Kerry was very brave when he was young; he was fighting for peace against the president. Majority of the politicians when are young doesn't have much courage.
I didn't see here in Canada a politician like Kerry.
I feel he is ahead and he will win but people have to fight for the victory or meditate...
I had a dream couple weeks ago, I was with Bush in a catholic church(he is not catholic, I'm catholic).
Like I said all the time the big problem is Cheney, who did huge damage for USA and in the world.
That's why people have to vote for Kerry!
Kerry vs Bush
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Kerry vs Bush
Post #2It's interesting that Bush is attacking Kerry for this very fact. In my opinion, Kerry was brave twice: he went to Vietnam when he could have gotten a hall pass like many others currently in Washington; and he then came back and became a whistle-blower for the poorly prepared troops and poorly designed war strategy. He's being attacked for this also.YOGHI wrote:Kerry was very brave when he was young; he was fighting for peace against the president. Majority of the politicians when are young doesn't have much courage.
Post #3
And ta-da, you'll have Bush for another 4 more years!
To me the vote seemed like a moral referendum over the war in Iraq, since both candidates would have probably put a similar strategy into effect, with Kerry's posturing over fighting a smarter, stronger, more effective war failing to convince me anything new would be done. Bush was a fool for initiating it, but it's apparent no one really knows what to do with it anymore, like an obvious stain one has incurred on their shirt.
This is not to say other issues aren't important; they are. But they have gone ignored or, at the least, overshadowed.
Another massive bill for a new war in another country would not surprise me. I suppose now I have the chance of seeing America's economy buggered up again and will be able to afford ordering books from there. Pity people will die for it.
To me the vote seemed like a moral referendum over the war in Iraq, since both candidates would have probably put a similar strategy into effect, with Kerry's posturing over fighting a smarter, stronger, more effective war failing to convince me anything new would be done. Bush was a fool for initiating it, but it's apparent no one really knows what to do with it anymore, like an obvious stain one has incurred on their shirt.
This is not to say other issues aren't important; they are. But they have gone ignored or, at the least, overshadowed.
Another massive bill for a new war in another country would not surprise me. I suppose now I have the chance of seeing America's economy buggered up again and will be able to afford ordering books from there. Pity people will die for it.
Post #4
The exit polls have indicated that Iraq was not a top reason voters went to the polls, but one of the biggest reason cited for voting was the amorphous "morality." As I understand it, voters who thought morality was the most important issue in the race voted for Bush almost 8 to 1. Bush has made an issue of being a religious man in high office and that he has talked with God. I suspect many people believe him.Corvus wrote:To me the vote seemed like a moral referendum over the war in Iraq, since both candidates would have probably put a similar strategy into effect, with Kerry's posturing over fighting a smarter, stronger, more effective war failing to convince me anything new would be done. Bush was a fool for initiating it, but it's apparent no one really knows what to do with it anymore, like an obvious stain one has incurred on their shirt.
I also think that the U.S.'s course in Iraq would have been going to be (conditional subjunctive pluperfect, for those who are counting) very different under a Kerry administration. With Kerry at the top, there would not have been going to be the religious overtones that the Bush adminstration is emanating. Kerry would have portrayed it as a mess that needed cleaning up, gaining internationalization that way. With an entirely new defense team, the neo-conservatives would be out, meaning that Israel would have to pay its own way to achieve peace. A Kerry administration could look at the real situation (assuming the real situation could be gleaned), and go from there, rather than continuing with the current situation.
I had thought that Iraq would be a larger issue, not just because it is a mess but because it indicates that the Bush administration's jugment is flawed. I was wrong on both counts. Apparently, people believe that the president's judgment is just fine and that it doesn't matter that Iraq is a mess.
Post #5
And I suspect Iraq had something to do with that vague answer. His actions there are seen by some as an example of moral rectitude in defiance to hostile opinion from "indecisive" and "morally ambiguous" liberals.ST88 wrote:The exit polls have indicated that Iraq was not a top reason voters went to the polls, but one of the biggest reason cited for voting was the amorphous "morality." As I understand it, voters who thought morality was the most important issue in the race voted for Bush almost 8 to 1. Bush has made an issue of being a religious man in high office and that he has talked with God. I suspect many people believe him.Corvus wrote:To me the vote seemed like a moral referendum over the war in Iraq, since both candidates would have probably put a similar strategy into effect, with Kerry's posturing over fighting a smarter, stronger, more effective war failing to convince me anything new would be done. Bush was a fool for initiating it, but it's apparent no one really knows what to do with it anymore, like an obvious stain one has incurred on their shirt.
I don't really trust polls too much, and I'm willing to believe the reason stated is an attempt to cover at rather shallow reasons for voting.
I still think any changes would be minor. Simply getting the neo-conservatives out of office would have been a great moral victory, and foreign relations would definitely improve, but from where I am sitting, Iraq is a trainwreck, and there aren't too many dynamic ways to clear a trainwreck. Both had the chance to clean it up. Kerry may have done a little better at the task, but we may never know.I also think that the U.S.'s course in Iraq would have been going to be (conditional subjunctive pluperfect, for those who are counting) very different under a Kerry administration. With Kerry at the top, there would not have been going to be the religious overtones that the Bush adminstration is emanating. Kerry would have portrayed it as a mess that needed cleaning up, gaining internationalization that way. With an entirely new defense team, the neo-conservatives would be out, meaning that Israel would have to pay its own way to achieve peace. A Kerry administration could look at the real situation (assuming the real situation could be gleaned), and go from there, rather than continuing with the current situation.
Recently - and correct me if I am wrong, since I try to avoid the news whenever I can - I think the Bush administration has been making some effort at involving other nations in the rebuilding process, though I do not believe they have yet acknowledged their errors in judgement.
Now, now, the president did not win by any large margin, so there is still some hope for the American people. I have to wonder, though, why he won at all. If the Democratic party cannot win against someone like George Bush, they probably should not be campaigning in America.I had thought that Iraq would be a larger issue, not just because it is a mess but because it indicates that the Bush administration's jugment is flawed. I was wrong on both counts. Apparently, people believe that the president's judgment is just fine and that it doesn't matter that Iraq is a mess.
Post #6
have to vote for Kerry???have to vote for Kerry??? even if i could vote you couldn't pay me to vote for Kerry. well thats not entirely true if you would pay me anything more than 50$ i might but Kerry is a pathetic flip-floping liberal dog
Post #7
Hmm. A nobel prize winning economist would disagree with you on that one. http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/.Bush was a fool for initiating it,
Post #8
Then there would be a noble prize winning economist I would disagree with.TQWcS wrote:Hmm. A nobel prize winning economist would disagree with you on that one. http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/.Bush was a fool for initiating it,
I skimmed the blog. Posner states that all preventive wars should be carefully balanced in terms of which would cost more in the long run. Fair enough, except I believe our actions in Iraq was the more costly of the choices, both in terms of money and lives. Even if a successful preventive war removes the chance of attack from the enemy country entirely, this one seems to have incited the ire of individuals and neighbours.Becker's Preventive war argument is not something to which I have any strong objection, except for seemingly shrugging off the Iraq War by saying "everyone makes mistakes". If one is going to invade another country, they better be damned sure that they not only have reliable information, but that they actually know what to do when they get there.
Post #9
His point was not that everyone makes mistakes. He was stating that even in legal matters(He is a federal judge) you are never a 100% sure the person commited the crime or was going to commit the crime. They were both arguing that in todays terrorist climate you can not simply retaliate. You must strike first even if you are not a 100% sure.
Post #10
Yes, but it still begs the question; how sure is sure? Is a hunch enough? Even if there isn't 100% certainty, there should still be no reasonable doubts. One is normally believed to be innocent of a crime until proven guilty.
