| Bush vs. Kerry | |
|
Halendor - ex-Student  |
I was just wondering, now it's final that Kerry is going to battle Bush in the elections, who would you vote for, and please tell us why. This post was edited by Halendor on Mar 05 2004 04:38pm. |
| Poll | ||
Who would you vote for?
|
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
(Jedi)Obi-JK - Student 
|
Bush people, tell me, what has he done to deserve re-election. _______________ Silent Bob (Kevin Smith): You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you. -Steve (Obi) |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired 
|
Quote: 3) People want to point out that Kerry is allowed to change his opinion but when Bush originally said that capturing Osama is the primary goal, and later on he said it wasn't as much of a concern does everyone want to get all over him about it? If Kerry is allowed to flipflop on every topic in Washington, Bush is allowed to change what he thinks is a priority as more of how Al Quaeda works became evident. Hmm...Buzz, good point. Quote: Oh, and sidenote: Just because something isn't a key issue to voters (like global warming) does not mean that it shouldn't be taken care of. Just that it will not have the drastic impact on the vote, like other issues. All issues should be addressed, yes, but the key ones deserve more focus. Just to clarify what I meant. Ulic...understood. And, btw, thanks for the research info. Very useful. Makes me think...which is the whole point of this forum. -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
OK. Have some books. To quote Pakistan's nuclear weapon capability: Quote: Pakistan posesses the components and materials to assemble a small amount of nuclear weapons in a matter of hours or days and has produced enought weopons-grade plutonium to produce between 30 and 50 nuclear weapons (Albright, 2001. Available: www.isis-online.org) In all, Pakistan is thought to have produced between 585 and 800 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and may posess enough weapons-grade plutonium for the production of three to five weapons. Pakistan has nuclear-capable missiles with ranges from 280 kilometers to 2000 kilometers. Pakistan has acquired the bulk of its missile capabilities from China and North Korea. (My note: It is interesting to point out that the assistance from China undercut the Clinton administration's efforts to restore a measure of non-proliferation influence in its relations with Pakistan. I wonder if Kerry will prove as effective as Clinton was, but that's just me. After all, North Korea is cheerin' for him.) North Korea's missile arsenal includes the Chinese-built and supplied M-11, the liquid-fuel Hatf short-range series, the Ghauri medium-range missiles, and the solid-fuel Shaheen series. Pakistan reportedly posesses about 30 muclear-capable M-11 surface-to-surface missiles with a range of 280-300 km. Other missiles have seen testing and some production, including: Ghauri I---1300 km range, 700 kg warhead Ghauri II--2000 km range, 850 kg warhead Shaheen II-2000 km range Also, they have 4 nuclear weapons reactors and devlopment complexes (Khan Research Labratories, Kahuta [note the name Khan, after the black market nuke guy] ; Ras Koh; Kharan Desert; and Pakistan Ordinance Factory, Wah) So a touchy situation. And Pakistan, more specifically, Scomi Precision Engineering, was at the heart of five crates of centrifuge parts siezed en route to Libya. There are also connections being analyzed as to Pakistan sending materials to Iran. So. Foreign policy. Let's review the past 2.5 years, OK? The US was attacked by terrorists, has overthrown two govenrnments and is still fighting some ground battles against guerillas in Afghanistan and Irad, while spending some good amount of money to do so (although if you look at the amount of money actually being spent there in terms of a percentage, it isn't that big of a deal. The amount Bush requested for Iraq was only about HALF of what Congress spends in a day. So chew on that.) Since September 11, Bush has outlined a distinctive, even coherent, foreign policy. And he even tried to involve the UN at points, but not at sacrifice to policy. Kerry has yet (as far as I know) to really outline any good foreign policy. But I recall him wishing to cut back on the "Not-a-war on terrorism" (He doesn't like calling it a war, except to bash Bush for using images of a war for his campaigning. How can Bush use images of a war if Kerry doesn't think it is a war? Or is it really a war but Kerry can't admit it? Is this the duality we wish for a leader? Anyways...) So Kerry has two bad choices that he might actually take. One is to be anti-Bush Foreign Policy (ABFP). With ABFP, it'd work well to stir support with the democrats, but not with the general public in the general election. As noted earlier, most undecided, and even most Democrats, don't ride along too much with a fury towards Bush. They go along with issues, not just the anti-Bush stance. So ABFP is a bad idea. Next is Bush Foreign Policy 0.5 (BFP.5) This will be a, er, lite version of what Bush is seeking. But how is that really original? Most voters will go for Bush Foreign Policy (BFP) than go with BFP.5. Why settle for the buggy beta when you can have the full retail version, right? So Kerry would be bad off with a "buggy beta" version of Bush's policies. But Bush does have coherent and radical strategies. Kerry needs to address the threats to America, and find its stance within the world. But not by going back to the failures of the Clinton administration, and without doing either the ABFP or the BFP.5. So it'll be tough. And many will be listning to what he comes up with. Especially me. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
OK. Continuing. Pakistan is tricky to deal with because of what many call its function of 'a veritable Wal-Mart" for nuclear weapons buyers, tied to Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan (hehe, wrath of Khan. KHAAAAAANNNNN!!!!) Combine this "wal-mart" with Fissile material stored in such places as Kazakstan and Kinshasa, better designs since 1945, readily available centrifuge plans and parts (such as aluminum tubing that was being shipped to Iraq. Used for missile tubes my ass. They were too high quality. Centrifuge quality.), and possibly North Korea. Let's look at North Korea. An atarchy (not anarchy), which strives to be independent. They really do cut themselves off, and as such, they have dire poverty and hunger, and nothing to sell but drugs, guns, missiles and missile tech--and possibly nukes. Tie this in with my earlier post about North Korea's support for Kerry as president, so that they can keep their nuclear program, and you have a large nuclear proliferation problem. I would think that the spread of nuclear weapons would be a top issue with most voters. I sure hope so. Here's the catches (and maybe where Bush is failing. Maybe.): Pakistan is believed to be the world's most dangerous breeding ground for both WMD and terror (I'll bring this up once I go through some of my larger reference books, evidence of this forthcoming, but I have to leave again soon.) But Pakistan is also a ket US ally. So we have to take a lot of the, um, lack of control that Pakistani President Musharraf has over the situation. But we do get the IAEA (note that the I stands for INTERNATIONAL, meaning NOT JUST THE US) to apply pressure. Most of the progress in these matters is due to the IAEA. But, yeah, hafta go again. Busy week. I'll try to tackle a few points later on: 1. The IAEA's importance in WMD (even Iraq) 2. Problems with Pakistan and terror/WMD 3. Where ALL this is leading to....a leader with a good grasp of Foreign Affairs, and someone that can take a hawkish stance on things. But we can argue over who that is later. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This comment was edited by Ulic Belouve on Mar 16 2004 01:49am. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Hrm. Well, I'm going to get to the Osama issue first. See, here's the thing. It is believed that Osama has been hiding in the mountainous borders between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US forces can operate on the Afghanistan side (and we are), but not on the Pakistani side. Why? Well, there are Islamis extremists (blamed for two recent attempts to assasinate President Pervez Musharraf) that do not welcome the US presence there, and they have a lot of political clout. It's believed that (through a supposed Pentagon leak) that the US might reach into Pakistan in 2004, but that it would be "political dynamite" for Musharraf. Rumors have it (prom supposed leaks) that we may do something below the radar, but Pakistan doesn't seem to be the most friendly with us. I can dig up instances if I wish. My feelings: Kerry wouldn't put the pressure onto Pakistan, nor would he operate covertly in Pakistan to catch bin Laden. He's shown his dove side, and the Democrats criticize Bush for not nabbing bin Laden yet. But Kerry wouldn't do what is needed to get bin Laden either. He vowed to keep us out of conflict. So he'll keep bin Laden free. Er...damn, I gotta get going again. I'll write more on Pakistan, maybe, but will focus on Bush and Foreign Affairs. It may be a key issue in the election. Oh, and sidenote: Just because something isn't a key issue to voters (like global warming) does not mean that it shouldn't be taken care of. Just that it will not have the drastic impact on the vote, like other issues. All issues should be addressed, yes, but the key ones deserve more focus. Just to clarify what I meant. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
i know they werent looking for Osama bin Laden in Iraq what i ment they should look for him more,its that "Osama" organized it,created the idea and gathered followers to do that sickening deed,that coward _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too This comment was edited by Plo Koon on Mar 16 2004 12:38am. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
1) They weren't looking for Osama in Iraq 2) They have not found Osama YET. They are still looking. 3) People want to point out that Kerry is allowed to change his opinion but when Bush originally said that capturing Osama is the primary goal, and later on he said it wasn't as much of a concern does everyone want to get all over him about it? If Kerry is allowed to flipflop on every topic in Washington, Bush is allowed to change what he thinks is a priority as more of how Al Quaeda works became evident. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student 
|
Quote: i really dont like Bush,we shouldve went after Osama the bastard who actually flew the planes into the WTC's Huh? 1. Osama didn't fly the planes in the WTC 2. If he did, there would be no point searching him, 'cause he would already be dead 3. They did try and capture him, but couldn't find him in Afghanistan (nor in Iraq)  |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
kerry's gonna make bush look like a fool bush had a rich dad so he could get him into the Coast Guard or something so he didnt have to go fight in Vietnam while Kerry was actually shot in vietnam. _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too This comment was edited by Plo Koon on Mar 16 2004 12:37am. |
|
Plo Koon - Student
|
i really dont like Bush,we shouldve went after Osama the bastard who actually flew the planes into the WTC's _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student 
|
Ulic! Get back in here and give us something to write about  |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
Buzz- Thanks for mentioning that event. Great example. Halendor- Of course I don't think it's good. But that's the way it is here, whether I like it or not. And the Russian/American example is somewhat correct in that the tv plays such an important part in informing the populace. The first two channels on the Russian tv are basically state propaganda, and much of the white house information we see here is gulped down by the main news organizations without dissecting it. In that way, American news is acting similarly to Russian news. -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Buzz - Student
|
It is kind of a bad thing yeah. This really has been going back to the early 60's when Nixon and JFK were running against eachother. This was the first year they had televised debates. Nixon had spent the day campaigning before the debate and JFK had taken the whole day off. People watching the debate on TV believed that JFK had done better and therefore won the debate. People listening to it on the radio though thought that it was Nixon that had won the debate. This really does show how big of a thing image is. And yeah its not really a good thing. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
The Russian elections are weird. Putin's opponents don't want to be elected, they just want "their voice to be heard". Putin is extremely popular, but nobody knows why. A member of the Doema explained that "You gotta love someone, then why not love the chief". I don't think you can compare the Russian and American elections But do you think the fact that everything is about image, is a bad thing? That it should be more about the content, instead of the image? |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired 
|
Image is everything in America, dude. We're a sound bite country now. Anything that takes longer to discuss than than is lost on a very large amount of the population, unfortunately. That's why Bush does so many of these publicity stunts to "look" a particular way on TV (where most people get their so-called-news). Funny: Russian President Putin does the same thing... -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
Something else. This is the image of the American elections I get when I watch the news in Holland: It is really more about the person rather than their political ideas and beliefs. It's this huge media-circus where every candidate tries to make the other candidates look bad, instead of covincing the voters that their ideas and beliefs are better. I see candidates running up a stage with confetti raining down on them while they shout through a microphone "IS EVERYBODY REAAADDDYYYYYY!!!" *croud cries out* "WE ARE GOING TO WINNN YEAAAAAH!". Is this image correct, and if so, do you think it's bad? |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
Also: keep in mind that Bush and Cheney DID successfully keep their butts out of Vietnam. Cheney kept getting extentions to keep himself in school, and Bush's dad helped him get bumped to the front of a prime choice line as a fighter pilot trainee stateside. Kerry may have tried to get out of it, but at least he went. Coming back and protesting is not anti-American. It was the right thing to do, for heaven's sake. We shouldn't have been in there. My dad, who by the way DID volunteer to join the marines and go to Vietnam, found that crap out in the first few months he was there ('68-'69). He doesn't blame anyone who protested or took off to Canada. Although, Jane Fonda (admittedly, by the way) made a big mistake posing for pictures in front of North Vietnamese anti-aircraft equipment. -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
On a side note, for everyone who is posting links, please use the url and /url tags. Don't forget to include the 'http://' part. Thank you  This comment was edited by Halendor on Mar 12 2004 06:58pm. |
|
(Jedi)Obi-JK - Student
|
Quote: As for the War on Terror. I'd say that war is exactly what it needs to be. Have you ever heard of the war on drugs? Will you say that drugs are more of a threat to the United States, than organizations that have publicly stated they want to see America destroyed? http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html This guy is pretty good at poking fun at post 911 government. EDIT: Fixed the link. _______________ Silent Bob (Kevin Smith): You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you. -Steve (Obi) This comment was edited by (Jedi)Obi-JK on Mar 12 2004 08:58am. |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
Also: I have innumerable reasons for not voting for Bush, and will be posting them here throughout the week(s). So far today, I came up with 25 of them. I'll give them to you slowly so you can digest them. But right now, I *really* have to eat dinner. (Yeah, you already said that...) -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
No, this is not a scientific forum...but political decisions are made based on science (or not, in the case of Mr. Bush) and thus the global warming issue is a prime subject for discussion. And if we are going to be making political decisions, we need to understand the science. That was my point in the little lesson. Sorry to bore anybody. :/ And on that point...um...Ulic, I hate to say it, but you gotta brush up on the factors contributing to global warming. Although I appreciate that you asked us to "forgive you if you lack all the facts"... well...you should have stopped there. :O  Sun fluxuations and earth/sun proximity are in no way related to the problem at hand. The causes are as I mentioned, and as the United States is the biggest consumer and weathiest nation on earth, it should take a lead role in dealing with the issue- not pushing it aside as Bush has done.Also: blue is traditionally considered democratic (not "democrat"...that's not the name of the party, bro! ...but a lot of people make that mistake) and red is republican. Just to keep some points straight.  Upswing in religion: the religious business we are seeing in politics today started many, many years ago in Texas (of all places). In a recent conversation, my politically-savvy-grandmother told me she has been following the growth of this religion/politics stuff for 30-some years. Apparently right-wing conservatives tried to stuff their beliefs down peoples throats at that time, failed, and realized that to make changes in society they needed to go underground. They hijacked the Republican party as a way to gain power, and frankly, some Republicans are wishing they could shake them loose. I, umm... Hmm. Let me just say this: I don't think quoting one of the people in the Presidential contest is providing adequate information on the other individual. Of course, anything the one is going to say is going to be warped to make it sound as bad as it possibly can. That goes both ways. I wouldn't quote anything Kerry says about Bush because THAT is going to be warped too. Also: I see what you put down at a Kerry interview, and I frankly don't see indecisiveness. I think they are very intellegent answers. How are they indecisive? You're gonna have to help me out here on this one. Although I may agree with you that Kerry faces a challenge explaining his positions, I think that has more to do with the *public* rather than *him* (unfortunately). As you mentioned, people like things that are easy to understand, but things like the war with Iraq is/was not a black or white issue (here I go again). IF all the things Bush and Co. said were really true, then maybe it would have been worth it. AND if the war and postwar, especially...witness the current debacle...were handled better, then things wouldn't be as bad as they are now. You can be reluctantly for the war and then against how it was/is being handled. This isn't indecisiveness. It's reevaluating current situations based on what you've seen. I have more to say, but I gotta eat dinner. Until next time... -rh P.S. Halendor, I agree with almost everything you said. P.P.S. Political discussions get my juices flowing, so I'll probably be editing this thing throughout the night to tone some of my rhetoric. Apologies in advance, Ulic and others, if some things are a little abrasive. _______________ Back from the dead... This comment was edited by Ruuk Haviser on Mar 12 2004 12:17am. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Isn't Kerry a member of the intelligence committee in the senate? In other words he sees a lot of the same information that the president would see as well. To me Kerry really sounds like he's trying to be vague and keep everyone not knowing what he really stands for. As for the War on Terror. I'd say that war is exactly what it needs to be. Have you ever heard of the war on drugs? Will you say that drugs are more of a threat to the United States, than organizations that have publicly stated they want to see America destroyed? _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
Quote: Plus, I hate to say it, but global warming isn't a big issue with most voters. Some do make it an issue, but it won't be a deciding factor. So only issues that voters care about should be adressed? What about making voters care? It's a big issue with the world, damnit. Quote: My opponent clearly has strong beliefs--they just don't last very long. . . . As Bush says himself, Kerry spent a long time in the Congress. There is a difference in circumstances between now and when Kerry supported those acts. It's possible he liked them at the time, he has seen the results, and doesn't like them anymore. It shows strength if you are able to distance yourself from your previous statement and say 'They're right', instead of desperatly clinging on to your point of view, and keep believing that is right no matter what. Quote: Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Well, it shouldn't be a 'war', because that would mean wherever America has policital (or economical) interest in 'removing' terrorism from a certain country, they just ignore the UN and barge in. Stopping to call it a war is a step in the right direction. Quote: [..] it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. Of course not, but invading the enemy isn't the solution either. There is a structural problem going on in the Middle-East, and that is that for some reason they hate the West, and especially America. Find out what that reason is and do something about seems alot better to me. Quote: You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction. What I read here is that if this thing gets a happy end in Iraq, it might have been worth it. But without the WMD there was no valid reason to start a war. There are a lot of countries who live under dictatorship (and don't have oil wells), so then America should force their democracy on those countries as well, if you get my point This comment was edited by Halendor on Mar 11 2004 05:42pm. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
OK, since this is more a political-themed forum, and not a science themed one, forgive me if I lack all the facts on this: I'll just mention that I believe in the cycle of our solar system moving through the galaxy, tha we have some sort of slightly closer proximity to the sun. No, wait, I think the sun might have changed size a bit. Oh well. But basically, if we are warming up, it may be due to the increased fluxuations of the sun (I doubt it is proximity, but you never know). So, just to note that, well, Bush isn't powerful enough to change the sun, so we can't place a ton of blame on him for this. Plus, I hate to say it, but global warming isn't a big issue with most voters. Some do make it an issue, but it won't be a deciding factor. But decent point nevertheless. Eh, now I forgot who quoted this. Anyways, good point to whomever: Quote: Conservatives are driven by rage; liberals by guilt. Conservatives attack. Liberals equivocate. Liberals inhabit a world painted a thousand shades of gray. Conservatives live in a black and white world. Conservatives believe they are battling evil. Liberals believe they are struggling to overcome human frailties. This is good to note for one decent reason: despite what some Democrats would have you believe, Kerry supporters (or potential Kerry supporters) are not motivated by their hatred of Bush. They are not raging Bush-haters, equating him to evil. They generally have "issues" that they take a side on, and take the Democrat side, obviously. For the middle ground (the Purple states if you will), the voters aren't realy motivated by rage and hatred of the leader. They generally look fo a guy that will hold value, and make clearcut decisions to carry the team. Kerry is coming across too indecicive for them, and Bush's move to be against gay marriages is a wise one in this aspect. I'll put it this way. People see that Bush keeps to something resembling a value, and that he was decisive. This shines through with a lot of the "purple state" voters (note: red is democrat, blue is republican, unless they changed it. So purple states are undecided states, or ones that go back and forth from year to year). Plus, with an upswing in religion (aided by "The Passion", gay marriage issues, and removal of Ten Commandments in Alabama), religiosity will prove key. It was proven in many elections (and most significantly in 2000), that voters who attended church more than once a week, in 2000 election, voted for Bush in a 2 to 1 margin. So the correlation exists that the more religious tend to vote Republican, or at least will vote for Bush this coming election (the correlation may not extend to ALL Republicans). And to sort of redirect (no decent transition I could come up with), I found some good articles illustrating this contrast between Bush and Kerry. I find it best to quote our current President, in a speech given in Dallas on 8 March. Quote: My opponent spent two decades in Congress. He spent a long time in Washington and he's built up quite a record. Senator Kerry has been in Washington so long that he's taken both sides on just about every issue. Senator Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, for Nafta, for the No Child Left Behind Act, and for the use of force in Iraq. Now he opposes the Patriot Act, Nafta, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the liberation of Iraq. My opponent clearly has strong beliefs--they just don't last very long. . . . Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Just days ago my opponent indicated he's not comfortable using the word, "war," to describe the struggle we're in. He said, "I don't want to use that terminology." He also said the war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. I disagree. Our nation followed that approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts, and thought by some to be settled. But the terrorists were still training in Afghanistan, plotting in other nations and drawing up more ambitious plans. And after the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got. One very important part of this war is intelligence-gathering, as Senator Kerry noted. Yet, in 1995, two years after the attack on the World Trade Center, my opponent introduced a bill to cut the overall intelligence budget by one-and-a-half billion dollars. His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war. Kerry faces the challenge of showing the public exactly why he thinks the president is wrong and just what it is that Kerry is for. So far, Kerry illustrates that he is He's indecisive, noncommittal, nuanced in this interview. See if you can make sense of his explanation of his Iraq position Linked Here Quote: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President? Kerry: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to--because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament. . . . Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank? Kerry: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively. And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war? Kerry: I didn't say that. I'm asking. Kerry: I can't tell you. . . . Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost? Kerry:If there are no weapons of mass destruction--and we may yet find some--then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war. So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes? Kerry: No, I think you can still--wait, no. You can't--that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction. Oh, and one last, funny thing: (just 'cus it's good) Has anyone noticed that "John Kerry" can be rearranged to spell "Horny Jerk"? _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
And Monkey, I'm going to have to disagree with you on your snow comment. Although I believe human beings have contributed to a sharp increase in global warming* the type of thing you describe is the type of black/white thing I've spoken about before. And look, peeps! He's not conservative! Thus showing that both ideologies can be black and white on certain issues. All the snow going away...not gonna happen. What you WILL see, however, is a change in how much snow occurs in areas. Let's say Pittsburgh PA (where I live) is used to getting, oh, 50 inches of snow each year. I'm just guessing. Over the next century or so, we might find out that it may decline to 25 inches of snow each year. THIS is the type of climate change we'll see. Not a drastic everything-will-be-gone scenerio. BUT...some might say, "Well, who cares. You're still getting snow. What's the difference?" The difference is that our entire earth is a, ahem, circle of life, and everything revolves around each other. See changes in one aspect and you'll also see changes in another. If the polar ice caps...no, AS the polar ice caps melt, we will see a rise in the general level of the oceans. This presents serious problems for those who live on the coastlines. Think you see and hear about bad hurricane/flooding problems now? Wait and see. Class dismissed. Tomorrow we talk about how the El Nino cycle affects fishing off the coast of South America. -rh (* Everyone needs to keep in mind that our planet has gone through many, many, many cycles of hot and cold. That's part of nature. Global warming or cooling exists. Period. Always has been there, always will be. (If you don't understand what I mean about this aspect, ask me. I taught college-level classes on this subject.) The period between cycles, however, is very great/long. Until now. The sharp increase in the global temperature is unprecedented in world history. Various scientific tests/projects have shown this to be true. Most scientists don't disagree on global warming, per se, just on how great its effect.) _______________ Back from the dead... |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |