[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i][B]
[COLOR=blue][SIZE=4]John Kerry [/SIZE] [/COLOR]
A President we can salute with more than one finger. [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]IMHO The world would be alot better of if the UN stuck to it's original goal rather then trying to run the world.
[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PJH [/i]
[B]>UN< trying to run the world???
I think you made a one letter typo there!
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
Whups... shoulda read that more closely.;)
I think that should be [I]two[/I] one-letter typos. There's no way in hell the U.S. will ever [I]run[/I] the world (although we've certainly tried hard enough, usually with negative consequences for ourselves and the other nations involved); we already have a hard enough time trying to manage our own affairs as is.
Regardless of if september 11th happend or didnt happen, we would have gone to war with Iraq. This war was planned from the start, by Dick, Bush and Haliburton. The president was soo quick to jump to invade that he failed the United States in doing so.
He failed to build a coalition like his father.
He failed to push hard enough to get the UN sanctions enforced (hes not the only guilty party here, clinton didnt do much here either).
He failed in lying the US citizens stating that they had proof of WMD when he knew damn well none existed.
He failed in providing solid leadership through the war, by stating we had won the war, when clearly we are still fighting it.
And worst of all, he failed by placing our soldiers, sailors and marines in harms way without adequet protection.
Did the Iraqi regime need to be removed? HELL YES!! THOSE BASTARDS CELEBRATED IN THE STREET DURING SEPT. 11TH.
Was this the way to do it? I think the world answered that question for us. All we have done is create more terrorist and give the terrorist their dream wish. Americans on foreign soil open to terrorist attacks, EVERY DAY.
Bush's plan is stay the course, more of the same. I dont want more of the same, I want a little changeup.
And as for Bushs leadership abilities (and no disrespect to our guardsman here). HE WAS A NATIONAL FREAKING GAURDSAMN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. He wasnt even in the real military. At least John Kerry got a couple of pictures of vietnam.
Now, dont get me wrong, Im not saying that because Kerry was in vietnam exactly long enough to buy a 5 dollar sucky sucky and take a piss afterwards means he should president, but at least he tried to serve in a real branch of the military.
Kerrys plan brings some new things to the table, its time to do that. More of the same, aint working.
By the way, did anyone notice that during the second debate Bush never actually answered his last question? He was asked to list 3 mistakes and then explain how he corrected them. Instead of answering the womans question, he went on a rant about he thinks it was right to invade Iraq, and that he is convinced he made the right decision and history would judge him accordingly. Just bounced all over that answer didnt he?
I also thought it was funny how Kerry got hung up on the Stem Cell/abortion questions, a couple of him really had him on his toes.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by An ex-Squid [/i]
[B]Whups... shoulda read that more closely.;)
I think that should be [I]two[/I] one-letter typos. There's no way in hell the U.S. will ever [I]run[/I] the world (although we've certainly tried hard enough, usually with negative consequences for ourselves and the other nations involved); we already have a hard enough time trying to manage our own affairs as is. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think I can agree with that. But that shouldn't mean that US would isolate itself from the rest of the world either. Just work with other nations like everyone else does. Don't try to be more important, or a better nation than any other. And don't use your position in this world unfairly and unequally and by exploiting others. Forget that "superpower" crap. If US will remember these things, its problems with the rest of the world will start being history quicker than you can imagine and it will also start gaining respect again from others instead of hatred.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Heres what I think...
And as for Bushs leadership abilities (and no disrespect to our guardsman here). HE WAS A NATIONAL FREAKING GAURDSAMN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. He wasnt even in the real military. At least John Kerry got a couple of pictures of vietnam.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, that does disrespect people in the guard. The guard *is* part of the military--hence it's nickname, the reserve.
As for record, did you check his flight hours? Several hundred per year, for the first 3 years--it only dropped to minimum on his last 2 of active duty, which is hardly against the law.
I fail to see what one person serving in the guard for 5 years vs another serving for 3 months in the jungles of Vietnam has to do with anything. Bill Clinton blatantly [b]dodged[/b] the draft, and I don't see anyone questioning his military capabilities as Commander-in-Chief (though Somalia really was a mess).
Bush was also a pilot. And I'd beg to differ with anyone that thinks that someone trusted with a multimillion dollar aircraft is a "retard."
As for Haliburton. I love how people throw this name around, and seem to know little about what it is, and what they do. They are an infrastructure company. Think of them as the highway department, department of public works, water department, Electric & Gas, and the phone company all wrapped up in one. It wasn't a "no bid" contract out of favoratism, it was a no bid contract because [i]there is no other company in the world that does this type of work all under one umbrella[/i].
And it's not like the House and Senate didn't get to give Haliburton the once over...they do, after all, control the purse (by law).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]
By the way, did anyone notice that during the second debate Bush never actually answered his last question? He was asked to list 3 mistakes and then explain how he corrected them. Instead of answering the womans question, he went on a rant about he thinks it was right to invade Iraq, and that he is convinced he made the right decision and history would judge him accordingly. Just bounced all over that answer didnt he?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Why is that surprising? Would you really want a General commanding troops to say, "well, I screwed this up...and that wasn't a bright idea--man, what a screwup that was, that got allot of people killed..."
I think he actually answered it well, i.e. he will accept the judgement of history. He is, after all, still the Commander-in-Chief, and with that role comes the responsibility to project confidence and conviction, even when one may not feel it inside.
Who knows how this will turn out in 20 years? Sure, it looks like a mess now, and sure, most of us, including myself, don't neccessarily believe we needed to invade, but asking the ruler of a country to show fallability is CRAZY. I was somewhat appalled when I heard it, because it seemed like it was more of a loaded question, and I kind of expected a little more out of Charles Gibson than to end the debate with a question that was the political equivalent of "do you still beat your wife?" It seemed very low, because of the kind of loaded question it is.
Most people do not know this, but Winston Churchill was VERY unpopular in Britain during his term. His decision to enter the war was very unpopular. But history judged him differently.
Now I'm not calling Bush another Churchill, but I also remember how unpopular Reagan was at various points of his presidency, but now, with the cold war behind us, many view him differently.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
OK, firstly I have yet to read this thread apart from the first post and the two above this (airports are not really the best place to read political threads).
Now then.
Do what Croxis says. So many people will just judge a candidate on how they appear in their speeches to their [b]supports[/b] at rallies and perfectly controlled "debates". Do a bit of searching yourself, read a bit more widely. Don't just rely on your horribly failed main media system.
Secondly, this thread seems a good place to throw in a thought that occured to me in Japan (odd how being removed from your comfort zone makes you think more). I think Bush truly wants peace and truly believes he can make peace. The problem is that he also thinks his is the only way to peace, there are no other solutions (don't start with "we tried talking to iraq," this is bigger than iraq), and there are no other ways to live properly in peace and run a government other than his way, what he believes as the american way. There are, in fact, other ways to live, and we in the so-called free world should not be trying to force our way of freedom on to other peopls and cultures. A lot of countries are dictatorships, yes. But until the people and the culture in a country are ready to be helped and want that help (not just Bob down the street who blames Jim the dictator for his bad crop and hence being poor, but the majority of the common people) we should not be trying to help at all. There is no sense in trying to help someone who does not want or is not ready for that help, as it will only backfire when they begin to resent us as well. Thus, the so-called free world should really be leaving places like the Arab nations alone to grow more and find their own balance and freedom in their own way.
Of course, this is where oil comes into the picture. I'll let you lot have fun with that one. I really can't be bothered. :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]Actually, that does disrespect people in the guard. The guard *is* part of the military--hence it's nickname, the reserve. [/B][/QUOTE]
wrong, they are called the guard because they are the guard. The reserves is completely different. The Texas Air National Guard is what Bush was in. Thats a completely separate entity than the US Military, each states guard is run by each individual state, rarely (and usually just for training purposes) does a states guard serve time outside their home state. The Reserves are just that, the Reserve force for the main active duty fleet.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]As for record, did you check his flight hours? Several hundred per year, for the first 3 years--it only dropped to minimum on his last 2 of active duty, which is hardly against the law. [/B][/QUOTE]
This kind of goes with the above statement. There is no active duty, when your in the National Guard.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]I fail to see what one person serving in the guard for 5 years vs another serving for 3 months in the jungles of Vietnam has to do with anything. Bill Clinton blatantly [b]dodged[/b] the draft, and I don't see anyone questioning his military capabilities as Commander-in-Chief (though Somalia really was a mess). [/B][/QUOTE]
Somalia was a damn nightmare, That was due to bad intelligence and an underestimation of enemy strength. And yes, Clinton blatantly dodged the draft, and in my opinion it should be a [b]REQUIREMENT[/b] that a presidential cannidate have served in the militiary he so wishes to lead. But then, this wasnt about how much military did clinton serve, its about how much Bush and Kerry served. On one hand youve got daddy getting you into the Guard so you barely see any action less the North Vietnamies invaded Texas, on the other youve got daddy pulling strings for you so you dont have sit in a boat and cruise up and down the mae cong delta for longer than 3 months. Neither are exactly what I was looking for when I said "should have served in the military". But at least Kerry went.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]Bush was also a pilot. And I'd beg to differ with anyone that thinks that someone trusted with a multimillion dollar aircraft is a "retard." [/B][/QUOTE]
when did I call bush a "retard" Do I think hes a genius? No. But he did get to the presidency, so he cant be that stupid.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]As for Haliburton. I love how people throw this name around, and seem to know little about what it is, and what they do. They are an infrastructure company. Think of them as the highway department, department of public works, water department, Electric & Gas, and the phone company all wrapped up in one. It wasn't a "no bid" contract out of favoratism, it was a no bid contract because [i]there is no other company in the world that does this type of work all under one umbrella[/i]. [/B][/QUOTE]
LOL, right. and Im sure all your republican friends believe that too. Try GE, CSC and Honneywell just to name a couple. All companies with huge resources and funding behind them that have just as much as Haliburton. I suppose the fact that Cheney was still getting paid by Haliburton had absolutely nothing to do with it either. By the way, did Haliburton ever find that 1.8 [b]BILLION[/b] dollars they misplaced?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]Just keeping the discussion honest....
About Haliburton, people keep forgetting that neither Bush nor Cheney continue to have a finaical stake in the company. Cheney especially holds no stocks anymore, and his pension, while massive, is held in an insured escow account now, in which he gets his money,no matter what happens to Haliburton.
Secondly Haliburton has gotten "No bid" contracts during the Clinton administration.
Yes, GE has an energy arm, does it do the same type of work as Halliburon? NO it doesnt. It builds powerplants, especially the actual generators, it does not have a petro chemical infrastructure division. Hell, they make alot of stuff Halliburton uses in the course of its operations, but they could NOT do Halliburtons job. CSC is a logistics company, and doesnt have the physical construction assests that Halliburton does, so they definatly couldnt do the job, And Honeywell doesnt even have an energy division as far as I know, let alone a petrochem infrastructure division.
It would cost more money to aquire the assests needed to compete with Halliburton then the damn contracts are going to pay.
Oh and another thing about the guard being completely seperate. Thats not quite true, since you know the feds can call up guard units at any time they want. Also guard personel are OFTEN on "active duty" a guardsmen is on active duty during basic, AIT, and additional traning, and that two weeks every summer? yeah, your federalized during that period, thats why guard units get to use active military instillations. Furthmore in the Air Guard, not only are you considered in the "airforce" during basic traning and advanced training, but also your entire flight training! and by active I mean your living on base full time, and the airforce IS your job from 9-5 (cause yeah, the airforce is the wussiest fo the services.) which adds up to being over a year! . Bush has actuall more time of being forced to livie a military lifestyle then Kerry has.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]And yes, Clinton blatantly dodged the draft, and in my opinion it should be a [b]REQUIREMENT[/b] that a presidential cannidate have served in the militiary he so wishes to lead.[/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree. Limiting the presidency to ex-military people is just asking for trouble. It brings to mind unpleasant visions of Banana Republics led by cigar smoking, machine-gun toting despots who never leave the house without their military uniform on.
Also, its a completely artificial standard. Hell, job of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws of the legislature, so why don't we limit Presidential candidates to those who were once police officers?
sorry, I think if you want to be the commander in cheif of the worlds most dangerous armed forces, you should at least have a basic understanding of the infrastructure and whats what.
A general shouldnt be explaining the rank structure to the president, he should know it.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]A general shouldnt be explaining the rank structure to the president, he should know it. [/B][/QUOTE]
He should also know where to cut taxes to stimulate the economy without causing inflation, and I don't see how spending a few years in the army would help with that.
Im sorry, when did I say the only requirement should be???
Obviously being commander in chief is one of a handfull of responsbilities for the president. I stand by conviction that to hold the position of president you must have served in the military. Do they need more than that? well duh. But my point was on both cannidates military background, not their economic.
Re: Re: ***Warning*** Biased political rant ahead!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]A two minute speech is not the forum in which to lay out details of plans. You want more information on specifics, go to the candidates' respective websites.
Don't depend on these little snippets we hear on the news to make your choice. Investigate yourself and see what each person offers.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm by no means relying on this sound bites to make my choice, what scares me is that appariently people are making their choice based upon this information, otherwise the candidates would offer more detail.
I scanned over the security section of Kerry/Edwards' Plan for America. Just the exerpts I've read still offer minimal substance, really sounding more like wishes, for example, this is under the header defeating terrorism:
[quote]Victory in the war on terror requires a combination
of American determination and international cooperation,
and:
[i]- The ability and willingness to direct immediate, effective
military action to capture or destroy terrorist groups and
their leaders,
- A massive strengthening in intelligence gathering,
analysis, and coordination coupled with vigorous
law enforcement,
- A relentless effort to shut down the flow of terrorist
funds,
- A global effort to prevent weak and failed states that can
become sanctuaries for terrorists,
- A sustained effort to deny terrorists any more recruits
by working for peace, promoting democracy, economic
growth and development, and improved education,
and by conducting effective public diplomacy.
OUR PLAN FOR AMERICA[/i][/quote]
What I am asking is what is their proposed solutions, those points listed above are not solutions, there just points of focus. And I haven't heard anything out of either party that really sounds like solutions.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]
LOL, right. and Im sure all your republican friends believe that too. Try GE, CSC and Honneywell just to name a couple. All companies with huge resources and funding behind them that have just as much as Haliburton. I suppose the fact that Cheney was still getting paid by Haliburton had absolutely nothing to do with it either. By the way, did Haliburton ever find that 1.8 [b]BILLION[/b] dollars they misplaced?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm a registered Independent, not a Republican. I find my politics are a bit more complicated than fitting into the niche of the "2-party system." I'm still deciding who to vote for (and the person I'm leaning toward may surprise you), so please don't paste a sticker on me that doesn't apply...
For the record: I'm pro-stem cell research, and pro-choice (even though I think abortion is wrong...I actually thought Kerry answered that question correctly...I would have said the same). I'm also Pro death Penalty (I am of the opinion that to support choice and not support the death penalty is hypocrisy).
Anyway, enough about that.
As for GE, CSC, and Honeywell--they are [i]not[/i] infrastucture companies. Sure, they are big companies, but they do not provide the services that Haliburton does. Haliburton is, for all intents and purposes, the privatized equivalent of the Army Core of Engineers. GE doesn't have a "food services division" or "road paving and power services." Sure, each of them may build products that are used to maintain these services, but that's a different thing altogether. They, effectively, provide the public services a government would otherwise do.
As to whether they are doing a good job, that is a seperate question altogether. I've heard stories from friends and family in Iraq that go both ways on that one.
Regarding the 1.8Billion--I was not talking about the [i]morality and ethics[/i] of the company, merely the reason as to [i]why[/i] they were selected. Saying it was a "no-bid contract" is VERY misleading, as it makes people think things that are just plain not true (i.e. special deals). Like I said, Congress had to sign off on it, [i]and they did.[/i]
As for my "retard" comment: I never said you called him a retard, but the implication of most when they talk about him and his service as a pilot in the National Guard is one of contempt.
Facts: The F-104 is not exactly the easiest bird to fly, National Guard service was a legitimate service in that era, and service in the national guard is considered service in the military.
Opinion: Deciding which canidate's service record is "better".
[i]That[/i] was my point.
As for my reason in bringing these things up: I think FreeJack pointed it out best:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FreeJack[/i]
[B]
What I am asking is what is their proposed solutions, those points listed above are not solutions, there just points of focus. And I haven't heard anything out of either party that really sounds like solutions.
[/b][/quote]
I couldn't have said it any better myself--I've been to johnkerry.com and georgewbush.com and nader.org; all of them babble about what they think is wrong, and only give the broadest of broadbrushes of plans as to how to fix things (although, I think, Nader has a good point: the 2-party system needs to go).
None of them give *details*. Lip service and broadbrush are cheap tools used to win the votes of the weak minded. And all the canidates are doing it. This election sickens me more than 2000.
Show me a *plan*.
I spend the most time at [url]http://www.factcheck.org[/url] , where most of the spin comes to a screeching halt, thanks to the work of the non-partisan group at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Pretty even handed, and they take both parties to task.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]OK, firstly I have yet to read this thread apart from the first post and the two above this (airports are not really the best place to read political threads).
Now then.
Do what Croxis says. So many people will just judge a candidate on how they appear in their speeches to their [b]supports[/b] at rallies and perfectly controlled "debates". Do a bit of searching yourself, read a bit more widely. Don't just rely on your horribly failed main media system.
Secondly, this thread seems a good place to throw in a thought that occured to me in Japan (odd how being removed from your comfort zone makes you think more). I think Bush truly wants peace and truly believes he can make peace. The problem is that he also thinks his is the only way to peace, there are no other solutions (don't start with "we tried talking to iraq," this is bigger than iraq), and there are no other ways to live properly in peace and run a government other than his way, what he believes as the american way. There are, in fact, other ways to live, and we in the so-called free world should not be trying to force our way of freedom on to other peopls and cultures. A lot of countries are dictatorships, yes. But until the people and the culture in a country are ready to be helped and want that help (not just Bob down the street who blames Jim the dictator for his bad crop and hence being poor, but the majority of the common people) we should not be trying to help at all. There is no sense in trying to help someone who does not want or is not ready for that help, as it will only backfire when they begin to resent us as well. Thus, the so-called free world should really be leaving places like the Arab nations alone to grow more and find their own balance and freedom in their own way.
Of course, this is where oil comes into the picture. I'll let you lot have fun with that one. I really can't be bothered. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Here Here..... Looks like this statment has fallen on death ears.
I came to that conclusion some time ago.... It is best to just leave Arab(and other Countrys) Alone and let them devlop on their own.. But alot people people dont see that world like that.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Rick: I think your 2-party system is incredibly flawed. You can't group all the political views of everyone into that system. In NZ's currently sitting government as elected 2.25 years ago under the MMP system, we have 7 parties in parliament. Two of them (the one with the most seats and the one with the least) make up the ruling-by-minority coalition, and two more provide support for that coalition on most matters, but still have a lot of say. Now, the one with the most votes is Labour (yes, we have a left-wing government) which got around 45ish% in the last election. The other major party, National, got something like 15% in the last election. All the other parties make up the remainder. That's a lot of minority view representation, and it has led to a remarkably effective government.
My opinion on a two party system, while it has flaws (i.e. the disenfransment of certain groups of society) there a quite a few strengths to limit to the number of political parties that have a legitimate shot at ruling. First it creates, by world standards, a very stable government. A change can only come once every couple years and when it does, the shift is not too dramatic. Second it keeps radical elements at bay, both in third parties, but also within the main parties themselves.
[b]Stable Government[/b]
If the United States was a smaller country that had a much smaller impact on the world economy and society, a rapid shift in governmental focus, such as what Italy has seen since WWII, would not pose much of a problem outside the our own borders. When many of the countries (especially developing countries) rely on your stable economy and political systems for their own well being, the need for a stable government become tangable.
[b]Fringe Elements[/b]
Whether you may like it or not, both political parties are [I]very[/I] mainstream. There may be disagreements with certain aspects of their stance, but a signifigant number of Americans, at the core philisophicly agree with the parties. Intoducting additional parties also will cause the mainstream parties to run toward their more radical elements in order to differentiate themselves from the other parties available for the voting public. A plausible end result is a political system that is highly fractured and has very few parties or groups representing the mainstream public.
Why do people continually insist that the president has something to do with their lack of or ability to work?
NOTE TO AMERICANS: The President has about as much ability to control what jobs are created, moved, lost etc as the Queen of England! I do not understand how people miss the fact, that for the most part, the economy does not care who is President. It goes through cycles; it rises and falls, contracts and expands, but for the most part gives little deference to the chief executive.
Sure the President and to a greater extent Congress can have some impact on the economy and sometime it is dramatic, but usually what the government does is only a small factor in overall status of business and income in the US. A recent example would be the tax cuts, I’m sure you’d have a hard time finding someone who’d argue that they didn’t put additional money in the pockets of Americans, but you would have a very hard time reaching a consensus that the tax cuts were of significant benefit. Another example, outsourcing, there are those that argue that changing the tax structure would somehow have an effect on jobs sourced overseas. Taxes are such a small part of the cost of a product, that it will have little effect. If you have a product that costs $100, maybe $3 of that product is taxes, where as $15 –30 can be labor...what’s going to be the driving force, doubling the tax or cutting the labor rate in half.
If you want to have a greater impact on what jobs are available, pay closer attention to who’s elected mayor and city counsel, and to the state government. These people have a much more immediate effect on the jobless rate and the quality of jobs in an area…
Jake
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Freejack: Great 2nd rant - so true :)
Now...there are some things that can be done such as regulations governing outsourcing, the federal reserve rules (which is independent of the government (by law) but is blamed on the government since it is appointed by the government), and things like mininum wage. The problem is none of these things have short term impacts.
Somehow our present president believes that cutting taxes will increase jobs - it doesn't. No matter what pool the money comes from, there is still a limited ammount of money. If the govenment increases spending (thus increases taxes) it buys stuff and hires people. The stuff it buys increases manufacturing which hires people. If the government decreases taxes and spending then the private sector buys stuff and hires people.
It doesn't matter who has the money - people are hired either way. Only difference is with the government you have less high salary CEOs supported.
----------
Re: Biggles (in airport post - about 10 posts above)
I agree - I think Bush truely believes everything he says such as believing going to war makes peace. The problem is history has shown that his ideas don't work to solve problems and promote peace. As people were saying after his first debate with Kerry, the president lives in such a bubble that he doesn't know any other view, and thus has no way to handle critisism. I think this is a very telling comment - he is presented one view by his advisors. He believes that everything his advisors tell him must be true becuase he hears almost no dissent (it all occurs before it gets to him). He lives in a bubble of "the decisions I make are right becuase there are no other choices."
Part of my reason to believe he needs to be replaced is based on this: he is unable to understand the nuances of policy and thus uses the hammer when the feather might be better. He, and his advisors, are of the mind that "if a little is good, a lot must be better." Furthermore I believe that his administration no longer knows truth from lies - look at Rumsfeld's remarks dealing with WMD shortly before the Duelfer report came out. If you lie enough, you start to believe those lies. You also start to catch yourself forgetting when to lie and when to tell the truth. Rumsfeld had that problem.
My points of contention with Bush and why I will vote against him:
- His administration is unable to face the truth, and is likely lieing to the American people.
- His administration is unable to understand the nuances of policy.
- His administration believes that if a little is good a lot must be better.
- I do not trust him with the fate of America.
My dissagreements on policy are:
- You can't cut taxes when in debt - you must be fiscally responsible.
- You can't underfund mandated programs and then expect others to cover your ass in funding
- Civil liberties are not supported under this president and the Constitution is being subverted
- His foreign policy choices are often at odds with Realism.
-----------------------
Note on foreign policy views:
My foreign policy view is closest to Realism, though it tends toward Neoliberalism. Don't confuse this with "Liberal" since it is completely different - you have Liberalists in foreign policy in both political parties.
A2597: you are quite clearly a Realist or Neorealist based on your hatred of the UN, but they also span both parties.
Bush on the other hand would be considered a cross between Neorealism and Radicalism. The main differnce between realist and neorealist is that Neorealists simplify things to very simple basic laws - far simpler then reality. Radicalism is considered any view that does not fit with Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Realism, Neorealism, or Constructivism.
Liberalist believes in "hope" by assuming "human nature is generally good" and basing on this it believes that international institutions can build upon this good human nature to cement bonds between societies.
Neoliberalist believes that institutions form becuase of interaction between societies that results in cooperation, not becuase of the "good human nature" that Liberalism assumes.
Both however believe that these international institutions help form an accepted societal order that help drive international relations.
Realist believes that the "individual is primarily selfish and power seeking." It then defines all international relations as "what is best for me" ideology.
Neorealists however believe the same as Realists as to "what is best for me," but entomb this basis in a strict set of rules to define action and reaction. While this might work for simple situations, as a realist myself I feel that such simplification inherently causes the "bullying mistake" by assuming all will respond the same way to the same action taken.
Both of these tend to ignore both any international relations of 3rd parties and outside effects such as NGO and INGO influence on government decisions, as well as bureocratic inertia. (NGO = Non-Governmental Organization; INGO = International NGO)
Constructivism looks at what states are fundamentally. It then tries to do a low-level construction of international relations based on the principles that define a state.
Radicalism is any theory that doesn't fit elsewhere.
I have glossed over the details of these theories to give a general idea as to what they are for those that didn't know. This is a very "high level" view of these theories ignoring many of the nuances. Note that all these fundamental theories are really sets of sub-theories that are similar but not identical and so 2 people that follow the same fundamental theory might have opposing sub-theories which have a large number of fundamental differences in view.
well at least most of us have found a common ground here...
the 2 party system sucks.
I dont claim to be either atm, but thats because my views skew both sides. I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-stem cell research, against any sort of ban to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but I am pro-gun SAFETY. Im also anti-NRA, they have turned into a bunch of crazies. Pro-gay marriage (i see nothing that even remotely looks like sanctity of marriage in this country) and pro gay rights, but at the same time anti-Rosie Odonell.
That goes along with my view on guns. First off, there a fact that most everyone seems to forget when debating gun bans to help lower crime. Criminals dont go to Kmart to buy guns. They buy them illegally. So how does taking guns away from law abiding tax paying citizens have anything to do with lowering crime?
Secondly, if we know that criminals buy guns illegally, why isnt there more legislation to create more police officer and federal investigation jobs. Thats how you lower crime, you enforce it better.
Lastly, while I agree that any LAW ABIDING citizen has the right to own a weapon, that does not mean he gets to be a moron with it. You can be a gun owner and be a safe gun owner at the same time. For example, I have 2 guns atm, both are currently locked up, my pistol is dissasembled in its case, and the ammo is kept separately. why? I have a 6 year old boy in the hosue, thats why. Ill be damned if my son finds it and shoots himself of someone else.
You want to protect your family, fine, get an alarm system, or do what I do, live 3 doors down from a state trooper. BTW, Ive talked with my state trooper neibhor, who has a 4 year old, he agrees with me on gun ownership safety. There is no reason to have a loaded gun in the house that is just sitting there ready to "protect your family".
This is why I hate the NRA and cancelled my membership. They have gone away from their core values about safety, and gone on this "protect your home" kick, where they claim they should have enough of an arsenal in the hosue and loaded to repel an invasion from Iran. Thats beyond nuts. Not to mention, unsafe.
Why am I such a safety nut when it comes to guns. I think its because while I was in the Marines, I was a rifle/pistol coach, and 2 times on a rifle range, I almost watched a person be killed because they were being stupid. The first time some stupid female marine (note not all female marines are stupid, just this one) was sitting on an ammo can after leaving the firing line, with the muzzle of the weapon covered by her hands leaning on it with her head on top of her hands. Another coach walked over to "teach" her what was wrong, and started reaching for the trigger, I stopped them, took her weapon from her and ejected a round from the chamber. Had he pulled that trigger, he would have killed her. The second time, a weapon did actually discharge and shot another Marine. They were clearing weapons, and one stupid kid was playing with his rifle thought it was clear and shot one his own buddies in the gut. He lived, thankfully, but the other Marine spent some time in the brig, and was dishcarged with a BCD (bad conduct discharge) that means he was kicked out.
The NRA needs to get back to its roots and teach safety, not protection.
sorry, I kind of went off on a tangent there.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Did you hear about Virginia gun laws? They allow you to carry concealed pistols anywhere. FAA did not allow you to carry weapons on airport property. One of the highly traveled toll roads in VA is on airport land - and thus it was illegal to carry it there - so gun owners sued. Result? In VA you can carry concealed pistols onto airport grounds and unconcealed other guns. Just not in the airport terminal.
Seems to me that is overreaction - just make it so that the toll road doesn't count as "airport ground." It also seems like the new rules are counter to airport safety in this time of safety concerns about airlines!
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Re: Re: Re: ***Warning*** Biased political rant ahead!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]
What I am asking is what is their proposed solutions, those points listed above are not solutions, there just points of focus. And I haven't heard anything out of either party that really sounds like solutions.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
I have often asked this question about Iraq. I came up with a very simple answer:
1. The situation on the ground will change between now and when whichever person takes office. Whatever solution they give will not be relevent in 3 months when they take power. Therefore to give a solution still tells you nothing.
2. Kerry does not have access to all the intelligence that Bush has. Bush has the CIA, DIA, etc feeding him and his staff information. For Kerry to give a plan of action he would need full access to that same information. Anything short of that would give Bush an opening to attack based on classified info Kerry doesn't have.
It is very smart of Kerry to give no concrete plans. He doesn;t have the facts available to him.
It is very stupid of Bush not to give any plans. He has the facts available to him.
Re: Re: Re: Re: ***Warning*** Biased political rant ahead!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]I have often asked this question about Iraq. I came up with a very simple answer:
1. The situation on the ground will change between now and when whichever person takes office. Whatever solution they give will not be relevent in 3 months when they take power. Therefore to give a solution still tells you nothing.
2. Kerry does not have access to all the intelligence that Bush has. Bush has the CIA, DIA, etc feeding him and his staff information. For Kerry to give a plan of action he would need full access to that same information. Anything short of that would give Bush an opening to attack based on classified info Kerry doesn't have.
It is very smart of Kerry to give no concrete plans. He doesn;t have the facts available to him.
It is very stupid of Bush not to give any plans. He has the facts available to him.
--RC [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually the question of Iraq is where I was asking myself the same question. I agree with you as to why Kerry has not articulated a plan, the situation is too tenuous and could change rendering the plan obsolete, which in turn, if he was elected, could backfire if he had to abandon his plan (just like the tax statement will surely do if he is elected). But the situation in Iraq is all the more reason to formulate a strong, clearly defined plan. In my opinion this plan of wishes he has put together will not stabilize Iraq any faster then the current path. Matter of fact a plan that is not made of very specific objectives and steps would likely prolong the conflict, not end it sooner (please don’t infer that I believe Bush did have a solid plan either).
On the subject of whether or not Kerry has access to the proper intelligence, I would believe he has access to most of what the President does, though it may be a bit older, since he is part of the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations (though not the Armed Services committee).
Comments
[COLOR=blue][SIZE=4]John Kerry [/SIZE] [/COLOR]
A President we can salute with more than one finger. [/B][/QUOTE]
I already do. I use both hands ;)
OH COME ON! You [i]KNEW[/i] that was coming.
;)
-R.
[B]IMHO The world would be alot better of if the UN stuck to it's original goal rather then trying to run the world.
[/B][/QUOTE]
>UN< trying to run the world???
I think you made a one letter typo there!
- PJH
[B]>UN< trying to run the world???
I think you made a one letter typo there!
- PJH [/B][/QUOTE]
Whups... shoulda read that more closely.;)
I think that should be [I]two[/I] one-letter typos. There's no way in hell the U.S. will ever [I]run[/I] the world (although we've certainly tried hard enough, usually with negative consequences for ourselves and the other nations involved); we already have a hard enough time trying to manage our own affairs as is.
seems odd to me, we finance something thats trying to bully us, and because we resist, we are accused of trying to bully the UN...
almost enough to make my head hurt...
Heres what I think...
Regardless of if september 11th happend or didnt happen, we would have gone to war with Iraq. This war was planned from the start, by Dick, Bush and Haliburton. The president was soo quick to jump to invade that he failed the United States in doing so.
He failed to build a coalition like his father.
He failed to push hard enough to get the UN sanctions enforced (hes not the only guilty party here, clinton didnt do much here either).
He failed in lying the US citizens stating that they had proof of WMD when he knew damn well none existed.
He failed in providing solid leadership through the war, by stating we had won the war, when clearly we are still fighting it.
And worst of all, he failed by placing our soldiers, sailors and marines in harms way without adequet protection.
Did the Iraqi regime need to be removed? HELL YES!! THOSE BASTARDS CELEBRATED IN THE STREET DURING SEPT. 11TH.
Was this the way to do it? I think the world answered that question for us. All we have done is create more terrorist and give the terrorist their dream wish. Americans on foreign soil open to terrorist attacks, EVERY DAY.
Bush's plan is stay the course, more of the same. I dont want more of the same, I want a little changeup.
And as for Bushs leadership abilities (and no disrespect to our guardsman here). HE WAS A NATIONAL FREAKING GAURDSAMN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. He wasnt even in the real military. At least John Kerry got a couple of pictures of vietnam.
Now, dont get me wrong, Im not saying that because Kerry was in vietnam exactly long enough to buy a 5 dollar sucky sucky and take a piss afterwards means he should president, but at least he tried to serve in a real branch of the military.
Kerrys plan brings some new things to the table, its time to do that. More of the same, aint working.
By the way, did anyone notice that during the second debate Bush never actually answered his last question? He was asked to list 3 mistakes and then explain how he corrected them. Instead of answering the womans question, he went on a rant about he thinks it was right to invade Iraq, and that he is convinced he made the right decision and history would judge him accordingly. Just bounced all over that answer didnt he?
I also thought it was funny how Kerry got hung up on the Stem Cell/abortion questions, a couple of him really had him on his toes.
[B]Whups... shoulda read that more closely.;)
I think that should be [I]two[/I] one-letter typos. There's no way in hell the U.S. will ever [I]run[/I] the world (although we've certainly tried hard enough, usually with negative consequences for ourselves and the other nations involved); we already have a hard enough time trying to manage our own affairs as is. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think I can agree with that. But that shouldn't mean that US would isolate itself from the rest of the world either. Just work with other nations like everyone else does. Don't try to be more important, or a better nation than any other. And don't use your position in this world unfairly and unequally and by exploiting others. Forget that "superpower" crap. If US will remember these things, its problems with the rest of the world will start being history quicker than you can imagine and it will also start gaining respect again from others instead of hatred.
- PJH
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Heres what I think...
And as for Bushs leadership abilities (and no disrespect to our guardsman here). HE WAS A NATIONAL FREAKING GAURDSAMN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. He wasnt even in the real military. At least John Kerry got a couple of pictures of vietnam.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, that does disrespect people in the guard. The guard *is* part of the military--hence it's nickname, the reserve.
As for record, did you check his flight hours? Several hundred per year, for the first 3 years--it only dropped to minimum on his last 2 of active duty, which is hardly against the law.
I fail to see what one person serving in the guard for 5 years vs another serving for 3 months in the jungles of Vietnam has to do with anything. Bill Clinton blatantly [b]dodged[/b] the draft, and I don't see anyone questioning his military capabilities as Commander-in-Chief (though Somalia really was a mess).
Bush was also a pilot. And I'd beg to differ with anyone that thinks that someone trusted with a multimillion dollar aircraft is a "retard."
As for Haliburton. I love how people throw this name around, and seem to know little about what it is, and what they do. They are an infrastructure company. Think of them as the highway department, department of public works, water department, Electric & Gas, and the phone company all wrapped up in one. It wasn't a "no bid" contract out of favoratism, it was a no bid contract because [i]there is no other company in the world that does this type of work all under one umbrella[/i].
And it's not like the House and Senate didn't get to give Haliburton the once over...they do, after all, control the purse (by law).
Just keeping the discussion honest....
-R.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]
By the way, did anyone notice that during the second debate Bush never actually answered his last question? He was asked to list 3 mistakes and then explain how he corrected them. Instead of answering the womans question, he went on a rant about he thinks it was right to invade Iraq, and that he is convinced he made the right decision and history would judge him accordingly. Just bounced all over that answer didnt he?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Why is that surprising? Would you really want a General commanding troops to say, "well, I screwed this up...and that wasn't a bright idea--man, what a screwup that was, that got allot of people killed..."
I think he actually answered it well, i.e. he will accept the judgement of history. He is, after all, still the Commander-in-Chief, and with that role comes the responsibility to project confidence and conviction, even when one may not feel it inside.
Who knows how this will turn out in 20 years? Sure, it looks like a mess now, and sure, most of us, including myself, don't neccessarily believe we needed to invade, but asking the ruler of a country to show fallability is CRAZY. I was somewhat appalled when I heard it, because it seemed like it was more of a loaded question, and I kind of expected a little more out of Charles Gibson than to end the debate with a question that was the political equivalent of "do you still beat your wife?" It seemed very low, because of the kind of loaded question it is.
Most people do not know this, but Winston Churchill was VERY unpopular in Britain during his term. His decision to enter the war was very unpopular. But history judged him differently.
Now I'm not calling Bush another Churchill, but I also remember how unpopular Reagan was at various points of his presidency, but now, with the cold war behind us, many view him differently.
-R.
[url]http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/our_plan_for_america.pdf[/url]
Now then.
Do what Croxis says. So many people will just judge a candidate on how they appear in their speeches to their [b]supports[/b] at rallies and perfectly controlled "debates". Do a bit of searching yourself, read a bit more widely. Don't just rely on your horribly failed main media system.
Secondly, this thread seems a good place to throw in a thought that occured to me in Japan (odd how being removed from your comfort zone makes you think more). I think Bush truly wants peace and truly believes he can make peace. The problem is that he also thinks his is the only way to peace, there are no other solutions (don't start with "we tried talking to iraq," this is bigger than iraq), and there are no other ways to live properly in peace and run a government other than his way, what he believes as the american way. There are, in fact, other ways to live, and we in the so-called free world should not be trying to force our way of freedom on to other peopls and cultures. A lot of countries are dictatorships, yes. But until the people and the culture in a country are ready to be helped and want that help (not just Bob down the street who blames Jim the dictator for his bad crop and hence being poor, but the majority of the common people) we should not be trying to help at all. There is no sense in trying to help someone who does not want or is not ready for that help, as it will only backfire when they begin to resent us as well. Thus, the so-called free world should really be leaving places like the Arab nations alone to grow more and find their own balance and freedom in their own way.
Of course, this is where oil comes into the picture. I'll let you lot have fun with that one. I really can't be bothered. :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]Actually, that does disrespect people in the guard. The guard *is* part of the military--hence it's nickname, the reserve. [/B][/QUOTE]
wrong, they are called the guard because they are the guard. The reserves is completely different. The Texas Air National Guard is what Bush was in. Thats a completely separate entity than the US Military, each states guard is run by each individual state, rarely (and usually just for training purposes) does a states guard serve time outside their home state. The Reserves are just that, the Reserve force for the main active duty fleet.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]As for record, did you check his flight hours? Several hundred per year, for the first 3 years--it only dropped to minimum on his last 2 of active duty, which is hardly against the law. [/B][/QUOTE]
This kind of goes with the above statement. There is no active duty, when your in the National Guard.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]I fail to see what one person serving in the guard for 5 years vs another serving for 3 months in the jungles of Vietnam has to do with anything. Bill Clinton blatantly [b]dodged[/b] the draft, and I don't see anyone questioning his military capabilities as Commander-in-Chief (though Somalia really was a mess). [/B][/QUOTE]
Somalia was a damn nightmare, That was due to bad intelligence and an underestimation of enemy strength. And yes, Clinton blatantly dodged the draft, and in my opinion it should be a [b]REQUIREMENT[/b] that a presidential cannidate have served in the militiary he so wishes to lead. But then, this wasnt about how much military did clinton serve, its about how much Bush and Kerry served. On one hand youve got daddy getting you into the Guard so you barely see any action less the North Vietnamies invaded Texas, on the other youve got daddy pulling strings for you so you dont have sit in a boat and cruise up and down the mae cong delta for longer than 3 months. Neither are exactly what I was looking for when I said "should have served in the military". But at least Kerry went.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]Bush was also a pilot. And I'd beg to differ with anyone that thinks that someone trusted with a multimillion dollar aircraft is a "retard." [/B][/QUOTE]
when did I call bush a "retard" Do I think hes a genius? No. But he did get to the presidency, so he cant be that stupid.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]As for Haliburton. I love how people throw this name around, and seem to know little about what it is, and what they do. They are an infrastructure company. Think of them as the highway department, department of public works, water department, Electric & Gas, and the phone company all wrapped up in one. It wasn't a "no bid" contract out of favoratism, it was a no bid contract because [i]there is no other company in the world that does this type of work all under one umbrella[/i]. [/B][/QUOTE]
LOL, right. and Im sure all your republican friends believe that too. Try GE, CSC and Honneywell just to name a couple. All companies with huge resources and funding behind them that have just as much as Haliburton. I suppose the fact that Cheney was still getting paid by Haliburton had absolutely nothing to do with it either. By the way, did Haliburton ever find that 1.8 [b]BILLION[/b] dollars they misplaced?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rick [/i]
[B]Just keeping the discussion honest....
-R. [/B][/QUOTE]
yeah, me too.
Secondly Haliburton has gotten "No bid" contracts during the Clinton administration.
Yes, GE has an energy arm, does it do the same type of work as Halliburon? NO it doesnt. It builds powerplants, especially the actual generators, it does not have a petro chemical infrastructure division. Hell, they make alot of stuff Halliburton uses in the course of its operations, but they could NOT do Halliburtons job. CSC is a logistics company, and doesnt have the physical construction assests that Halliburton does, so they definatly couldnt do the job, And Honeywell doesnt even have an energy division as far as I know, let alone a petrochem infrastructure division.
It would cost more money to aquire the assests needed to compete with Halliburton then the damn contracts are going to pay.
Oh and another thing about the guard being completely seperate. Thats not quite true, since you know the feds can call up guard units at any time they want. Also guard personel are OFTEN on "active duty" a guardsmen is on active duty during basic, AIT, and additional traning, and that two weeks every summer? yeah, your federalized during that period, thats why guard units get to use active military instillations. Furthmore in the Air Guard, not only are you considered in the "airforce" during basic traning and advanced training, but also your entire flight training! and by active I mean your living on base full time, and the airforce IS your job from 9-5 (cause yeah, the airforce is the wussiest fo the services.) which adds up to being over a year! . Bush has actuall more time of being forced to livie a military lifestyle then Kerry has.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]And yes, Clinton blatantly dodged the draft, and in my opinion it should be a [b]REQUIREMENT[/b] that a presidential cannidate have served in the militiary he so wishes to lead.[/B][/QUOTE]
I disagree. Limiting the presidency to ex-military people is just asking for trouble. It brings to mind unpleasant visions of Banana Republics led by cigar smoking, machine-gun toting despots who never leave the house without their military uniform on.
Also, its a completely artificial standard. Hell, job of the executive branch of government is to enforce the laws of the legislature, so why don't we limit Presidential candidates to those who were once police officers?
A general shouldnt be explaining the rank structure to the president, he should know it.
[B]A general shouldnt be explaining the rank structure to the president, he should know it. [/B][/QUOTE]
He should also know where to cut taxes to stimulate the economy without causing inflation, and I don't see how spending a few years in the army would help with that.
Obviously being commander in chief is one of a handfull of responsbilities for the president. I stand by conviction that to hold the position of president you must have served in the military. Do they need more than that? well duh. But my point was on both cannidates military background, not their economic.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AnlaShok [/i]
[B]A two minute speech is not the forum in which to lay out details of plans. You want more information on specifics, go to the candidates' respective websites.
Don't depend on these little snippets we hear on the news to make your choice. Investigate yourself and see what each person offers.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm by no means relying on this sound bites to make my choice, what scares me is that appariently people are making their choice based upon this information, otherwise the candidates would offer more detail.
I scanned over the security section of Kerry/Edwards' Plan for America. Just the exerpts I've read still offer minimal substance, really sounding more like wishes, for example, this is under the header defeating terrorism:
[quote]Victory in the war on terror requires a combination
of American determination and international cooperation,
and:
[i]- The ability and willingness to direct immediate, effective
military action to capture or destroy terrorist groups and
their leaders,
- A massive strengthening in intelligence gathering,
analysis, and coordination coupled with vigorous
law enforcement,
- A relentless effort to shut down the flow of terrorist
funds,
- A global effort to prevent weak and failed states that can
become sanctuaries for terrorists,
- A sustained effort to deny terrorists any more recruits
by working for peace, promoting democracy, economic
growth and development, and improved education,
and by conducting effective public diplomacy.
OUR PLAN FOR AMERICA[/i][/quote]
What I am asking is what is their proposed solutions, those points listed above are not solutions, there just points of focus. And I haven't heard anything out of either party that really sounds like solutions.
Jake
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]
LOL, right. and Im sure all your republican friends believe that too. Try GE, CSC and Honneywell just to name a couple. All companies with huge resources and funding behind them that have just as much as Haliburton. I suppose the fact that Cheney was still getting paid by Haliburton had absolutely nothing to do with it either. By the way, did Haliburton ever find that 1.8 [b]BILLION[/b] dollars they misplaced?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I'm a registered Independent, not a Republican. I find my politics are a bit more complicated than fitting into the niche of the "2-party system." I'm still deciding who to vote for (and the person I'm leaning toward may surprise you), so please don't paste a sticker on me that doesn't apply...
For the record: I'm pro-stem cell research, and pro-choice (even though I think abortion is wrong...I actually thought Kerry answered that question correctly...I would have said the same). I'm also Pro death Penalty (I am of the opinion that to support choice and not support the death penalty is hypocrisy).
Anyway, enough about that.
As for GE, CSC, and Honeywell--they are [i]not[/i] infrastucture companies. Sure, they are big companies, but they do not provide the services that Haliburton does. Haliburton is, for all intents and purposes, the privatized equivalent of the Army Core of Engineers. GE doesn't have a "food services division" or "road paving and power services." Sure, each of them may build products that are used to maintain these services, but that's a different thing altogether. They, effectively, provide the public services a government would otherwise do.
As to whether they are doing a good job, that is a seperate question altogether. I've heard stories from friends and family in Iraq that go both ways on that one.
Regarding the 1.8Billion--I was not talking about the [i]morality and ethics[/i] of the company, merely the reason as to [i]why[/i] they were selected. Saying it was a "no-bid contract" is VERY misleading, as it makes people think things that are just plain not true (i.e. special deals). Like I said, Congress had to sign off on it, [i]and they did.[/i]
As for my "retard" comment: I never said you called him a retard, but the implication of most when they talk about him and his service as a pilot in the National Guard is one of contempt.
Facts: The F-104 is not exactly the easiest bird to fly, National Guard service was a legitimate service in that era, and service in the national guard is considered service in the military.
Opinion: Deciding which canidate's service record is "better".
[i]That[/i] was my point.
As for my reason in bringing these things up: I think FreeJack pointed it out best:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by FreeJack[/i]
[B]
What I am asking is what is their proposed solutions, those points listed above are not solutions, there just points of focus. And I haven't heard anything out of either party that really sounds like solutions.
[/b][/quote]
I couldn't have said it any better myself--I've been to johnkerry.com and georgewbush.com and nader.org; all of them babble about what they think is wrong, and only give the broadest of broadbrushes of plans as to how to fix things (although, I think, Nader has a good point: the 2-party system needs to go).
None of them give *details*. Lip service and broadbrush are cheap tools used to win the votes of the weak minded. And all the canidates are doing it. This election sickens me more than 2000.
Show me a *plan*.
I spend the most time at [url]http://www.factcheck.org[/url] , where most of the spin comes to a screeching halt, thanks to the work of the non-partisan group at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Pretty even handed, and they take both parties to task.
-R.
[B]OK, firstly I have yet to read this thread apart from the first post and the two above this (airports are not really the best place to read political threads).
Now then.
Do what Croxis says. So many people will just judge a candidate on how they appear in their speeches to their [b]supports[/b] at rallies and perfectly controlled "debates". Do a bit of searching yourself, read a bit more widely. Don't just rely on your horribly failed main media system.
Secondly, this thread seems a good place to throw in a thought that occured to me in Japan (odd how being removed from your comfort zone makes you think more). I think Bush truly wants peace and truly believes he can make peace. The problem is that he also thinks his is the only way to peace, there are no other solutions (don't start with "we tried talking to iraq," this is bigger than iraq), and there are no other ways to live properly in peace and run a government other than his way, what he believes as the american way. There are, in fact, other ways to live, and we in the so-called free world should not be trying to force our way of freedom on to other peopls and cultures. A lot of countries are dictatorships, yes. But until the people and the culture in a country are ready to be helped and want that help (not just Bob down the street who blames Jim the dictator for his bad crop and hence being poor, but the majority of the common people) we should not be trying to help at all. There is no sense in trying to help someone who does not want or is not ready for that help, as it will only backfire when they begin to resent us as well. Thus, the so-called free world should really be leaving places like the Arab nations alone to grow more and find their own balance and freedom in their own way.
Of course, this is where oil comes into the picture. I'll let you lot have fun with that one. I really can't be bothered. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Here Here..... Looks like this statment has fallen on death ears.
I came to that conclusion some time ago.... It is best to just leave Arab(and other Countrys) Alone and let them devlop on their own.. But alot people people dont see that world like that.
[b]Stable Government[/b]
If the United States was a smaller country that had a much smaller impact on the world economy and society, a rapid shift in governmental focus, such as what Italy has seen since WWII, would not pose much of a problem outside the our own borders. When many of the countries (especially developing countries) rely on your stable economy and political systems for their own well being, the need for a stable government become tangable.
[b]Fringe Elements[/b]
Whether you may like it or not, both political parties are [I]very[/I] mainstream. There may be disagreements with certain aspects of their stance, but a signifigant number of Americans, at the core philisophicly agree with the parties. Intoducting additional parties also will cause the mainstream parties to run toward their more radical elements in order to differentiate themselves from the other parties available for the voting public. A plausible end result is a political system that is highly fractured and has very few parties or groups representing the mainstream public.
Jake
[b]Time for my second rant[/b]
Why do people continually insist that the president has something to do with their lack of or ability to work?
NOTE TO AMERICANS: The President has about as much ability to control what jobs are created, moved, lost etc as the Queen of England! I do not understand how people miss the fact, that for the most part, the economy does not care who is President. It goes through cycles; it rises and falls, contracts and expands, but for the most part gives little deference to the chief executive.
Sure the President and to a greater extent Congress can have some impact on the economy and sometime it is dramatic, but usually what the government does is only a small factor in overall status of business and income in the US. A recent example would be the tax cuts, I’m sure you’d have a hard time finding someone who’d argue that they didn’t put additional money in the pockets of Americans, but you would have a very hard time reaching a consensus that the tax cuts were of significant benefit. Another example, outsourcing, there are those that argue that changing the tax structure would somehow have an effect on jobs sourced overseas. Taxes are such a small part of the cost of a product, that it will have little effect. If you have a product that costs $100, maybe $3 of that product is taxes, where as $15 –30 can be labor...what’s going to be the driving force, doubling the tax or cutting the labor rate in half.
If you want to have a greater impact on what jobs are available, pay closer attention to who’s elected mayor and city counsel, and to the state government. These people have a much more immediate effect on the jobless rate and the quality of jobs in an area…
Jake
Now...there are some things that can be done such as regulations governing outsourcing, the federal reserve rules (which is independent of the government (by law) but is blamed on the government since it is appointed by the government), and things like mininum wage. The problem is none of these things have short term impacts.
Somehow our present president believes that cutting taxes will increase jobs - it doesn't. No matter what pool the money comes from, there is still a limited ammount of money. If the govenment increases spending (thus increases taxes) it buys stuff and hires people. The stuff it buys increases manufacturing which hires people. If the government decreases taxes and spending then the private sector buys stuff and hires people.
It doesn't matter who has the money - people are hired either way. Only difference is with the government you have less high salary CEOs supported.
----------
Re: Biggles (in airport post - about 10 posts above)
I agree - I think Bush truely believes everything he says such as believing going to war makes peace. The problem is history has shown that his ideas don't work to solve problems and promote peace. As people were saying after his first debate with Kerry, the president lives in such a bubble that he doesn't know any other view, and thus has no way to handle critisism. I think this is a very telling comment - he is presented one view by his advisors. He believes that everything his advisors tell him must be true becuase he hears almost no dissent (it all occurs before it gets to him). He lives in a bubble of "the decisions I make are right becuase there are no other choices."
Part of my reason to believe he needs to be replaced is based on this: he is unable to understand the nuances of policy and thus uses the hammer when the feather might be better. He, and his advisors, are of the mind that "if a little is good, a lot must be better." Furthermore I believe that his administration no longer knows truth from lies - look at Rumsfeld's remarks dealing with WMD shortly before the Duelfer report came out. If you lie enough, you start to believe those lies. You also start to catch yourself forgetting when to lie and when to tell the truth. Rumsfeld had that problem.
My points of contention with Bush and why I will vote against him:
- His administration is unable to face the truth, and is likely lieing to the American people.
- His administration is unable to understand the nuances of policy.
- His administration believes that if a little is good a lot must be better.
- I do not trust him with the fate of America.
My dissagreements on policy are:
- You can't cut taxes when in debt - you must be fiscally responsible.
- You can't underfund mandated programs and then expect others to cover your ass in funding
- Civil liberties are not supported under this president and the Constitution is being subverted
- His foreign policy choices are often at odds with Realism.
-----------------------
Note on foreign policy views:
My foreign policy view is closest to Realism, though it tends toward Neoliberalism. Don't confuse this with "Liberal" since it is completely different - you have Liberalists in foreign policy in both political parties.
A2597: you are quite clearly a Realist or Neorealist based on your hatred of the UN, but they also span both parties.
Bush on the other hand would be considered a cross between Neorealism and Radicalism. The main differnce between realist and neorealist is that Neorealists simplify things to very simple basic laws - far simpler then reality. Radicalism is considered any view that does not fit with Liberalism, Neoliberalism, Realism, Neorealism, or Constructivism.
Liberalist believes in "hope" by assuming "human nature is generally good" and basing on this it believes that international institutions can build upon this good human nature to cement bonds between societies.
Neoliberalist believes that institutions form becuase of interaction between societies that results in cooperation, not becuase of the "good human nature" that Liberalism assumes.
Both however believe that these international institutions help form an accepted societal order that help drive international relations.
Realist believes that the "individual is primarily selfish and power seeking." It then defines all international relations as "what is best for me" ideology.
Neorealists however believe the same as Realists as to "what is best for me," but entomb this basis in a strict set of rules to define action and reaction. While this might work for simple situations, as a realist myself I feel that such simplification inherently causes the "bullying mistake" by assuming all will respond the same way to the same action taken.
Both of these tend to ignore both any international relations of 3rd parties and outside effects such as NGO and INGO influence on government decisions, as well as bureocratic inertia. (NGO = Non-Governmental Organization; INGO = International NGO)
Constructivism looks at what states are fundamentally. It then tries to do a low-level construction of international relations based on the principles that define a state.
Radicalism is any theory that doesn't fit elsewhere.
I have glossed over the details of these theories to give a general idea as to what they are for those that didn't know. This is a very "high level" view of these theories ignoring many of the nuances. Note that all these fundamental theories are really sets of sub-theories that are similar but not identical and so 2 people that follow the same fundamental theory might have opposing sub-theories which have a large number of fundamental differences in view.
--RC
the 2 party system sucks.
I dont claim to be either atm, but thats because my views skew both sides. I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-stem cell research, against any sort of ban to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but I am pro-gun SAFETY. Im also anti-NRA, they have turned into a bunch of crazies. Pro-gay marriage (i see nothing that even remotely looks like sanctity of marriage in this country) and pro gay rights, but at the same time anti-Rosie Odonell.
That goes along with my view on guns. First off, there a fact that most everyone seems to forget when debating gun bans to help lower crime. Criminals dont go to Kmart to buy guns. They buy them illegally. So how does taking guns away from law abiding tax paying citizens have anything to do with lowering crime?
Secondly, if we know that criminals buy guns illegally, why isnt there more legislation to create more police officer and federal investigation jobs. Thats how you lower crime, you enforce it better.
Lastly, while I agree that any LAW ABIDING citizen has the right to own a weapon, that does not mean he gets to be a moron with it. You can be a gun owner and be a safe gun owner at the same time. For example, I have 2 guns atm, both are currently locked up, my pistol is dissasembled in its case, and the ammo is kept separately. why? I have a 6 year old boy in the hosue, thats why. Ill be damned if my son finds it and shoots himself of someone else.
You want to protect your family, fine, get an alarm system, or do what I do, live 3 doors down from a state trooper. BTW, Ive talked with my state trooper neibhor, who has a 4 year old, he agrees with me on gun ownership safety. There is no reason to have a loaded gun in the house that is just sitting there ready to "protect your family".
This is why I hate the NRA and cancelled my membership. They have gone away from their core values about safety, and gone on this "protect your home" kick, where they claim they should have enough of an arsenal in the hosue and loaded to repel an invasion from Iran. Thats beyond nuts. Not to mention, unsafe.
Why am I such a safety nut when it comes to guns. I think its because while I was in the Marines, I was a rifle/pistol coach, and 2 times on a rifle range, I almost watched a person be killed because they were being stupid. The first time some stupid female marine (note not all female marines are stupid, just this one) was sitting on an ammo can after leaving the firing line, with the muzzle of the weapon covered by her hands leaning on it with her head on top of her hands. Another coach walked over to "teach" her what was wrong, and started reaching for the trigger, I stopped them, took her weapon from her and ejected a round from the chamber. Had he pulled that trigger, he would have killed her. The second time, a weapon did actually discharge and shot another Marine. They were clearing weapons, and one stupid kid was playing with his rifle thought it was clear and shot one his own buddies in the gut. He lived, thankfully, but the other Marine spent some time in the brig, and was dishcarged with a BCD (bad conduct discharge) that means he was kicked out.
The NRA needs to get back to its roots and teach safety, not protection.
sorry, I kind of went off on a tangent there.
Seems to me that is overreaction - just make it so that the toll road doesn't count as "airport ground." It also seems like the new rules are counter to airport safety in this time of safety concerns about airlines!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Freejack [/i]
[B]
What I am asking is what is their proposed solutions, those points listed above are not solutions, there just points of focus. And I haven't heard anything out of either party that really sounds like solutions.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
I have often asked this question about Iraq. I came up with a very simple answer:
1. The situation on the ground will change between now and when whichever person takes office. Whatever solution they give will not be relevent in 3 months when they take power. Therefore to give a solution still tells you nothing.
2. Kerry does not have access to all the intelligence that Bush has. Bush has the CIA, DIA, etc feeding him and his staff information. For Kerry to give a plan of action he would need full access to that same information. Anything short of that would give Bush an opening to attack based on classified info Kerry doesn't have.
It is very smart of Kerry to give no concrete plans. He doesn;t have the facts available to him.
It is very stupid of Bush not to give any plans. He has the facts available to him.
--RC
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Random Chaos [/i]
[B]I have often asked this question about Iraq. I came up with a very simple answer:
1. The situation on the ground will change between now and when whichever person takes office. Whatever solution they give will not be relevent in 3 months when they take power. Therefore to give a solution still tells you nothing.
2. Kerry does not have access to all the intelligence that Bush has. Bush has the CIA, DIA, etc feeding him and his staff information. For Kerry to give a plan of action he would need full access to that same information. Anything short of that would give Bush an opening to attack based on classified info Kerry doesn't have.
It is very smart of Kerry to give no concrete plans. He doesn;t have the facts available to him.
It is very stupid of Bush not to give any plans. He has the facts available to him.
--RC [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually the question of Iraq is where I was asking myself the same question. I agree with you as to why Kerry has not articulated a plan, the situation is too tenuous and could change rendering the plan obsolete, which in turn, if he was elected, could backfire if he had to abandon his plan (just like the tax statement will surely do if he is elected). But the situation in Iraq is all the more reason to formulate a strong, clearly defined plan. In my opinion this plan of wishes he has put together will not stabilize Iraq any faster then the current path. Matter of fact a plan that is not made of very specific objectives and steps would likely prolong the conflict, not end it sooner (please don’t infer that I believe Bush did have a solid plan either).
On the subject of whether or not Kerry has access to the proper intelligence, I would believe he has access to most of what the President does, though it may be a bit older, since he is part of the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations (though not the Armed Services committee).