I knew this campaign would get ugly...

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 02:36 PM

D-day, I too believe in their principles. But more importantly they're not part of the same machine as repub & demo. Its unfortunate but the vote usually goes to the highest bidder anymore. I want someone in office who can look at things logically w/out the party baggage. Too much party line bullshit in politics now. All you hear (especially on this board) is get the president out (whoever it may be at the time) and you never hear why they should be ousted. I'll say it again, there are no quality candidates in this election who have a shot at winning...

13 · 09-09-2004, 02:40 PM

CNN is one of the more moderate news outlets I know of, albeit with a left slant.

The Issues

**jayfrizzo** · 09-09-2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Tippster
Jay - she's older now and has lost some of the yumminess in that picture:

Word, I saw that pic. Still hot. It'd be worth it just to hear her stylishly wax about the romp post-coitus.*

J-

*Not that I'd even consider it because I'm married. I love you, Mrs. Frizzo. Please don't hurt me.

**Buster Highmen** · 09-09-2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
What Cheney is saying is that we cannot go back to a law enforcement(Kerry's term) strategy of preventing attacks on the US. We cannot wait to be attacked(Kerry's strategy), to strike back against terrorists or nations that support terrorists. We do not wait for the UN's thumbs up (Kerry's strategy) when defending our interests. The UN has not shared our interests for quite some time.

What Cheney said is a threat. As an American, I don't like threats.

Now as far as Kerry's platform, it's pretty clear that there are 3 goals:
1) win the war on terror
2) Stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
3) Promote Democracy around the world by winning peace in Iraq.

The platform also includes :"...the establishment of a comprehensive strategy to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks, reform intelligence, crack down on terrorists financing, secure homeland and prevent the emergence of new terrorists."

Here's a link to compare:
http://www.amsa.org/election2004/comparison.pdf

So in Kerry's published platform, there is nothing to support your assessment of Kerry's strategy. Via Ken Guggenheim, Kerry has explicitly expressed support for preemptive strikes against terrorist organizations (AP 7/16/04).

The only excption that may partially support your remarks is with regard to nations, a preemptive strike will only be policy in the case of immiment threat.

It seems that you're greatly misrepresenting the published platform. I'll forgo reciprocating your usual snyde remark.

For those interested, the above link has some interesting comparisons in FR as well as reproductive choice, sem cell research, education, social security, the environment and gay marriage. If you're mind is not as closed as ours, please have a look.

In light of this a Kerry victory in November poses a great danger to us. we have not had an attack against our soil since 9/11. I honestly believe we are in a "when not if" situation if we do not continually chase these terrorists, eventually eradicate them and change the nations that support them.

What logic there may be in noting the absence of an attack may also support the observation that the US wasn't attacked until Bush was elected. Fortunately, Kerry wouldn't stoop to such a classless allegation.

“Why of course the people don’t want war. . .
That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

- Hermann Goering
Nazi SS Officer, on or about 18 April 1946
Nuremberg War Crimes Trial

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 02:51 PM

That's cool but a quick scroll through [edit: the CNN link] shows mostly topics that I could care less about and I'd assume that most people don't really care either. That's the biggest problem. We only hear what the media wants to give us.

This is why it often comes down to character. You don't know where the person stands on a certain subject but if you trust in his/her character then you can rely on them to make the right decision. That's why Clinton was attacked and what liberals can't understand. It actually WAS a big deal to cheat on your wife, take advantage of a young girl and then lie under oath about it all. But that's a whole nother thread and debate.

Think about this though, who's character do you trust, cracker boy or the "common man"

candidate. I'll take neither, thank you very much.

**freshies** · 09-09-2004, 02:54 PM

vote for bush if you agree with an unwinable war (wrong war, wrong country, wrong time...), sky-rocketing defecits, enviornmental suicide, lying, decit, erosion of our civil liberties under the guise of making us "safer", and the chance to tip the supreme court so far to the right in the next 4 yrs (3-4 justices will be retiring in that time) that roe v wade will be overturned, automatic weapons and hand guns will be legal, corporate interests will supercede those of the citizens..........

this is a monumental election people

there may not, on the surface, be that big a difference between GB & JK (as so many here lament) - but there is a HUGE difference on those that they will appoint to office in all branches of gov. that effect everything I spewed about above.

a vote for Nader = a vote for Bush......son't waste it.

That is all, now back to our regularly scheduled programming....

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by freshies
vote for bush if you agree with an unwinable war (wrong war, wrong country, wrong time...), sky-rocketing defecits, enviornmental suicide, lying, decit, erosion of our civil liberties under the guise of making us "safer", and the chance to tip the supreme court so far to the right in the next 4 yrs (3-4 justices will be retiring in that time) that roe v wade will be overturned, automatic weapons and hand guns will be legal, corporate interests will supercede those of the citizens..........

That is all, now back to our regularly scheduled programming....

**Buster Highmen** · 09-09-2004, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider

Do you think your post about character reads any better?

**Idris** · 09-09-2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by 13
CNN is one of the more moderate news outlets I know of, albeit with a left slant.

The Issues

again from the outside looking in.....this is what is seen by many of how news orgonisations stack up

CNN - Plan and simple right wing news media

BBC - Would like to be impartial ut due to political constrains is currently tending right

French TV news - More open minded than its goverment would like, can trend left and right

German TV news - Tending left a bit

Fox - Scary that this is supposed to be news, looks like something from late 30's propoganda!

Al Azzira TV (SP) - Internationaly renound for trying to be impartial.....unfortunatly gets its correspondents killed in the process (Blatantly shot at by both sides during the gulf conflict for unfavrable reporting)- Fantastic documentry on this station brocast in most countries - can't be shown here

CBC (canadian) - Looks impartial and maybee left but futher right than you may think

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 03:06 PM

At least mine was grounded in fact. Come on, automatic weapons legal and roe v wade over turned... nothing but scare tactics.

**365wp** · 09-09-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Come on, automatic weapons legal and roe v wade over turned... nothing but scare tactics.

Looks like the NRA is going to hold off "officially" supporting Bush until the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons expires.

I like these quotes (from the NYT):

"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said on Wednesday.

Later in the article:

A poll released this week by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that 68 percent of Americans - and 32 percent of N.R.A. members - support renewing the ban. The findings, drawn from interviews with 4,959 adults, had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus one percentage point.

A separate national survey, conducted by Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster, on behalf of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, found that 74 percent of voters support renewing the ban, but that support is highest - 79 percent - among independent voters who are being courted by President Bush and Mr. Kerry. That survey of 800 voters had a margin of error of three percentage points.

Link to article.

**Buster Highmen** · 09-09-2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
At least mine was grounded in fact. Come on, automatic weapons legal and roe v wade over turned... nothing but scare tactics.

I'm referring to this:

This is why it often comes down to character. You don't know where the person stands on a certain subject but if you trust in his/her character then you can rely on them to make the right decision. That's why Clinton was attacked and what liberals can't understand. It actually WAS a big deal to cheat on your wife, take advantage of a young girl and then lie under oath about it all. But that's a whole nother thread and debate.

Think about this though, who's character do you trust, cracker boy or the "common man" candidate. I'll take neither, thank you very much.

If reproductive rights is important to you, Bush has made it clear he is anti-abortion. And anti stem cell research, which may hit close to you. Moreover how can you claim that these are scare tactics and not make the same observation of Cheney's remarks?

**freshies** · 09-09-2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
At least mine was grounded in fact. Come on, automatic weapons legal and roe v wade over turned... nothing but scare tactics.

you think i am making this up? supreme court about evenly split today among conservitives and liberals, trends "moderate". If GB gets reelected, then he will have no fear of upsetting swing voters (e.g. moderates) and can therefore put forward right wing candidates that pass the Christian right litmus test as vetted through his advisers. There candidates will have to be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade to even be considered.

If he even gets one of these people past Congress and onto the court, Roe v. Wade will be overturned....its simple math. Likewise for current gun laws and restrictions on automatic weapons and hand guns. Hell, we are half way there now, the law for automatic weapons passed 10 yrs ago is set to expire Monday.

Every law enforcement offiicial in the country has pushed Bush to stand up and make sure that he re-signs this law (yeah, those "heros" that Bush and Cheney constantly talk abut when referring to 9/11), as he has said he supports this law, but he won't actually do anything about it......flip-flopper.

**road trip** · 09-09-2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
At least mine was grounded in fact. Come on, automatic weapons legal and roe v wade over turned... nothing but scare tactics.

Despite popular support, the federal law banning the sale of 19 kinds of semiautomatic assault weapons is almost certain to expire on Monday.

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 03:18 PM

Not to get WAY off topic, but there's no ban on automatic weapons, they're just illegal. Assault style rifles are banned. Its all bullshit though because I can walk into wallmart right now buy a .22 and load a banana clip w/ something like 100 shots. Walk down the street plinking people off left and right. Its not the gun, its the person behind the gun.

edit: My post hit after road trips. There's a difference between an automatic weapon and an assault weapon. An assault weapon can be automatic and a non-assault weapon can be automatic. Both are illegal.

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 03:25 PM

freshies: You can't break down the supreme court by who appointed them. Once a judge put on the robe you have no idea what they are going to do. Its happened in the past and will happen in the future. Liberal president appoints a liberal justice but the guy/gal is middle of the road or right leaning in his/her decisions. Same thing happens to conservative appointees.

buster: I haven't commented on Cheney's comments. Will Kerry stand down and allow us to be attacked again and again? Prolly not. Is it fair to say Kerry's stance on "homeland security" will lead to more attacks? Prolly not. Were his [Chenney's] comments scare tactics... prolly.

**Buster Highmen** · 09-09-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Not to get WAY off topic, but there's no ban on automatic weapons, they're just illegal. Assault style rifles are banned. Its all bullshit though because I can walk into wallmart right now buy a .22 and load a banana clip w/ something like 100 shots. Walk down the street plinking people off left and right. Its not the gun, its the person behind the gun.

Change topic, dance, skew, flaunt the facts, assert and forge ahead. This is silly.

**365wp** · 09-09-2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Not to get WAY off topic, but there's no ban on automatic weapons, they're just illegal. Assault style rifles are banned. Its all bullshit though because I can walk into wallmart right now buy a .22 and load a banana clip w/ something like 100 shots. Walk down the street plinking people off left and right. Its not the gun, its the person behind the gun.

From the article:

The act prohibits, by name, the sale of 19 specific weapons that have the features of guns used by the military, and also outlaws magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Also:

The Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, supports renewing the ban, and took a break from campaigning earlier this year to return to the Senate when it came up for a vote as part of a broader piece of gun legislation.

**Buster Highmen** · 09-09-2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider

buster: I haven't commented on Cheney's comments. Will Kerry stand down and allow us to be attacked again and again? Prolly not. Is it fair to say Kerry's stance on "homeland security" will lead to more attacks? Prolly not. Were his comments scare tactics... prolly.

OK. Then we agree. Provided by "his" you mean Cheney's. Thats' the topic being addressed.

In the larger scope, I respect your position regarding love for either candidate. As for me, unfortunately, it's a battle of the evil of the two lessers.

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Change topic, dance, skew, flaunt the facts, assert and forge ahead. This is silly.

Wha???

Dude, I didn't do any of those things in the post you quoted. You show me where automatic weapons have EVER been legal? The tommy gun was used by mobsters and was illegal at the time when made AUTOMATIC. It was legal when left as a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon. No different from modern day assault weapons.

I changed the topic but stated: "not to get WAY off topic." I think your assertion is misplaced.

**Buster Highmen** · 09-09-2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
Wha???

Dude, I didn't do any of those things in the post you quoted. You show me where automatic weapons have EVER been legal? The tommy gun was used by mobsters and was illegal at the time when made AUTOMATIC. It was legal when left as a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon. No different from modern day assault weapons.

I changed the topic but stated: "not to get WAY off topic." I think your assertion is misplaced.

OK, we're addressing different angles.

The issue I'm referring to is that the will of the people is being flaunted by the elected officials. The polls indicate support for this ban, independent of the legality of automatic, semiautomatic or assault.

**1080Rider** · 09-09-2004, 03:54 PM

yeah,
topic=====================================> us

Getting back on track. I think Cheney's comments were over the top and I know a lot of people are pissed off about it. But, as the topic stated: this campaign is getting ugly. I think this campaign will turn voters off even more. We'll prolly have a large turn out for the presidential but I bet for the next 4 years voter turn out will be very low (I have no stats or figures to back this up, just my gut reaction).

**Dexter Rutecki** · 09-09-2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by 1080Rider
This is why it often comes down to character. You don't know where the person stands on a certain subject but if you trust in his/her character then you can rely on them to make the right decision. That's why Clinton was attacked and what liberals can't understand. It actually WAS a big deal to cheat on your wife, take advantage of a young girl and then lie under oath about it all. But that's a whole nother thread and debate.

But lying to Congress, in the State of the Union, repeatedly to the American people, and ducking service in a war you supposedly support while later starting a war (fought by others) based on the aforementioned lies with no plan to win the peace is OK. That actually IS a big deal, and a real character issue that people (aside from the candidate's wife) should be concerned about.
No one's stated why this incumbent should be ousted? You haven't been paying any attention at all.

**freshies** · 09-09-2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
But lying to Congress, in the State of the Union, repeatedly to the American people, and ducking service in a war you supposedly support while later starting a war (fought by others) based on the aforementioned lies with no plan to win the peace is OK. That actually IS a big deal, and a real character issue that people (aside from the candidate's wife) should be concerned about.
No one's stated why this incumbent should be ousted? You haven't been paying any attention at all.

ding! ding! ding! ding! Can I get a "Hell Ya!"