Clinton years. We blinded ourselves in the Middle-East and in other areas aroung the globe and the economic surplus that Democrats like to brag about were partially funded through excercises such as this. Odd that FactCheck.org doesn't mention any of the findings and intelligence funding and appropration snafu's that the 9/11 commission has dug up...
Originally posted by Rogerm60:
There are distortions on both sides, but read about them from an unbiased source - big list
I fully agree that they are the most fair source against the campaign smear ads that each group is running.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Edwards was almost as bad as Bush last week in terms of style. The repetition on his part was mind-bending and he came off as nervous as heck during most of the debate. I don't believe I've EVER seen one person blink so much in my life. He was aggressive, though Cheney would fly right back at him and more often than not, end up broiling him.
Staying on message? If you mean repeating the same point ad-naseum, then I would agree.
Any way you cut this one, Cheney tore Edwards a new hole, much in the same way Kerry did to Bush last week...
As far as the aggression goes, Cheney was usually on the defensive, and his counterattacks were sometimes valid but not very forceful. As for the repetition, of course it was ridiculous, since that seems to be what sells these days. I didn't pick up on an excess of nervousness on Edwards' part - more like a contrast to Cheney's overly calm demeanor.
Based on what I saw, Cheney was far from tearing Edwards a new hole.
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Quote:
Cheney was usually on the defensive
Which debate did you watch? From the get-go Edwards became flustered and was defensive. Cheney being a super-calm speaker only made Edwards look more nervous.
Quote:
Based on what I saw, Cheney was far from tearing Edwards a new hole.
I will agree with you here, however. I believe overall the debate was a wash. Both parties said the exact same things they've been saying, and I doubt that anyone was swayed by this debate, and it'll all be forgotten on Friday anyway.
E1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Fairly entertaining..
Highlights included..
1) Pointing out that Kerry's pro-Iraq war stance (we may yet find WMD) to anti war coincided with Deans success as antiwar candidate. "If you could not stand up to Dean, how can we expect you to stand againts terrorists"
2) Hammering Kerry's senate record including the obvious dichotomy of claiming to be in favor of coalition building yet being one of a few senators to vote against the FIRST GULF WAR WHEN we HAD THE UN COALITION.
3) After hammering the Kerry/Edwards antiintell, antimilitary voting records, Edwards retorts with "you voted agaist meals on wheels and MLK day!!" I was LMAO on that one..Edwards was clearly stunned here, generating random incoherent facts that he memorized till he calmed himself down.
4) Pounding Edwards absence in intell committee & senate voting with the "this is the first time I have met you and I am the president of the senate"...not entirely true but damn funny.
5) Edwards developed a facial tick after the first few beatings..he kept blinking oddly with one eye. He was not blinking at first so I think it was not the lights..
For those of us saddened by Bush's failure to articulate the excellent case he can make last week, it was a bit uplifting to see Cheney have his way with Edwards, even if we still did not here alot more of the story articulated.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rogerm60:
Flip flopping on the war - web page
OK, the Bush marketing folks have stretched this to a fair degree (and totally miss the point that we gave Hussein a decade worth of chances), but what say you to the following...
From the article: "It's not only Bush who criticizes Kerry's inconsistency on that vote. Rival Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, a senator who also had voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq, said: "I don't know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they supported the war but then opposed the funding for the troops who went to fight the war that the resolution that they supported authorized." Lieberman spoke at a candidate debate in Detroit Oct. 26, 2003.
Another Democratic rival who criticized Kerry for that vote was Rep. Dick Gephardt, who said beforehand that he would support the $87 billion "because it is the only responsible course of action. We must not send an ambiguous message to our troops, and we must not send an uncertain message to our friends and enemies in Iraq."
Two things come to mind.
First - Remember that no one voted to go to war, support the war is not exactly accurate either. They actually voted to give G.W.B. the authorization to go to war if he thouroughly persued all diplomatic and multinational options and they failed, and, there was imminent threat of attack. Some think this is just a technicality. We had supposedly learned our lesson from James K. Polk's mexican war. If you listen to our current administration now, the threat was possible or would be in the future, this is not imminent.
Second and more to the point - Although the administration had sent troops to Iraq without pressing for the procurement of the remaining units of new body armor (about 40,000 pieces), the matter later came to a head and was included in the often refered to $87 billion appropriation bill for reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The body armor was only $300 million of that bill. The reconstruction money included $10 billion for Iraq. If you remember at the time, there was some controversy over wether to call the money a "gift" or a loan. There was also a measure that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. Kerry did indeed vote for a version of the the bill before he voted against a different version of it. Support of the troops was not at issue, rather it was Kerry's fiscal conservatism at a time when the buget was exploding due to America's unilateral decision to persue and finance the war.
I might add that the often used Kerry quote about voting for the bill before voting against it continued - "And I might add, that vote for the $87 billion, which was was a vote to change our policy and get other nations involved and get other people on the ground and take the target off of American troops by sharing the responsibility, it was also a vote that took place long after they already committed the troops, long after they should have had the equipment that they needed."
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 20
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 20 |
300 million for body armour but about 60 billion + for other military gear & supplies. The 40,000 additional peices of armour were for troups originally not felt likely to be in combat (supply, etc)...combat troups were well equiped. This was the US military ADAPTING to changing battlefield conditions. I submit Kerry was an impediment to this adaptation and again....was voting on the final bill..his earlier efforts to link tax hikes to funding had failed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,408 |
Originally posted by DanNx:
his earlier efforts to link tax hikes to funding had failed.
A temporary repeal of a tax cut is not a tax hike. To be sure, it was a typical political ploy, but in this case it was an attempt to reign in the income/expenditure balance which was and is spiraling out of control. Since at the final vote he knew it would pass anyway, it simply served as a statement of fiscal responsibility.
Kerry was not the impediment either, look up why after the bill was passed no action was seen for months. Members of both parties made statements concerning the administration's lack of action and the misdirection of moneys procured for the war effort.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -George Santayana
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 20
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 20 |
Originally posted by Rogerm60:
Originally posted by DanNx:
his earlier efforts to link tax hikes to funding had failed.
A temporary repeal of a tax cut is not a tax hike. To be sure, it was a typical political ploy, but in this case it was an attempt to reign in the income/expenditure balance which was and is spiraling out of control. Since at the final vote he knew it would pass anyway, it simply served as a statement of fiscal responsibility.
Semantics...it IS a tax hike.
"Statement of fiscal responsibility" or "Statement of military irresponsibility" given troups in the field needing the gear..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by DanNx:
Semantics...it IS a tax hike.
Depends on what the definition of is is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by DanNx:
300 million for body armour but about 60 billion + for other military gear & supplies. The 40,000 additional peices of armour were for troups originally not felt likely to be in combat (supply, etc)...combat troups were well equiped. This was the US military ADAPTING to changing battlefield conditions. I submit Kerry was an impediment to this adaptation and again....was voting on the final bill..his earlier efforts to link tax hikes to funding had failed.
that doesn't deny the fact that bush admin made very serious mistakes back then. they just didn't properly plan or execute their ideas for post mission accomplished iraq. the whole situation has been very badly managed until recently. these are the type of mistakes people get fired for in the real world!!! even though they're trying to clean up the mes now i can't trust they won't repeat the same mistakes. and mainly cause they refuse to accept and admit they've made any!!!!
even when confronted with the evidence today that iraq wasn't an imminent threat it's laughable that cheney can stick to the same story. but they love to throw in the little twist....'the world is better without saddam hussein in power'. maybe, but the world would be a better place without n.korea and iran developing nuke programs! the way the bush admin gained support for the war in iraq by misleading, misdirecteding, and misinterpreting 'evidence' in order to gain support has left a very bad taste for a lot of people.
i for one believe the bush admin knew iraq didn't have a wmd arsenal, wasn't anywhere near close to developing a nuke, didn't have strong ties to al qaeda, and knew iraq wasn't the greatest threat to our homeland security and global terrorism in the immediate term. even though they say iraq was a growing threat, a growing threat is far from immediate and imminent threat!! they didn't go to war saying iraq was a growing threat, they said it was an immediate and imminent threat that needed to be dealt with now. so to me it looks like the bush admin mislead the nation on purpose or negligently ignored the clues they could be wrong in their assumptions. how many more fcukups do they get before it's fubar?!
it was interesting one thing cheney said in the debate that solidified it for me he still has no idea what's going on...he said "we took the war to them over there so we didn't have to fight it over here". and i thought at what point were we at war with iraqi people? iraq wasn't the front for the war on terrorism when we attacked!
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
