Who would vote for Kerry

SC_Steve said:
:shrug: I make more each week as a result of GWB and IMO, the tax cut also helped me climb out of debt.

I am barely middle class BTW

and to all of those that blame Bush for the economy.... first off, the economy was heading into a recession before he even took office, secondly we had some big corperate scandals (enron and adelphia... anyone remember that?) and then to top it all off, the attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon.

I mean seriously... if you're going to bitch about something... atleast make some sense. The stock market plumited after 9/11 and came extremely close to crashing. Investors were nervous and it was a very slow climb after that.

Now do I think Clinton was a bad president? Hell no... he may have not been the most moral person but he did ok for us. Is Bush a bad president? Hell no... could things be better? yeah but he was ELECTED just as $hit was about to hit the fan and I really don't think anyone could have done anybetter with the cards that were delt

oh and back to the origional question... will I vote for Kerry? No... I have no idea where he truly stands on anything (except for raising taxes) and that makes me nervous. Atleast with Bush I know what we're getting

-Steve
I only got back $650 from my tax cut. Would that get you out of debt? I doubt it! Why is it that when the republicans are in office, the economy is always bad? :steering
 
Lincolnman said:
Why is it that when the republicans are in office, the economy is always bad? :steering
Come on. Show some specifics. This economy right now has a lower unemployment rate than the 70's, 80's and almost all of the 90's. Clinton ran for re-election in '96 based on the superlative job he had done to get the rate down to 5.6%. Right now the rate is 5.4%.

Highest home ownership.
Lowest interest rates.
No attacks since 9/11.
1.7 million new jobs in last year.
We establishing a strong foothold in the Middle East on which to go after Iran next. Then we work with the Chinese to put down North Korea.

I love it when a plan comes together.

The left is grasping at straws. It is fun to watch actually.
 
Lincolnman said:
Clinton also didn't start a war in Iraq that was totally insane. You have proven my point. :headbang:

really now?... you seem to have forgotten about 1998? Granted it wasnt a "war"... but you get my point

On August 20, 1998 Bill Clinton launched 79 cruise missiles at seven defenseless targets in the Middle East. One was a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan called El Shifa. A pair of outstanding articles in Covert Action Quarterly (CAQ, Winter, 99) illustrates what a colossal crime was committed by this act of terrorism from our now-unimpeachable president.

and lets not forget Kosovo ;)

More civilians--Kosovar refugees, at that--have been killed by allied air strikes. NATO has destroyed China's embassy in Belgrade, dropped cluster bombs on a Serb market, shredded relations with Russia, blasted the Yugoslav economy into rubble, triggered escalating violence against Kosovars, and destabilized all of Southeast Europe.

Yet allied attacks continue. Not just continue, but intensify.

Bill Clinton's war has proved to be one of America's greatest foreign policy debacles. What does the President do? Hire Leslie Dash, vice chairman of Edelman Public Relations Worldwide, to advise the administration on Kosovo. President Clinton should end the war instead.

The President launched an unprovoked war of aggression against a small, distant state. He cynically wrapped his campaign in humanitarianism while ignoring worse slaughters elsewhere. He arrogantly assumed that foreign leaders would genuflect before him. He attacked their nation when they didn't.

How does Bill Clinton justify his war? In a recent speech at National Defense University President Clinton likened events in Kosovo to those in Nazi Germany: a "vicious, premeditated, systematic oppression fueled by religious and ethnic hatred."

This is pure cant. The administration has nothing against "vicious, premeditated, systematic oppression" if committed by allies, like Croatia and Turkey. Or if perpetrated against black Africans.

Moreover, as ugly as was the Kosovo conflict, it was no Nazi Holocaust, but a minor civil war, with casualties a fraction of those occurring in such places as Kashmir and Sri Lanka. Where real genocide results, like Rwanda, President Clinton studiously averts his gaze.

Once it became clear that the administration intended to effectively strip Yugoslavia of Kosovo, however, Belgrade unsurprisingly lashed out. Indeed, allied bombing turned all Kosovars--whose leaders publicly lobbied for NATO intervention-- into enemies of the Serbs.

Yugoslavia wasn't gentle before being bombed. It certainly wasn't going to be gentle afterwards. The number of refugees in Albania and Macedonia jumped from 45,000 to 640,000.

At the same time, the allied war quickly turned into a war on Serb civilians, with strikes on everything from bridges to electrical plants to television stations. The only way NATO can continually intensify the bombing is to widen its target list. And that means more dead civilians.

Accidents may be unavoidable, but they are least justifiable in a supposedly humanitarian war. How many Yugoslavs deserve to die to enable Kosovar refugees to go home? Ethnic cleansing is ugly; premeditated murder is worse.

Of course, Bill Clinton argued in his speech that reducing Yugoslavia to ruins "is the right thing for our security interests over the long run." But he can't really believe that.

The conflict in Kosovo, though messy, was contained until NATO began bombing. The Serbs were attempting to hold onto what they had, not expand. Yugoslavia's earlier civil war did not explode Europe because none of the major powers intervened.

But the administration's maladroit attempt to impose a solution unwanted by either side sparked Belgrade's crackdown, followed by mass refugee flows that destabilized Serbia's fragile neighbors. The war has immeasurably strengthened the Kosovo Liberation Army, which has expansionistic dreams--to unite Albanians throughout the region--vis-a-vis Kosovo's more moderate political leadership.

The NATO countries are fast dividing as they confront Russia, itself sliding towards political chaos. Bill Clinton has spilled gasoline across Europe.

Continued bombing guarantees only continued killing, instability, and failure. Kosovars will suffer and Serbs will die for nothing.

Inaugurating a ground war, and following it with a long-term occupation (Republican presidential candidate Lamar Alexander speaks of "three-to-five decades of patrol") would be far worse. If the Europeans want to turn Kosovo into a protectorate and occupy Belgrade, let them. They have a million men under arms.

The U.S. should stop bombing. Today.

Forget about concerns over credibility. Credibility, like patriotism, is the last refugee of the scoundrel. NATO's credibility is already in tatters. Maintaining, nay, intensifying a manifestly failed policy will rend what little is left.

Instead, Washington should propose negotiations where regional proposals, rather than U.S. dictates, are presented. Discussions need to be led by a country that hasn't warred against Serbia; Russia must participate.

The goals are basic: return of refugees, protection of Kosovars, presence of Western monitors, end of the guerrilla war, and political autonomy for Kosovo.

None of these will be easy to obtain. Thanks to NATO the already deep hatreds in Kosovo have been intensified beyond imagination.

But there is no alternative. It should be tragically obvious by now that Washington cannot impose peace.

The President does have a PR problem with his war. But the problem is the war. The solution is not to hire another media flack. It is to end the war.

besides... who can argue that the world is a better place without Saddam? I mean, the UN and everyone else backed resolution 1441... yet when it came time to do anything about it, a few backed out and wanted to continue letting Saddam do what he wanted instead of making him play by the rules.
 
Lincolnman said:
I only got back $650 from my tax cut. Would that get you out of debt? I doubt it! Why is it that when the republicans are in office, the economy is always bad? :steering

yeah... my tax cut did help me. Did it pay off my car loan? no... but it helped be get caught up for credit card bills and the such

Al Quida (sp?) is now claiming they control Afganistan. Good job there gee-dub!

they also claim that we're the "great satan"
 
I think the point people are trying to make with iraq is, there are plenty of other places around the world with a :q:q:q:q dictator that the world would probly be better off without. But why Iraq? Why not 1 of the other dozen targets out there? We were told reasons but none of them have panned out. Instead we just get well the world is a better place without saddam. If thats our thinking I guess we got alot more invading of countries to look forward too cause there are plenty of people just as bad as saddam around the world.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top