Bush vs. Kerry?

[flypie743]

Yea but seriously what do people remember about Clinton....nothing good...

[DracIV]

Clinton really did suck ass. A short while ago his own party started revealing the crap he was hiding to use as ammo on Bush, and he was the worst freakin president EVER. Everything from employment to healthcare was getting worse with him. He cut back the military to almost nothing and tried to kill the space program. He sucked at being president.

Also, about the comment with the golf, he was with BUDDIES. If you refuse to let a man have a bit of humor with his friends, then you are an A$$HOLE. He cares about everyone- he's done more for the country as a whole in 1 year than Clinton did in 8. Even though the deficit has gotten bigger, I don't think you guys realize why that is. The government has two ways of returning money to the people- buying stuff and paying off the deficit. Buying stuff is used to speed up an economy because the money goes right back in there, paying off the deficit and putting the money in banks is used to slow down the economy. The only option Bush had was to spend, and it worked. He could have paid off the deficit, but that would have destroyed us most likely.

[lildevilterpbaby]

i don't care about the whole wang sucking incident besides the fact that he lied to us but he was just too busy dealing with all that crap to do anything else and he completely ignored foreign affairs while he was in office

[GuidoHunter]

Dammit, Flypie, I go away for a few days, come back, and you've stolen my topic idea! =)

I can't wait to see Bush in his second term; I think he's been a great president. I realize he's not without faults, but honestly, nothing he's done merits "bad president" status. To whom is everyone comparing Bush? What president got absolutely everything he said done? Too much shit is being blown out of proportion. Bush's merits far outweigh any negatives.

As for Clinton, I was personally embarassed and ashamed as an American with the Lewinsky deal (that's not to exclude Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, or any of the other women around whom he couldn't keep his pants up). There are a few things that you need to avoid sexual pressure: self-control, integrity, and responsibility. These are also qualities that I'd like to find in my governor or president, who is the leader of the free world. Clinton showed that he had none of these things when he first solicited sexual favors, then received them, then lied under oath in front of a federal grand jury and the entire American people who elected him to be their representative to the world. I wouldn't want a man with poor character and judgment to be an icon for my beloved country, and to betray those who thought that that's what they were getting with Clinton is just low and very disrespectful. Now, I've got much more beef with Clinton, but Drac kinda got a lot of it, and I wanted to get this out because it irritates me when people say "Oh, I didn't care that he got a bj, but his lie was kinda bad".

Honestly, though, this poll should be changed to "Who do you want to win: Bush, or anybody but Bush?", because I think there are about three people in this nation who actually like Kerry because he's Kerry. All he's done is taken stands on what was most politically opportune at the time (following in Clinton's poll-appeasing leadership, eh?), whereas Bush actually has standards to which he sticks.

Regarding the armed forces, when soldiers join they basically sign a contract saying that their life belongs to the Commander-in-Chief, so I really don't get this "sending them to die" argument. A loss of a few hundred soldiers out of almost a hundred fifty thousand during and after a war is pretty good.

In the case of the deficit, I think this is a fine time for him to start slashing government. Cut and/or reform big spending programs to drastically reduce the deficit and even possibly give us a surplus.

Anyway, those are my thoughts for now. I'd like to keep this thread running with current events up until the election.

Oh, and Moogy, nice link.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[flypie743]

Guido, ha ha sorry I kind of just came up with the topic lol...I couldnt agree more with you over the Clinton paragraph (you too Drac)...
" I'd like to keep this thread running with current events up until the election. "-Guido....yea I would, too.
Also, about the topic title I agree with you there...mostly everyone who doesnt like Bush would vote for anyone but him.

[DracIV]

A recent report: as of Wednesday, 867 American soldiers have died during the entire time from the start of the war to now. The number of enemies killed was not reported, but it is very high. One squadron even has a record of 83 kills per soldier.

[jewpinthethird]

A recent report: as of Wednesday, 867 American soldiers have died during the entire time from the start of the war to now. The number of enemies killed was not reported, but it is very high. One squadron even has a record of 83 kills per soldier.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

[DracIV]

I intended it as neither good nor bad, but such information as that does matter for a debate about Bush (Iraq War is big part of political debate today)

[Thingy]

Jewpin, would you rather it be 83 deaths to 1 kill?

[talisman]

Well, if the soldiers hadn't been sent into war at all there wouldn't be any deaths...

Wars should only be fought for defensive purposes, and until someone can actually show me physical evidence that Iraq possessed WMD and intended to use them in a way that would be specifically detrimental to the US or its allies or had any sort of connection with Al-Qaeda which they intended to use to attack the US or its allies will I even pause to consider whether or not this current war was justified.

It is not the right of the US to attack and infringe upon one nation's sovereignty in order to depose of a dictator, regardless of how evil that dictator might be, unless that dictator shows every indication of a desire to specifically cause harm to the US, and that's the bottom line. Pre-emption is a risky policy based on potential futures and possible scenarios, not fact. Bush's reliance on this as a foreign policy in Iraq violated the trust of the nation in a much more disturbingly profound way than the shallow nature of the Clinton scandals did.

But that's just my opinion, and I doubt it will change any of yours...

[ToshX]

Oh shut it people I wont bother to read your posts flaming me about not explaining. The answer is, Bush sucks, therefore Kerry rules.

[flypie743]

I am now sided with the Republicans...go Bush!

[GuidoHunter]

Well, if the soldiers hadn't been sent into war at all there wouldn't be any deaths...

Wars should only be fought for defensive purposes, and until someone can actually show me physical evidence that Iraq possessed WMD and intended to use them in a way that would be specifically detrimental to the US or its allies or had any sort of connection with Al-Qaeda which they intended to use to attack the US or its allies will I even pause to consider whether or not this current war was justified.

It is not the right of the US to attack and infringe upon one nation's sovereignty in order to depose of a dictator, regardless of how evil that dictator might be, unless that dictator shows every indication of a desire to specifically cause harm to the US, and that's the bottom line. Pre-emption is a risky policy based on potential futures and possible scenarios, not fact. Bush's reliance on this as a foreign policy in Iraq violated the trust of the nation in a much more disturbingly profound way than the shallow nature of the Clinton scandals did.

But that's just my opinion, and I doubt it will change any of yours...

Well, in the past couple of weeks Polish troops found a store of cyclosarin warheads and got intelligence that Iraq was planning to sell them to terrorists soon before we invaded. As for the (well-documented) WMD's that were there beforehand, they were definitely there. Whether or not Iraq was planning to unleash them on the US is debatable, but I don't like to hear people completely deny their existence.

I don't have much of a problem with preemption, and I think your thoughts on it would be quite dangerous. If you have too high standards, it's much easier for other countries to get by and plan for surprise attacks. Plus, I'd rather lose a handful of soldiers' lives than thousands or millions of citizens'.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[jewpinthethird]

There is only one way to solve this....DEATHMATCH!!!

[lildevilterpbaby]

i couldn't agree with guidohunter more. The point of the matter is that yes we did find substancial evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The loss of a few hundred soldiers is a far cry from the hundreds of thousands who more than likely would have dies if we had just sat here and done nothing.

Even if you are anit-Bush or for Kerry (yea they're two different things) a small part of you has to admit that it would be better for Bush to finish what he started. If Kerry wins he'll not have as much knowledge on the current situation in the Middle East which could prove bad for us. I mean FDR served four terms so he could finish what he started and the nation was much better after his time.

And also I know this is stupid but does it bother anyone else that Kerry and Edwards both are named John and have last names that can be first names????