|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,076
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,076 |
Why cant we just end all this political bullcrap and just come to the conclusion that as far as a leader goes, we're just plain screwed!!
I'm so sick of this, Rep or Dem, I could care less. Bush is a complete dumbass and Kerry isn't much better. All I have to say is just like in 2000 I'm amazed that this is the best that we could do for presidential canadates.
2000 SVT Black/Tan #1633/2150 (a few mods)
Alpine: CDA-9835, MRV-F540, MRD-M550
PG: TANTRUM-X 6.5 COMP all around.
Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas.
CEL currently: Off
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,367
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,367 |
Sal Khan
00 SVT - Not pretty
00 Aprilia RSV Mille - Also Loved.
http://www.thelunchjournals.com
"I just want someone I can stand once her mouth is free of obstruction."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667 |
Originally posted by CarpePoon:
Bush is a complete dumbass and Kerry isn't much better.
This statement doesn't say much for you either... to just immediately qualify two of the most successful politicians of the current day as "complete dumbasses" just makes YOU out to be the buffoon. Bush is not a "dumbass", he's a terrible public speaker. There is a difference. Kerry is not a "dumbass" either, but rather a lifelong bureaucrat, taking whichever side of any issue he needs to maintain and build his power. Both are Yale educated, have had successful (despite what you might say about either) careers, and are leading the charge in our country.
Originally posted by CarpePoon:
All I have to say is just like in 2000 I'm amazed that this is the best that we could do for presidential canadates.
Just like in 2000, the best candidates aren't running, either by choice or by defeat. I proudly voted for John McCain in the presidential primary in 2000... unfortunately he lost. It happens. If it weren't for the COMPLETELY ASININE primary system in America where Iowa and New Hampshire decide almost exclusively who our presidential candidates will be, I would've actually *gasp* registered as a Democrat to vote in the primary for Wes Clark. Even Joe Lieberman would've been a great president.
Originally posted by Pete D:
most of the political topics on here are dominated by the conservatives on the boards I don't even both half the time.
We dominate because we make the best cases... by using facts, rationality, and logic.  The few "liberals" who do... gwellington comes to mind... don't post enough and leave the ranting to people who will bash Bush at any cost and with any motivation, without really thinking about what they're bashing or why. These "discussions" often descend into calls of being "BUSHWHACKED!!!"  and name calling without solid supporting facts to back up their thoughts.
Originally posted by Pete D:
IMO, bipartisan politics suck, the canidates really aren't that far on either side of the "fence". I'd like to see some more political parties in the mix, and the demise of the electoral college why we are at it..
I couldn't agree more... the electoral college was great when we couldn't get an accurate count of the popular vote... with technology as it is and voting results available almost instantaneously, the electoral college is nothing more than show, and as we saw in 2000, a source of unnecessary controversy. About the political parties though... It hasn't worked for Ross Perot, it hasn't worked for Ralph Nader... its not going to work, probably ever. People are too afraid to leave their parties. If 2 republicans leave to join the "Moderates", but only 1 democrat leaves, then the dems have an instant advantage, and most people aren't willing to take that chance either way.
Diesel owns you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by IL Sean:
Jato I think the message that Bush sends is directly tied to his foreign policy. Coming out and talking about specific rouge nations, calling them out is a blunder IMO.
I don't. The post 9/11 world was put on notice that known terrorist states are on our official s**t-list and for good reason, as it's been proven that UN diplomacy and State Department negociation wasn't cutting the mustard under the previous 2 administrations. Putting Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Libya, Cuba and Iraq on the spot made it clear to the WORLD that we were serious about pushing (forcefully if needed) the end to WMD proliferation among known rogue states and championing the end of state-sponsored terrorism.
Not to beat a dead horse, but Bush using the term "crusade" in his State of the Union address was a BAD thing, as it simply served to piss off most of the Muslim world, even some of out allies. Poor word choice seems to haunt Bush time after time...
Iraq under Hussein is no more, Libya has coughed up their WMD's, Iran has inspectors for the first time in ages sniffing around their nuclear program, N. Korea has come back to the table with a HELL of a lot less sabre-rattling than before and Syria is on the hot-seat staring at US troops and armor only hundreds of miles away from their borders. You can dislike Bush all you want, the FACT is that we've got SOLID results on our hands and his overall vision is working.
It's undeniable. It's also undeniable that when strong action is taken, a few egos and sensibilities were bound to get bruised.
Originally posted by IL Sean:
I do not think the current state of affairs shows in anyway that the current foreign policy is working. We went to Iraq with no exit plan, plain and simple.
I wouldn't say we had NO exit plan, but an ill-planned one. As for our foreign policy not working, read what I typed above and tell me that it's not working...
Originally posted by IL Sean:
The fact that most of the world is unhappy with us is a sign of poor foreign policy. With bad blood between the US and the rest of the world we are unable to be players in the world.
No, there are certain countries that are upset with us due to our fulfilling a UN mission that they themselves backed out of (strictly for political and financial reasons, I might add). We still have a NUMBER of backers and supporters of our efforts. Iraq doesn't constitute our ENTIRE foreign policy; it does have the spotlights on it, though. Don't think for a minute that we've been abandoned by the UN, as they are working with us (and we are working with them) on a number of other issues across the globe.
Originally posted by IL Sean:
How are we to work with other nations in this Multi-Polar world if we do not work at working with the world instead of unilatteraly?
Our actions WEREN'T unilateral!!!! Feel free to browse the list of supporters we had going into Iraq and still have today!
Just because we didn't have the blessing of Russia, Germany and France (all with economic ties to Hussein's regime, I might add AGAIN) going into Iraq doesn't constitute that we "charged" in alone.
Originally posted by IL Sean:
And don't tell me that just because the world doesn't like most of our foreign policy that is ok, that it has nothing to do with our current policy. It is indeed linked, it's a sign is the world is not working with us that something is wrong.
Or it could mean that we are starting to do something RIGHT that has changed the game of half-measures and political chit-chat until it's too damn late to do anything without hobbling our options or setting ourselves up for another 9/11...
I'll not deny we've had our hiccups with a number of nations over Iraq; personally, I'll take bruised egos and whimsical temper-tantrums in the UN any day over putting the blinders on and letting Iran, Syria and N. Korea go totally unchecked in their efforts. F**k the cohesiveness and happiness of the UN Security council if that means the US has to put her immediate and long-term security at risk.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by svtcarboy:
I would also bring forth the idea that there are at least a good number of us that think of ourselves as conservative that would prefer to see someone other than Bush on the Republican ticket.
Thank you. This was the reason I posted this article. A true conservative like George Will gets what many people don't....Bush is not a conservative he's a neoconservative. Cutting taxes is not enough to call yourself conservative, you also have to limit the growth of government. Bush's administration has increased non-military government spending more than any previous admin. From the dept. of homeland security to the bloated farm bill, Bush has not used a single veto to reign in the spend happy congress.
Here's Will's most recent column criticizing Bush and a quote from it. Go George(Will).
"Leave aside the question of who or what failed before 9/11. But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud â?? the story of Iraq attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging pre-emptive war â?? weapons of mass destruction â?? was largely spurious? Or because postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable."
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/9255644p-10180764c.html
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
A true conservative like George Will gets what many people don't....Bush is not a conservative he's a neoconservative. Cutting taxes is not enough to call yourself conservative, you also have to limit the growth of government. Bush's administration has increased non-military government spending more than any previous admin. From the dept. of homeland security to the bloated farm bill, Bush has not used a single veto to reign in the spend happy congress.
Here's Will's most recent column criticizing Bush and a quote from it. Go George(Will).
"Leave aside the question of who or what failed before 9/11. But who lost his or her job because the president's 2003 State of the Union address gave currency to a fraud ? the story of Iraq attempting to buy uranium in Niger? Or because the primary and only sufficient reason for waging pre-emptive war ? weapons of mass destruction ? was largely spurious? Or because of postwar planning, from failure to anticipate the initial looting to today's insufficient force levels, has been botched? Failures are multiplying because of choices for which no one seems accountable."
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/9255644p-10180764c.html
What you do NOT see Will saying is vote for Kerry. If Bush is not conservative enough for you, he is VASTLY more so that John Kerry. This is the PRACTICAL choice we face in 6 months. No "perfect" conservative ideal is going to be on the ballot but the guy with the most liberal record is.
As much as I generally respect George Will, I think he is suffering from typical American "It must be fixed right now" syndrome. The Iraq plan is being cut from new cloth....molded along the way. No real precident because the war on terror as it is a new style a war that will likely be the main way wars are fought in the 21st century.
I think the initial tactical plan was teriffic (far fewer casualties than ANYONE predicted)..but in part that is because we did not fully procecute the Sunni triangle. This was a mistake IMO to not shake down Fallujia in the beginning as so many of what would have been EARLY casualties are now LATE casualities. We have made mistakes in not securing arms stockpiles, in not better sealing the borders from invaders, in not taking better advantage/control of the media, and obviously, in running the prison camps. I do think this should be investigated and if ness, accountablity assigned. Which may go to Rumsfeld. However some (not all) of this is hindsight, I think we have been adjusting tactics along the way...and this is needed in any war. Note the recent tactic changes in Fallujia and Karbolla...seems to be working better. We are adapting...but we hold our ground. I believe we will succeed because our enemy is still under the impression that we lack the will to fight. This is Bush's strength...the utter will to prevail. This is CRITICAL.
The reason to invade (beyond enforcing resolutions, WMD, eliminating a great mass murderer) was JUST made much clearer here folks. The Jordanian Al-Zarkowi that either beheaded or lead the murderers of that unfortunate young man has for years run a terrorist TRAINING camp in North Iraq with full knowlege of Iraq intelligence. He was training men to do what you saw on the TV!! AND the men that killed hundreds in Madrid with chemical weapons (perhaps even from Sadam's stockpiles) and re-shaped an ELECTION..same training camp, same leader. THIS WAS GOING ON IN IRAQ BEFORE 9/11! He was not running camps in Jordon because they do not sponser or tolerate terrorist camps. Iraq DID tolerate these camps. But those camps are now GONE and Al-Zarkowi has a multimillion dollar bouty on his head. And democracy or no, Bush will never tolerate this type of training in Iraq again, nor will he in Libya or Afganistan. Iran and Syria are on notice too.. And even N. Africa and SE Asia we are acting covertly to block Al Queda as they seek to retreat from middle east with 2/3 of the leadership captured or dead.
So conservative, neoconservative, whatever...Bush is getting the job done in a way Kerry NEVER will/would. This superceeds all other priorities for right now..so if Bush gives away some more of my money I amy not like it but I'm going to suck it up and deal..And I will not be joining the naysayers that whip up into a panic "regeime change" frenzy every new headline in the New York Times. Bad news for the country seems to lift there spirits every time..
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: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,144
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,144 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
No "perfect" conservative ideal is going to be on the ballot but the guy with the most liberal record is.
Thank God.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
As much as I generally respect George Will, I think he is suffering from typical American "It must be fixed right now" syndrome.
Not really "syndrome" but more of "realization".
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
This is Bush's strength...the utter will to prevail. This is CRITICAL.
This confuses me. Is it his will to prevail at messing up our own country, or our status in the world, or help his cronnies make a buck or billion, or fail to turn an anti-democratic nation into the very thing it despises that is so critical? Which one of these is he trying to prevail at? I would think it's all of them. 
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
And democracy or no, Bush will never tolerate this type of training in Iraq again, nor will he in Libya or Afganistan. Iran and Syria are on notice too..
Does he want to be president of these countries too? Maybe they could hold a multi-nation vote, and do re-count upon re-count until they threw enough non-Bush ballots out to where he would be the victor. Wait a minute, I've seen this somewhere before. 
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
So conservative, neoconservative, whatever...Bush is getting the job done in a way Kerry NEVER will/would.
You're right! Kerry would never have lead our country into a war of lies, deciete, and corruption, throwing our country, rights, and way of life down the toilet. 9/11 was a terrible thing to happen, and it makes me even sadder to know that Bush was in office when it happened.
99 SE Sport SilverFrost MTX
01 F4i Red/White 
My mom says I shouldn't talk to conservatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
Originally posted by mbSVT:
Originally posted by CarpePoon:
Bush is a complete dumbass and Kerry isn't much better.
This statement doesn't say much for you either... to just immediately qualify two of the most successful politicians of the current day as "complete dumbasses" just makes YOU out to be the buffoon. Bush is not a "dumbass", he's a terrible public speaker. There is a difference. Kerry is not a "dumbass" either, but rather a lifelong bureaucrat, taking whichever side of any issue he needs to maintain and build his power. Both are Yale educated, have had successful (despite what you might say about either) careers, and are leading the charge in our country.
Well, I will not say that Bush and Kerry are complete idiots, but Bush is not particulary intelligent and far too easily led versus being a leader and visionary. Kerry is too entrenched of a bureaucrat to think beyond his party platform.
Easiest I can say is that both are more followers than leaders, and I really think there are many people in this country that would make far better candidates for President than either of these two.
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667 |
Originally posted by svtcarboy:
Well, I will not say that Bush and Kerry are complete idiots, but Bush is not particulary intelligent and far too easily led versus being a leader and visionary.
What makes you think that? I don't think there's any real evidence to suggest that he is "easily led". Rather, I think that he understands the value of surrounding yourself with good people, and he respects and heeds their advice, rather than simply running off and acting completely authoritarian.
I would say that there are few cabinets as experienced/qualified as Bush's... Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and most of all Powell.
Diesel owns you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397 |
I think the problem is there are no LEADERS out there...just plain old politicians. There was a time when we had men running for the presidency that were both. We need someone that is strong and can lead and inspire a nation not some babbling double talking jackass who's only in it for his own interests. That's a shot at BOTH candidates in this election.
Whatever happened to the great leaders we used to have? (to name a few) JFK's, Roosevelts, Trumans, hell even though I didn't care for his domestic policies Reagen was still a good LEADER and did a great job with foreign affairs because of it.
The recent crop of presidential candidates just kinda makes me sick and disgusted and a bit nervous about the future of our country and way of life.
Formerly known as Sneaku
I MISS MY BABY!!!
'00 Blk CSVT #1087/2150 built 12/23/99
|
|
|
|
|
