Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 10, 2004 0:08:44 GMT -5
Cheney Again Links Saddam to Al Qaeda, Says Economic Stats Miss eBay Sales
CINCINNATI (AP) (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday defended the U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein harbored al-Qaida and other terrorists and again connecting the war to the Sept. 11 attacks.
He spoke to about 500 invited supporters at a town-hall meeting and answered about a half dozen friendly questions in this conservative section of this contested swing state.
Cheney skimmed over President Bush's principal justification for going to war: that Saddam harbored weapons of mass destruction and planned to use them. No such weapons were found in Iraq. He recounted the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, in which the United States punished the Taliban for harboring al-Qaida, which is blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks. Then he said, "In Iraq, we had a similar situation.'' Saddam, he said, "provided safe harbor and sanctuary for terrorists for years,'' including al-Qaida.
Cheney was likely referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born terrorist with alleged links to bin Laden. The Bush administration in the past has cited reports that al Zarqawi had been treated at a Baghdad hospital as evidence of the links between Saddam and al Qaeda, but outside experts are not convinced of the strength of those ties.
Zarqawi's group has claimed responsibility for several suicide bombings and other attacks on Iraqi and U.S. officials in recent months. It has also killed an American, a South Korean and probably a Bulgarian hostage in Iraq.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney became the most outspoken Bush administration official in making a direct link between al Qaeda's attack and Saddam's Iraq. In response to questions, President Bush later said the 9/11 attacks were not linked to Iraq but that there had been "numerous contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda.
The bipartisan commission that investigated the attacks cited contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, but said there was no "collaborative operational relationship'' before the terrorist strikes.
Polls show about half the American public see the war on terror as linked to the year-old conflict in Iraq.
Cheney also talked up the economy. He said national employment statistics miss many people who are making money, such as those selling items on eBay.
"That's a source that didn't even exist 10 years ago,'' he said. "Four hundred thousand people make some money trading on eBay.''
eBay is an Internet auction site where anyone can sell just about anything, including clothing, cell phones, jewelry, memorabilia, trinkets and automobiles.
Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards responded that Cheney's comments show how "out of touch'' he and President Bush are with the economy.
"If we only included bake sales and how much money kids make at lemonade stands, this economy would really be cooking,'' Edwards said in a statement.
Cheney said he and Bush are committed to simplifying the tax code, but would not commit to any particular plan when asked about a national sales tax or flat income tax. Bush recently said the idea of a national sales tax should be explored.
The vice president argued that the United States cannot view terrorism as it views ordinary crime and said the nation's future depends on its response to the threat. But he did not repeat explosive comments from earlier in the week when he suggested that a vote for Democrat John Kerry would increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack.
Cheney was critical of Kerry in his comments, but used much less sweeping rhetoric than he often employs.
Later, at a fund-raiser in Green Bay, Wis., that was to raise $250,000 for the Republican National Committee, Cheney lit into Kerry using the campaign's line that the Democrat flip-flops on major issues, including the Iraq war.
"I've never seen a candidate go back and forth so many times on a single issue,'' Cheney said.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Sept 10, 2004 1:48:37 GMT -5
Well I'll give him that...he refuses to give up the ship even after being proven wrong (repeatedly!! ;D ) And they are grasping at straws economically!! First they try to move burger-flippers over into the manufacturing sector DuHbya's trying to sell that frivolous lawsuits are the cause of lost jobs and now they're alluding that selling your junk on eBay (instead of having a garage sale) to raise a few bucks to make ends meet could be construed as a job?? Here's the REAL world...Dick!! _____________________________________ Health Care Premiums Jump 11.2 PercentBy THERESA AGOVINO NEW YORK (AP) - Health care costs continued to surge this year as family premiums in employer-sponsored plans jumped 11.2 percent, the fourth year of double-digit growth, according to a new study. The cumulative effect of rising health care costs is taking a toll on workers: There are at least 5 million fewer jobs providing health insurance in 2004 than there were in 2001, according to the survey of 3,017 companies by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. This year, 63 percent of firms offered health benefits to workers, down from 68 percent in 2001. The change is primarily driven by a decrease in the number of small firms, those with 3 to 199 workers, that offer coverage. The average premium for a family of four grew to $9,950 annually. The family premium for a preferred provider organization, the most common type of insurance, hit $10,217 - the first time it broke the $10,000 barrier. PPOs are plans that provide members with a network of discounted providers that charge a copayment but also allows for the opportunity of using other doctors and hospitals. Firms with between three and 24 workers reported the biggest hike in the average family premium, 13.6 percent. ``Health insurance is becoming unaffordable, especially for small employers. We should expect the ranks of uninsured to grow as small employers can't afford health insurance,'' said Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Altman noted that the hike in health premiums outpaced both the 2.2 percent growth in wages and 2.3 percent growth in inflation by five times. ``There is a great sense that there is just no answer to this problem,'' Altman added. The average premium for single coverage rose 9.2 percent to $3,383 annually. The percentage employees paid toward the premiums remained steady with singles picking up 16 percent of the tab, the same as 2003. Employees paid 28 percent of the family premium, up from 27 percent a last year. However, singles' out of pocket costs for the premium rose 9.8 percent to $558 annually while a worker's cost for family premium rose 10.3 percent to $2,661. Since 2001, employee contributions increased 57 percent for single coverage and 49 percent for family coverage. This year's increase in family premiums was below the 13.9 percent reported in 2003 and shifting costs to employees was less pronounced than in previous years, but Altman said such figures didn't signal any significant changes in the direction of health care costs. He said the increase was lower because health plans were paying less for hospital care, doctors and some drugs while cost shifting has moderated somewhat because employers wanted to give their workers a break after years of demanding they pay more for their care. For example, the average deductible for a preferred provider organization rose 4.3 percent to $387 for a family of four. But in 2003 the deductible rose 9.5 percent, after a 43 percent surge in 2002. Deductibles for using a provider outside the PPO were essentially flat at $558 this year after soaring 20 percent in 2003. Still, some types of cost sharing did increase. For example, the proportion of workers facing a $20 copayment for an office visit increased to 27 percent from 19 percent in 2003. Employers say that they have to do a certain amount of cost-shifting to keep costs down. Klickitat County in Washington state was facing a 22 percent premium increase for a year that would begin in November. Instead of paying it, the county which employs 225 people, worked with its insurer to lower the increase. Now the county's increase will only be 11.5 percent but employees will be paying more for certain services. Beginning in November county employees will have to pay 20 percent of their hospital stay. Currently, they pay $200 a day with a five-day limit. Employees currently pay 10 percent of services such outpatient surgery and chemotherapy. That will rise to 20 percent in November. Personnel director Lori Wolford said the county considered changing plans but employees were happy with the current provider. Overall, 56 percent of firms said they shopped for a new plan in the past year. Of those that looked, 31 percent changed carriers while 34 percent switched the type of plan they offered. Overall employers are skeptical about whether tools such as disease management and consumer plans really lower costs. Only 42 percent of employers believed disease management and consumer driven plans were somewhat effective in lowering costs. ``Such efforts nibble at the edges,'' said Altman. He said controlling health care costs was a vexing problem because no one wants to pay more, but people also aren't willing to accept less service. ``I don't see any solution in the short or immediate future,'' he said.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 14, 2004 22:00:09 GMT -5
It seems Bush's excuse for all the country's ills are the fault of frivolous and junk lawsuits. Once again we hear the Bushie motto, "the buck stops over there". Bush thinks the cure is for people to own their own health plans and is proposing $5000 tax free accounts for people to purchase them. With the average family plan breaking the $10,000 mark that'll go a long way to help. And he's not explaining how this proposal's supposed to bring costs down. But then, what else can be expected from the man after he strong armed Congress to pass a Medicare bill they weren't happy with, which gave some, but not all, seniors a generous 5% discount on drugs, yet they just announced Medicare increases of 17%? Or his much bragged about tax cuts that the GBO has proven shifted the tax burden onto the middle class making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year? Kerry's healthcare proposal is similiar to the one Clinton tried to enact, but the Republicans blocked it saying it was too expensive. A healthcare system for Americans is too expensive, but they can find 200 billion dollars and counting for a war of choice in Iraq?
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Sept 16, 2004 0:19:58 GMT -5
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Sept 19, 2004 11:43:46 GMT -5
Their irrationality is getting more irrational by the second. Two reports were just issued, the latest Intelligence Estimate and the weapons inspector's final report. On top of that, the violence in Iraq has escalated to new heights, some of which has now put Turkey's cooperation and relations with the U.S. in jeopardy. The IE report bore no good news in regard to Iraq. Foreign insurgents are flooding into the country making a bad situation worse. Democracy, and one that is friendly towards the U.S., is doubtful to happen within the next 10 years, if ever, and that most likely, the country would become embroiled in civil war between the factions. The weapons inspector's report stated the alleged stockpiles of WMDs don't exist and that no active WMD or nuclear programs were found. The best they could come up with is that Saddam had a desire to restart them. That's far from an imminent and immediate threat. But since those reports and the news of the escalating violence have come out, Bush and Cheney have both insisted they are "optimistic" on the future of Iraq. My pet peeve is Bush's repeated stretching of the truth. No one in Congress "voted for the Iraq war" because Congress did not ratify a declaration of war and the second is a statement he's made more than once about Congress giving him the authority to oust Saddam. The resolution Congress passed was to grant Bush the authority to use force at his discretion as a last resort in the case Saddam refused to comply with the UN resolutions, not to ouster him. Sending Powell before the UN once with a weak argument and unconvincing "proof" on why force was immediately necessary was a profoundly feeble attempt at making it appear they were doing all that could possibly be done before using force. At that time Saddam was complying and the UN requested the inspections be given another 6 months as long as he continued to allow the inspectors to do their job. The inspections up to that point turned up no evidence of an immediate threat. After a decade of being contained, 6 more months wouldn't have made a difference. If Saddam failed to comply within that time or evidence was found, we would have had worldwide backing and our troops would have had minimally 6 additional months to focus on their mission in Afghanistan. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't ever remember a single Iraqi being arrested or sought in conjunction with any worldwide terrorist activities or organization. The Bushies also state that Afghanistan has been a success. That statement could not be further from the truth. There have been several attempts on the life of the interim president. We tenuously hold only the area of Kabul, while the war lords and remnants of the Taliban run rampant in the rest of the country. Osama still has not been captured, whether dead or alive. Our troops were only getting started hunting down those who attacked this country before attention and resources for that mission were diverted to another country that was contained and did not pose an immediate threat. If Saddam was the real threat and this country and the world are safer with him gone, then why did the attacks in Bali, Saudi Arabia, Spain and most recently Russia happen? Why were our presidential conventions so heavily guarded? Why were alert levels raised due to supposed Al Qaeda and not Iraqi threats?
|
|
|
Post by LS on Sept 30, 2004 0:43:05 GMT -5
DuHbya's tax cuts... Dick could claim DuHbya as a dependent... Roland- I very much agree with all of your statements. Either they are all hair raisingly irrational (maybe too many coke parties?? ) or they're in deep denial...or they're simply very bad liars. I was rolling at DuHbya's response to the Intel Estimate..."they're just guessing"!! I guess they were just 'guessing' on that Aug. 6, '01 briefing too- eh?? Sorry Charlie- but we have enough bases around here and I've heard enough from the troops who've been and come back from both places to know that the state of Iraq (and Afghanistan) is a lot closer to the Estimate than the DuHbya administration's sugar coated fairy tale version. And kudos to the American appointed Iraqi PM who flew all the way from Iraq to campaign for the DuHbya...he did a terrific job of not straying from his American written script!! I watched Kerry give his speech at NYU and his appearance on Letterman last week. I thought he did an outstanding job of stating his position- and clarifying the Bushies' flip-flop fantasies about him (Kerry's record is no different than any other politician's who's been in office for any length of time). He also clarified your peeve- the vote was not to go to war with Iraq, but to give DuHbya the authority to use force as a last resort as you said. People are also very quick to foget that the majority of Congress (including the GOP) had a lot of problems with that request for the 87 billion. The major one was the money allocated for Iraq's reconstruction and the fact that DuHbya insisted the money be non-repayable grants instead of re-payable loans (like what happened to DuH's statement that this wasn't going to cost the taxpayers- that the money would come from the sale of Iraqi oil??). The other one was that it wasn't clear where more than half that money was going after deducting the reconstruction money for Iraq & Afghanistan and supplies for our troops. They wanted clarification on for what and where that money was going- and DuHbya flatly refused to clarify. That bill should have never passed- and the only reason it did was because the money for the much needed supplies for our troops was tied into it and instead of fighting it- too many of our Congresspeople were afraid it would make them look 'unpatriotic' and unsupportive of our troops because that money would be held up while they fought him on the rest of the bill (which he stated he'd veto if they changed any of it). Kerry also clarified my pet peeve. I'm fed up with idiots from both sides- both anti and pro-Kerry...who keep saying he has no detailed plan regarding Iraq- and has to have one-pronto- if he's going to have a chance. He's stated what he feels needs to be done to correct the mess- however when asked the same question by Letterman- he gave an honest and realistic answer...he's not going to have any clear cut answers until January 20th if he's elected and gets a good look at what's been going on behind what amounts to this administration's- 'iron curtain.' That's the way I've been seeing it. Kerry can make all kinds of promises and outline 'plans' by what 'we're' seeing and the scant information that's been released- but who really knows what kind of damage and under-the-table deals these idiots have been getting away with that no one outside their little circle knows about?? So he may very well have a bigger mess- or even a whole different one- to deal with than he's anticipating- and any premature 'plans' without knowing all the facts that have been occurring would be pointless and a waste of time. At any rate- I've got way more faith and hope in the guy who at least recognizes what's broke and needs to be fixed and is willing to adjust his actions accordingly- than the delusional one who does nothing but keep insisting everything's just peachy- regardless of reality.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Sept 30, 2004 11:26:48 GMT -5
Yup, saw Kerry on Letterman, but couldn't make it down to NYU that day. I'm surprised that the GOP didn't cry about that list. But the people believe that Kerry is a flip-flopper and has no plan because that's what the "liberal" media keeps saying. To give an example of how "liberal" the media really is, take the debates from 2000. I didn't watch them but the NYT just did a piece on them. It said that the immediate reaction following the debates was that Gore had blown Bush out of the water, but the networks turned around and declared that Gore had been arrogant and condecending by sighing and such, completely ignoring Shrub's fuzzy math and outright lies. I actually watched one of the debates replayed on CSPAN and thought to myself "this clown was declared the winner?!" The print media was scarcely better, feeling that they had to balance Gore's minor errors with Shrub's whoppers. Not to mention the section that I caught displayed how Shrub had done the exact opposite of everything he promised.
|
|
|
Post by SweetNadine on Sept 30, 2004 20:00:59 GMT -5
The debate is beginning! I am anxious to watch this debate tonight, but, I am more anxious to watch the debate on Tuesday night. I like John Edwards and I think he will whip-up on ol' Dick.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Sept 30, 2004 22:16:14 GMT -5
Pentagon wants 'uplifting accounts' about Iraq
Administration wants upbeat reports, will 'curtail' bad news about Iraq.
by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
Thursday morning in Baghdad multiple car bombs and rocket attacks killed at least 40 people, including many children and several US soldiers. The Bush administration, The Washington Post reports Thursday, worried that negative stories like these are dominating the news headlines during an election period, has decided to send out Iraq Americans to bring what the Defense Department calls "the good news" about the situation in Iraq to US military bases. The Post also reports that the administration is moving to "curtail distribution" of reports that show the situation in Iraq growing worse. In particular, the US Agency of International Development said this week that it will "restrict distribution" of a report by its contractor, Kroll Security International, that showed the number of attacks by insurgents had been increasingly dramatically over the past few months. Attacks have risen to 70 a day, up from 40-50, since Iraqi Prime Minister Alawi took office in June
But the Guardian reports on Thursday that the Kroll documents aren't the only ones prepared by a private security contractor in Iraq that say things are getting worse.
The insurgency in Iraq appears to be more widespread and deadly than Iraqi leaders are prepared to admit, according to military officers and a report by a private security company, Special Operations Consulting-Security Management Group. The company says there have been 2,300 attacks in the past 30 days, stretching from Mosul in the north through the Sunni heartland west of Baghdad and central Shiite towns around Babylon down to Basra in the south. The weapons ranged from car and time bombs to rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, gunfire, mortars and landmines. They averaged 80 a day. In one sign that the administration and the military are working harder to keep a lid on negative stories, Salon reports that an Army Reserve staff sargent from Texas, with 20 years experience who is now serving in Iraq, may face up to 20 years in prison for "disloyalty and insubordination."The reason? He wrote an article criticizing the occupation of Iraq on an anti-war website, LewRockwell.com. The article contained no classified information. In his commentary, Sgt. Al Lorentz offered a "bleak assessment" of the situation. "I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality," wrote Lorentz, who gives four key reasons for the likely failure: a refusal to deal with reality, not understanding what motivates the enemy, an overabundance of guerrilla fighters, and the enemy's shorter line of supplies and communication. The Christian Science Monitor reported Wednesday on life in Baghdad's "Green Zone" - home to US military and civilian officials and to the new US embassy (although its exact location has not been disclosed) - and finds that its residents are increasingly worried about their safety. One reason for their concern, the Monitor writes, is the approach of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which begins on Oct. 15. Last year, the month saw a dramatic surge in attacks against the "US-led military occupation." Not all the reports that come back from Iraq are negative. North Carolina's Fayetteville Online interviews several local guardsmen who say the conditions in Iraq are improving.
"There are a few spectacular attacks that capture the TV news, but we've made steady progress," he [Brig. Gen. Danny Hickman] said. "We don't see progress day to day, but we see progress month to month." And the Glenville Pioneer Press Online of Illinois talked to US Marine Cpl. Marine Josh Junge. While he came to realize that the US won't have 100 percent support in Iraq, it also won't have "100 percent hatred." Cpl. Junge also said he believes conditions in Iraq are slowly improving, and he supports President Bush's reasons for going to Iraq. "I'm not a politician and the decisions aren't mine to make, but I think oftentimes our commander in chief has a much broader view of things than your average Joe who is for or against the war. We can bicker or fight about whether it's a good or bad idea," but that the president has "stood by it is pretty meritorious." By and large, however, most reports contain a much harder assessment of the US role in Iraq and the situation there. The Toronto Star offers another grim portrait of a part of the war that rarely makes the front pages - the hospital in Germany where wounded US troops from Iraq are taken. The Star reports that "prior to the Iraq war, the hospital received no more than 10 injured US soldiers a year from conflicts. Now, it usually handles between 30 and 55 a day from Iraq and Afghanistan alone." The result, the Star reports, is that compassion fatigue is very much a problem for the staff, and anger in increasingly expressed by relatives of injured soldiers who are furious at the way they have been treated by the military.
A scathing letter about the situation in Iraq that Wall Street Journal reporter Farnaz Fassihi wrote to friends has become a "global chain mail" in her words. Editor and Publisher reports that her letter said that the insurgency had spread from "isolated pockets in the Sunni triangle to most of Iraq."
'Iraqis say that thanks to America they got freedom in exchange for insecurity,' Fassihi wrote (among much else) in the letter. 'Guess what? They say they'd take security over freedom any day, even if it means having a dictator ruler.' And: 'Despite President Bush's rosy assessments, Iraq remains a disaster. If under Saddam it was a "potential" threat, under the Americans it has been transformed to "imminent and active threat," a foreign policy failure bound to haunt the United States for decades to come.' Finally, in a recent article run in numerous US, European, and Middle Eastern papers and on their websites, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (who just returned from her second trip to Iraq) writes that the US is still without a political strategy that recognizes a "full fledged insurgency" is underway, and until it devises a strategy for the situation, "the military is forced into a stop-go-stop hesitancy in which soldiers' lives are being wasted and security continues to worsen." What is needed is a policy that takes deadly seriously what Iraqis believe about why the war began and what the United States intends. These beliefs -- that the United States came only to get its hands on Iraq's oil, to benefit Israel's security, and to establish a puppet government and a permanent military presence through which it could control Iraq and the rest of the region -- are wrong. But beliefs passionately held are as important as facts, because they powerfully affect behavior. What we see as a tragic series of American missteps, Iraqis interpret -- with reason when seen through their eyes -- as evidence of evil intent.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Sept 30, 2004 23:45:50 GMT -5
Yup, saw Kerry on Letterman, but couldn't make it down to NYU that day. I'm surprised that the GOP didn't cry about that list. But the people believe that Kerry is a flip-flopper and has no plan because that's what the "liberal" media keeps saying. The entire media has become a joke- they've become nothing but a bunch of wussie brainwashed messengers who's sole job now has become brainwashing the masses...feeding them a steady stream of whitewashed 'soft news.' Gore did blow DuHbya out of the water...for that matter so did Ann Richards- she totally mopped the floor with him during the governor's race in Texas. That's the problem- the media's overuse of 'over-analyze this' pyschobabbling talking heads ...'he said this- but his body language was really saying that' And they'll keep talking it to death and putting their own personal spin on it till things get so twisted and distorted people forget what it is they really saw and heard. (9/11=Iraq anyone?? ) For the public's safety- they should all be taken and locked away in their think tanks, throw away the keys and leave 'em there till their heads explode from listening to their own hot air BS. You mean like this stuff from an article The Washington Post ran today?? Ken Guggenheim of the Associated Press also fact-checks a presidential debate -- but in this case, the one from four years ago.
"Consider these words from Gov. George W. Bush when he debated foreign affairs with Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000:
• " 'Strong relations in Europe is in our nation's interest.'
• " 'If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're humble but strong, they'll welcome us.'
• " 'We're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.'
"None of those remarks characterizes Bush's presidency."
Particularly in the past week, the political press corps has come under fire from bloggers, op-ed columnists -- and from within -- over its propensity to be ruthlessly spun, particularly when it comes to presidential debates.
But these articles are signs that it won't get fooled again. At least not completely.
|
|
|
Post by Roughneck on Sept 30, 2004 23:50:08 GMT -5
Oh yeah, I'm wondering if the Kerry victory is gonna stick or if magically Shrub will have soundly beaten Kerry.
|
|
|
Post by SweetNadine on Oct 1, 2004 18:33:26 GMT -5
Roughneck-
I think the idol worshippers will try to scrub Kerry's victory throughout this week-end, but, I don't think their bs is going to work anymore. The news coming from Iraq, the job losses, and etc. can no longer be camouflaged by hyprocritical cheerleading.
|
|
Roland
Full Member
Robert Johnson King of the Delta Blues
Posts: 235
|
Post by Roland on Oct 2, 2004 22:01:57 GMT -5
And kudos to the American appointed Iraqi PM who flew all the way from Iraq to campaign for the DuHbya...he did a terrific job of not straying from his American written script!! I found that very amusing myself. These people really have no shame. I agree with all of your points too. I've found nothing wrong with Kerry and I think the problem lays more with the wishy-washy stance of the Democratic Party. There is no reason for the race to be this close with all the ammunition that's been laid at their feet for the taking. Bush should have been blown out of the water long before this, but it appears they keep steering Kerry away from using much of any of it. I'm afraid I've got to agree with Michael Moore when he said the Democrats are blowing it because they're a bunch of scared wussies who get themselves worked up in a panic over the smallest negativities and they'd better get over it. I can't argue with a single thing you've said here either. Your points were further illustrated with the above posted campaign rhetoric from Junior during the 2000 debates. If that's not the mother of all "flip flops" I don't know what is. Another one that of course immediately comes to mind, is his old man's infamous campaign promise when he said "Read my lips. NO new taxes." Campaign promises and rhetoric aren't worth a wooden nickel. Few are ever fulfilled and the future and what it holds in store is something that can't be predicted. So yes, they're a waste of time which is why I make my decisions based on a candidate's experience, character and how he's conducted himself in the past. Without a doubt.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Oct 11, 2004 15:48:48 GMT -5
I can't argue with a single thing you've said here either. Your points were further illustrated with the above posted campaign rhetoric from Junior during the 2000 debates. If that's not the mother of all "flip flops" I don't know what is. Campaign promises and rhetoric aren't worth a wooden nickel. Few are ever fulfilled and the future and what it holds in store is something that can't be predicted. So yes, they're a waste of time which is why I make my decisions based on a candidate's experience, character and how he's conducted himself in the past. EXACTLY!! With the exception of Iraq and 'terrorism' (the threat is the same now that it's been for the past three decades- at least)- they're running on the same 'promises' they made 4 years ago...and failed to deliver- or did the total opposite of... So here's the Reagan ( ) Litmus Test: "Next Tuesday all of you will go to the polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have. This country doesn't have to be in the shape that it is in."Since my answers are a resounding 'NO' (except for the 3rd question which is- 'MORE')...it 'bout sums things up for me...NO MORE Bush.
|
|
snizz
Full Member
I'm sure I'd be more upset if I weren't quite so heavily sedated
Posts: 322
|
Post by snizz on Oct 12, 2004 14:13:32 GMT -5
...or they're simply very bad liars. I'll choose this one. ;D I'm larfing me ass off over their explanations of the bulge in the back of Bush's suit during the debates. Bushworld is a place of fantasy and they think everybody but themselves are stupid fools. When I first saw it during the first debate, I didn't think much of it until a few minutes later when I noticed Kerry didn't have one and thought to myself it was strange. I've worked a lot of years on the road and I know and that bulge is only one thing. It's a transmitter for wireless audio equipment. Performers wear them all the time. You see TV reporters using them too. I'm forced to wear the occasional suit and since I'm not rich, I buy them off the rack. I've never so much as tried one on that lumped in the back. I've read some speculation it might be some kind of back brace, but I've never seen a back brace that looked like that through clothing. I've read it might've been some kind of body armor, but when I was in the military I wore it and it didn't fit like that. I have relatives and friends who are cops or work security that wear bullet proof vests and those vests don't make clothing look like that. If it were either of those reasons, what's to hide and why wouldn't they come right out and say it? I second that!
|
|