Bush and Co. Just plain evil

Check out this story form the Washington Post showing just how far the neo-cons go with thier lying. They are just being plain evil...all to win the White House. What happened to honor and integrity?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3222_2004may30

[willy_jack]

Originally posted by stripclub DJ
Check out this story form the Washington Post showing just how far the neo-cons go with thier lying. They are just being plain evil...all to win the White House. What happened to honor and integrity?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...3222_2004may30

I knew this 4 years ago.....

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by stripclub DJ
What happened to honor and integrity?

His name is John McCain, he's the last of their species to inhabit Washington, DC.

[willy_jack]

Originally posted by Dionysos
His name is John McCain, he's the last of their species to inhabit Washington, DC.

I agree with you One Hundred Percent on this statement.

Amen Willy

[Ryan]

Is this a surprise? They destroyed John McCain by lying, they got elected by lying, they've based the entire presidency on lying, and now they will try to tear John Kerry apart by lying. And the sheep that follow them around could care less, so why should they stop now?

[TheHawk]

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

I love numbers, they prove Bush is evil

[johnny861]

Originally posted by TheHawk
I love numbers, they prove Bush is evil

So does the 13k + negatives ads by kerry prove he is less evil, or is there some kind of threshold that says, oh well 20k + means evil, while less than 20k means honest... or pershaps a ratio... if higher than x% of opponant than evil?

Just trying to figure out how the numbers were proofed.

[TheHawk]

Originally posted by johnny861
So does the 13k + negatives ads by kerry prove he is less evil, or is there some kind of threshold that says, oh well 20k + means evil, while less than 20k means honest... or pershaps a ratio... if higher than x% of opponant than evil?

Just trying to figure out how the numbers were proofed.

No there isn't a threshold, it's a relative figure. Bush does around 3x the negative ads, and I was more making a general statement that anytime a reliable statistic comes out, it's not in his favor.

[willy_jack]

john kerry is not going to change the world. john kerry is george bush in policy. he only differs in the party he belongs to.

nothing will change until we have a third party that actually does speak for the people.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by willy_jack
john kerry is not going to change the world. john kerry is george bush in policy. he only differs in the party he belongs to.

nothing will change until we have a third party that actually does speak for the people.

True.

[Ryan]

Originally posted by willy_jack
john kerry is not going to change the world. john kerry is george bush in policy. he only differs in the party he belongs to.

I think you're way off base. True, John Kerry will not "change the world" any more than any other president would, but I think the outcome of his presidency would leave our country in a dramatically different state than another four years of Bush. Here is why I am voting for Kerry over Bush:

1) I am a social libertarian.

Bush is the exact opposite in every respect to the libertarian ideal. He would use our court system to Constitutionally ban gay marriage, to push for greater restrictions or even a ban on abortion rights, to block stem cell research, and he would also like to extend and expand the Patriot Act.

John Kerry, we can be sure, will never support a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage and will likely push for legalized civil unions. We can also be sure that he will not make assertive efforts to further limit reproductive rights. He has been an outspoken advocate for stem cell research and I believe that he would fully support legislation to make it legal and effective. Finally, while he has supported the Patriot Act in the past, I do believe that he would make efforts to limit the government's ability to abuse this legislation.

You may agree or disagree with my personal stances on these social issues, but there is no way to convince me that John Kerry does not more closely represent my social positions than does George W. Bush.


2) I am a fiscal conservative.

Bush has taken fiscal irresponsibilty so far that I believe Republicans can no longer claim to be more economically conservative than Democrats. How can a party who supports this man and his outrageous entitlements accuse "liberals" of promoting too much welfare? How can these people who are responsible for going from such an enormous budget surplus to such an enormous deficit accuse the Democrats of being thoughtless to the American taxpayer? And how can a man who hands out corporate welfare like the world is ending and restricts free trade call himself a "capitalist?"

Kerry is a liberal and there is no doubt about that. But I honestly trust Kerry to reduce the deficit more than Bush. I don't believe it would even be possible for a president to be more willing to shell out our tax dollars in every direction than Bush has and I think the Republican Congress would do a hell of a lot more to stop him than they have Bush. Furthermore, if the federal government is going to burn through our money, I would prefer it be invested in education, health care, etc, than to be given as handouts to corporations who have shown a longstanding inability to earn a profit and function efficiently in the market.


3) I believe Kerry is more capable of handling the war on terrorism - now, hear me out here.

The one argument made by Bush supporters constantly is that he is "tough on terrorists" and that John Kerry will bend over for them. I will grant you that Bush has appeared "tough," but what I care about is results, not the world perception that we can "kick ass." Bush has this grand vision for Iraq that will never play out. The US has taken nearly the entire load of this war - both in monetary and human sacrifice - and we have no real exit strategy and few measurable victories. Bush has repeatedly stated that we will "never stop fighting" until the very last terrorist is ready to surrender and that we will "go it alone" if we have to. Is he f*cking crazy?

We are now 3 years, billions upon billions of dollars, and tens of thousands of lives into this war, and yet terrorism has increased in the world significantly as a result. Recent intelligence reports show that al Qaeda has increased its ranks and funding since we began our war, so how can we say we're beating them?

I think it's time to take a step back, show a little humility, and reassess our objectives in this war, but Bush is too stuborn and inflexible to do so. He is so caught up in the escalating commitment to his plan that he will never change course, regardless of what the costs are. Being "tough" is one thing, winning the war is another. We need international support and I believe that Kerry is far more capable of mending fences with our allies and getting them more involved in this conflict. More than anything, we need independence from these terrorist nations, but Bush seems to want us to be even more coupled with them. Kerry has placed at the top of his agenda a plan for gaining energy independence from the Middle East while Bush has barely addressed it. As long as we are dependent on Saudi Arabia for our very existence, we are always going to be prone to their psychotic radicals killing our people. Bush seems to be oblivious to this point.


Kerry was one of my last choices of candidates but to say he is "no different" is quite incorrect in my view. And one thing is for sure, he can't be any worse.

[Element4040]

I think it's time to take a step back, show a little humility, and reassess our objectives in this war, but Bush is too stuborn and inflexible to do so. He is so caught up in the escalating commitment to his plan that he will never change course, regardless of what the costs are. Being "tough" is one thing, winning the war is another. We need international support and I believe that Kerry is far more capable of mending fences with our allies and getting them more involved in this conflict. More than anything, we need independence from these terrorist nations, but Bush seems to want us to be even more coupled with them. Kerry has placed at the top of his agenda a plan for gaining energy independence from the Middle East while Bush has barely addressed it. As long as we are dependent on Saudi Arabia for our very existence, we are always going to be prone to their psychotic radicals killing our people. Bush seems to be oblivious to this point.

I couldn't agree more, very well spoken.

We just have to be very careful in how we go about the "current" war in Iraq. This must be done without showing weakness. Granted it's a mess and it hasn't been handled very effectively. But there is one thing I am certain off and that's showing weakness to Al Qaeda is one of the worst things we can do now that we are in this mess.

I am a fan of Nader and alot of his policies. However one of the biggest disagreements I have with him is that he wants to pull out of Iraq 100%. To me, that sends the wrong message. If you remember Osama used our pullout in Somalia as a show of weakness by the US. He used this in recruiting tapes.

[Dionysos]

A couple points of contention with Ryan's post:

1) Republicans can still argue that Dems give out too much welfare because most of Bush's spending increases are towards military & Homeland security and not the welfare state. What they can't do - and this is what I believe you were alluding to overall - is complain about Dems' spending in general. I definitely agree that Bush's spending is overboard and needs to be curbed.

2) John Kerry will not advocate legalizing civil unions. He has already said he doesn't approve of gay marriage much like Bush. The difference between them lies in the proposed Constitutional ban; Bush is for the ban, Kerry is not. The amendment aside, the 2 candidates' rhetoric has been very similar.

3) Kerry will only be marginally different than Bush in the war on terror. Bush & Kerry once again have similar rhetoric - though I've heard Kerry flip-flop on this issue so much I'd think he has money in Birkenstocks - on the war on terror. Their main difference is that Bush is willing to 'go it alone' (even though we never really do) whereas Kerry would likely only go in with a large coalition. I think both options have their pros & cons, and either can be an appropriate response depending on the situation.

My problem with Kerry is this. I think if he's elected, a lot of people will be expecting a large change in the path America takes and the anger & frustration will resurface once they realize Kerry's not that much different than Bush. In 1-2 years we will have the same heated vitriol screaming for 'anybody but Kerry', and the people will be nearly as polarized as they are right now. I believe if Kerry wins all this commotion will be the same as before, and I think the liberals will once again be the voice of anger over how things are progressing because they expected differently.


To be fair, I agree with several points Ryan makes. I think the war on terror does need to be reevaluated and adjusted, and I think Bush is probably too single-minded to do that on a large scale. I think Bush's spending is grossly out of whack. I think Bush's push for a gay marriage ban is going to bite him in the ass. I think Kerry - at least initially - will mend fences that have been broken by the Bush camp.....but I don't expect those fences to stay intact once Kerry's been in office for awhile.

[johnny861]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ryan
John Kerry, we can be sure, will never support a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage and will likely push for legalized civil unions.


I dunno about that.. he's been shaky on that issue so far...


We can also be sure that he will not make assertive efforts to further limit reproductive rights. He has been an outspoken advocate for stem cell research and I believe that he would fully support legislation to make it legal and effective.


This I can agree with....


Finally, while he has supported the Patriot Act in the past, I do believe that he would make efforts to limit the government's ability to abuse this legislation.


You may believe, but I doubt that will be the case. The Patriot Act, for reasons political or other, has been under scrutiny as not being effective enough by congress members both parties. This 9/11 commission repeatedly suggested stepping it up with an agency to the likes of MI5, which would be far worse than the Patriot Act and Homeland Security as it is not an act or agency allowing other agencies to work closer together, but a sole agency that spies on its own people. If Kerry decides to play it safe and ambiguous on this issue, you might get to see the establishment of an MI5 style agency with him in office.

I would hope your gut feeling is correct.


You may agree or disagree with my personal stances on these social issues, but there is no way to convince me that John Kerry does not more closely represent my social positions than does George W. Bush.


Perhaps, if your position is flipflopping on gay marriage, supporting of stem cell research, which I can agree with, and the possibility of allowing the unleashing of a domestic spy agency on the american people. (rephrasing, an agency that can legally spy on its own people unlike anything we've seen yet in this country)


Bush has taken fiscal irresponsibilty so far that I believe Republicans can no longer claim to be more economically conservative than Democrats. How can a party who supports this man and his outrageous entitlements accuse "liberals" of promoting too much welfare? How can these people who are responsible for going from such an enormous budget surplus to such an enormous deficit accuse the Democrats of being thoughtless to the American taxpayer? And how can a man who hands out corporate welfare like the world is ending and restricts free trade call himself a "capitalist?"


Corporate welfare will always be handed out to some degree or fashion. A president is not going to make much change there, unless he's willing to make a shit load of enemies. I doubt Kerry is that man and I doubt he will be effective enought to put a curb on it, let alone a stop.

As for the bulk of the fiscal irresponsibility, that issue really ties into the two full scale wars that were fought over the last couple of years.

I'd imagine that's open to those who support the war and those who didn't.


Kerry is a liberal and there is no doubt about that. But I honestly trust Kerry to reduce the deficit more than Bush. I don't believe it would even be possible for a president to be more willing to shell out our tax dollars in every direction than Bush has and I think the Republican Congress would do a hell of a lot more to stop him than they have Bush.


Kerry is a liberal parading around as a conservative. If I wanted to vote for somebody parading around as somebody they are supposedly not, I would vote for Clark.


Furthermore, if the federal government is going to burn through our money, I would prefer it be invested in education, health care, etc, than to be given as handouts to corporations who have shown a longstanding inability to earn a profit and function efficiently in the market.


Again, we'll see if Kerry has any real power over that. I'd be quite surprised if that were the case.


3) I believe Kerry is more capable of handling the war on terrorism - now, hear me out here.

The one argument made by Bush supporters constantly is that he is "tough on terrorists" and that John Kerry will bend over for them. I will grant you that Bush has appeared "tough," but what I care about is results, not the world perception that we can "kick ass." Bush has this grand vision for Iraq that will never play out.


I'm still a bit unclear on Kerry's plan for Iraq. Most of it from what I've read is about working through the UN and putting them in charge of Iraq. I'll have to read more on this to form an opinion.