Bush Facts

[Neutrino]

Damn, forgot to put these two links in the above post.

These should go with the other two links about justification for the Iraqi war:

U.S. knowledge about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-5.html

Intelligence community assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-5a.html


Edit: Just thought I'd throw this link in here as well. It's a declassified CIA document dated Oct 7th 2001:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/i...tml?ex=1094443200&en=59607b05fec98b9f&ei=5070

Following is the text of a letter dated Oct. 7 to Senator Bob Graham, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Intelligence Committee, by George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, about decisions to declassify material related to the debate about Iraq:

...Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States....

...Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or C.B.W...

...Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him....

...Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?

Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack — let me put a time frame on it — in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low....

Make of it whatever you will.

 

[Synthos]

About the tax thing... Your math does not add up.

say for every rich person (rich being a relative term, lets say 100 000+ per year) there are 100 non-rich people.

You say, if we give the rich person an extra $30 000 per year, some may spend it,but most of the richest people will not. Well, look at some of the richer people in the US. Bill Gates is a prime example. 30 000 to him is nothing, so he really wouldn't spend it. He would invest it.

What good does investing do? Well, it stimulates the growth of the company invested in. The question is who does this stimulation benefit? Well, considering the CEO of most major companies make 1000 to 10 000 times more than the lowest worker at their company, I'd probably say the CEO has the most to gain. The company with it's new assets has to decide how to make the most of the money given to it. But, it's not like companies will start to pay their employees more. It simply means they can hire more employees. More jobs is good, because everyone wants a lower unemployement rate. However, it still does not raise the comfort of living for the lower class.

Now, say the rich person did spend the extra money on luxuries. The company makes a profit and has to decide what to do with it. Pay our employees more? Or hire more employees? The answer is almost always hire more. Now, those new employees get paid a better wage than at MacDonalds. But you have to realize: One rich person buying a Rolls Royce is not going to hire 100 people. The company takes a chunk of that money for itself.

The bottom line is, companies would rather spend the profit they make on trying to make more money, rather than please it's employees.

When you give tax cuts to a nation and give a specific portion of the money to a specific group of people, the other people do receive some of the money that is given out with tax breaks, but a fair bit is filtered out and re-circulated back to the group that received the cut. Thus, you want to give tax breaks to the group that needs it the most. You can't really say that someone making 100 000 dollars a year needs an extra 3 000 to 6 000 a year. But to someone making 15 000, it makes a world of difference for them.

The problem is that right now the difference between the rich and the poor is very wide in the United States. Right now it's not unstable, but if the gap is widened too much you're going to *weaken* your country not strengthen it. You're never going to have a completely equal country, and you can't have a completely split country. The medium in-between is delicate. At the state that the US is in, tax-cutting the rich even more may upset the balance. That wouldn't be good.

Kerry said that he wouldn't raise taxes. That alone should be enough to satisfy the rich. The poor on the other hand should sure stand to get a raise in their standard of living.

 

[Korgoth]

The rich can avoid taxes where and whenever possible. It doesn't help as much as you may think...

What synthos said is right, if you give 3,000 dollars back to a person making 100,000 thousand dollars a year, it won't mean much to them, they'll save/invest/ or spend it normally.

If you were to give 3,000 back to someone who makes 20,000 a year, that person definately will be bettered by it. They will in turn do the same, save/invest/spend that money. However, you can't control empowered people so why would you want them to live any way other than on the verge of poverty.

Fact is, if normal throngs of people didn't have finiancial burdens to trouble them day in and day out, they would be more open to educating themselves in current affairs. Otherwise they seek quick comfort, such as reality tv to keep them happy while they live paycheck to paycheck. The balancing act is grand isn't it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

In addition to Neutrino's good posts:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83505/larry-diamond/what-went-wrong-in-iraq.html

This really explains everything, and it's fairly non-partisan to boot.
Here's a short quote, in case you don't want to read all 7(!) pages.

"In truth, around 300,000 troops might have been enough to make Iraq largely secure after the war. But doing so would also have required different kinds of troops, with different rules of engagement. The coalition should have deployed vastly more military police and other troops trained for urban patrols, crowd control, civil reconstruction, and peace maintenance and enforcement. Tens of thousands of soldiers with sophisticated monitoring equipment should have been posted along the borders with Syria and Iran to intercept the flows of foreign terrorists, Iranian intelligence agents, money, and weapons.

But Washington failed to take such steps, for the same reasons it decided to occupy Iraq with a relatively light force: hubris and ideology. Contemptuous of the State Department's regional experts who were seen as too "soft" to remake Iraq, a small group of Pentagon officials ignored the elaborate postwar planning the State Department had overseen through its "Future of Iraq" project, which had anticipated many of the problems that emerged after the invasion. Instead of preparing for the worst, Pentagon planners assumed that Iraqis would joyously welcome U.S. and international troops as liberators. With Saddam's military and security apparatus destroyed, the thinking went, Washington could capitalize on the goodwill by handing the country over to Iraqi expatriates such as Ahmed Chalabi, who would quickly create a new democratic state. Not only would fewer U.S. troops be needed at first, but within a year, the troop levels could drop to a few tens of thousands."

 

[clarky003]

http://www.georgewbush.com/Record/Default.aspx

America will be more prosperous and more secure when it is less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Reliable and affordable energy is critical to America’s economic security, national security, and homeland security.

hehe, one of the the main reason's why they decided to go into Iraq, not because of terroist's, pfft to terrorist's, they hardly have an army of matches to rub together. Infact, be knownst to the way they were thinking, and the way they want society to run, 'this' was the reason for the war. Oil = Energy = Money = Dependance = Power = Control.

like they really care about all those facts, when they got what they wanted all along, there just bastards for mis guidingly lieing about it to get people to vote for the war.

so essentially, they invaded a country to benifit their own, sortof selfish, but hey ... its alright if your hunting terrorist's and destroying buildings, and hurting and killing civilians that are indiginous to that country right :thumbs: . not to mention putting US lives at steak for a few dozen fat cats ideas of how the world needs to go, in order to maintain heirarchical society, where people are never equals in the rulers eyes.

all they can see is ' what would benifit our enconomy next, how can we get more power ' not how many needless deaths will occur through the decision's, or how much debt they get into at present, or how demoralising to intelligent people it would be . So then they find a way to do it, whatever the reason because, quite simply, they dont really care, Money is the priority, I mean FFS who wants some arse like that running a country, let alone the world.

 

[Fishlore]

Kerry voted for this war you all feel is so evil. He had the exact same intelligence Bush had. He calls it the wrong war at the wrong time. Then why did he vote for it? Why, after voting to send troops to war did he then vote against sending extra cash for body armor and humvee armor? What a nice guy he is. Now he sits back and uses hindsight to point out all the problems he helped vote for.

If he provided answers instead of problems maybe I could respect him. He hasn't shed a bit of light on how he plans to do the things he promises. He has no answers.

Forget the mass graves, the gassing of his own people, the murder, intimidation, the lack of religious and political freedoms. Forget the UN resolutions he was circumventing. Forget the two wars he started with his neighbors. Forget the countries he was paying off for support. Forget the corrupt UN and the fact they can't back up their own resolutions and they except illegal bribe money. Forget all that and you can still see Sadam looking very much like a present day Hitler.

I can already hear the liberals yelling, "Bush is Hitler." Well without Kerry's vote and the vote of some other prominent democrats the war wouldn't have happened. If Bush is Hitler then Kerry is Rommel. Should we fight terrorists at home, or should we take the fight to the terrorists? I say take it too them.


Oh yeah, forgot to add, you give tax breaks to the rich because they employ the poor. We have a problem with unemployment. You give more money to rich people and they then invest in their company and then create more business and more jobs. How hard is that to understand? There are thousands of stories in American history of poor immigrants coming here with nothing and then turning that into millions. If poor people want more money, work harder.

 

[Jakeic]

Kerry voted for this war you all feel is so evil. He had the exact same intelligence Bush had. He calls it the wrong war at the wrong time. Then why did he vote for it? Why, after voting to send troops to war did he then vote against sending extra cash for body armor and humvee armor? What a nice guy he is. Now he sits back and uses hindsight to point out all the problems he helped vote for.

If he provided answers instead of problems maybe I could respect him. He hasn't shed a bit of light on how he plans to do the things he promises. He has no answers.

Forget the mass graves, the gassing of his own people, the murder, intimidation, the lack of religious and political freedoms. Forget the UN resolutions he was circumventing. Forget the two wars he started with his neighbors. Forget the countries he was paying off for support. Forget the corrupt UN and the fact they can't back up their own resolutions and they except illegal bribe money. Forget all that and you can still see Sadam looking very much like a present day Hitler.

I can already hear the liberals yelling, "Bush is Hitler." Well without Kerry's vote and the vote of some other prominent democrats the war wouldn't have happened. If Bush is Hitler then Kerry is Rommel. Should we fight terrorists at home, or should we take the fight to the terrorists? I say take it too them.


Oh yeah, forgot to add, you give tax breaks to the rich because they employ the poor. We have a problem with unemployment. You give more money to rich people and they then invest in their company and then create more business and more jobs. How hard is that to understand? There are thousands of stories in American history of poor immigrants coming here with nothing and then turning that into millions. If poor people want more money, work harder.

some people are so dumb it hurts. spit out all the talking points you like, it doesn't help anything.

 

[CptStern]

Kerry voted for this war you all feel is so evil. He had the exact same intelligence Bush had. He calls it the wrong war at the wrong time. Then why did he vote for it? Why, after voting to send troops to war did he then vote against sending extra cash for body armor and humvee armor? What a nice guy he is. Now he sits back and uses hindsight to point out all the problems he helped vote for.

If he provided answers instead of problems maybe I could respect him. He hasn't shed a bit of light on how he plans to do the things he promises. He has no answers.

Forget the mass graves, the gassing of his own people, the murder, intimidation, the lack of religious and political freedoms. Forget the UN resolutions he was circumventing. Forget the two wars he started with his neighbors. Forget the countries he was paying off for support. Forget the corrupt UN and the fact they can't back up their own resolutions and they except illegal bribe money. Forget all that and you can still see Sadam looking very much like a present day Hitler.

I can already hear the liberals yelling, "Bush is Hitler." Well without Kerry's vote and the vote of some other prominent democrats the war wouldn't have happened. If Bush is Hitler then Kerry is Rommel. Should we fight terrorists at home, or should we take the fight to the terrorists? I say take it too them.


Oh yeah, forgot to add, you give tax breaks to the rich because they employ the poor. We have a problem with unemployment. You give more money to rich people and they then invest in their company and then create more business and more jobs. How hard is that to understand? There are thousands of stories in American history of poor immigrants coming here with nothing and then turning that into millions. If poor people want more money, work harder.

if saddam was so evil why was he an ally of the US? if he was so evil why did the US sell chemical weapons to iraq, when they KNEW he was using them against Iranian soldiers?

he harboured terrorists? ..so did bush (look up Orlando Bosch)

he had WMD? the US sold them to him

He was killing his own people ..didnt seem to phase the US when he was an ally ...during his most murderous period, I might add

 

[Johan_Tayn]

some people are so dumb it hurts. spit out all the talking points you like, it doesn't help anything.

that, in comparison, makes you seem really smart and an excellent debater, doesn't it?

Saddam’s terror links were most recently and openly on display in conjunction with Palestinian terror groups. In March 2002, Iraq’s former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz announced publicly at a meeting in Baghdad that Saddam Hussein would raise the reward given to the families of Palestinian “martyrs’ (i.e.; suicide bomb terrorists) from $10,000 per family to $25,000.

Did you know that despite what the "other guy"(who know who he is) says, he won't be affected by slashing the tax cut for the rich?

Last year, Mrs. Kerry reportedly paid 12.78% in taxes on $5,000,000. The average Joe pays 25%. President Bush paid 33%.

Not even Edwards denied using loopholes to get out of paying $600,000 to Medicare, he simply retorted that he paid everything he owed. Note that he did not deny anything that was implied.

Enough of that.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Tax cuts help the US..

 

[Fishlore]

some people are so dumb it hurts. spit out all the talking points you like, it doesn't help anything.

Some people are so dumb that this is all they can come back with. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter?

CptStern has a valid argument and also happened to refrain from deragatory comments. Despite seeing the issues from different perspectives I can respect him.

if saddam was so evil why was he an ally of the US? if he was so evil why did the US sell chemical weapons to iraq, when they KNEW he was using them against Iranian soldiers?

he harboured terrorists? ..so did bush (look up Orlando Bosch)

he had WMD? the US sold them to him

He was killing his own people ..didnt seem to phase the US when he was an ally ...during his most murderous period, I might add

I'm not speaking about past administrations. Saddam was evil then and he's evil now. Clinton didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam and neither did George W. Are either of them guilty for doing so? If Kerry is elected and continues the war in Iraq like he says he will, is he guilty of starting it? Of course not. A president has to play the hand he's dealt.

Sitting here now, with all the knowledge we have, would I have gone to war? No. Please don't mistake me for some chest thumping war wongerer. It's impossible to give back this knowledge and pretend we don't know the facts. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that BS. Like I said, if war was so wrong, why did Kerry vote for it? Any respectible human being would vote against a war they didn't believe in, wouldn't they?

I know I must sound like a pro Bush zealot. Let me tell you that is far from the truth. I believe at this time we need a strong leader. Well we have two choices, neither of which are all that impressive in my eyes. I will say this though. I believe Kerry is the most sad and pathetic excuse for a leader I've ever seen. The traits he's demonstrated to me in his years in the Senate have been thoroughly unimpressive.

If I was naive enough to think that the Iraq war would end and every terrorist in the world would love us and throw down their weapons if Kerry was elected, then I'd vote for him. I'm not that naive and I wouldn't feel comfortable switching to a rookie president with a rookie supporting cast during crunch time.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well, the main issue is that Kerry didn't vote for war. That's a falacy. He voted for Bush to be able to have the option as a last resort.

Basically, Kerry supported the war because he trusted Bush to make the right decisions. When Bush did not make the right decisions, Kerry ended that support.

I'm sure we can all agree, like Bush and Kerry do, that something needed to be done about Saddam.
The question is, did it need to be done so quickly, and at such a high cost when so many more threatening targets existed?
Bush says yes, Kerry says no.

 

[hasan]

Kerry is no better than Bush. end of story. why do people try to make kerry look better, when most kerry voters are just "anyone but bush!!!1111".

Kerry says 'no' now, but you never know what he would've done if he was teh pres.
at this point, anybody competing bush would claim to say 'no' somehow. even if he voted 'yes'.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not speaking about past administrations. Saddam was evil then and he's evil now. Clinton didn't sell chemical weapons to Saddam and neither did George W. Are either of them guilty for doing so?

some of the players were the same: the neo cons

"By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. "

 

[hasan]

He voted for Bush to be able to have the option as a last resort

oh yeah .. because we all know Bush can be trusted with such power in his hands.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

oh yeah .. because we all know Bush can be trusted with such power in his hands.

Well, after 9/11, pretty much everyone did trust him, especially Americans. What with the highest approval rating ever and all that.

 

[Fishlore]

Well, the main issue is that Kerry didn't vote for war. That's a falacy. He voted for Bush to be able to have the option as a last resort.

LOL, you sound like John Kerry. He didn't vote for the war, he just voted for the authorization for the use of force. I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it. No matter how you manipulate the words, if that vote didn't pass we wouldn't have gone to war when we did. It would have been delayed.

 

[h4vvok]

oh yeah .. because we all know Bush can be trusted with such power in his hands.

Odd, he seems to be running the country and not driving it into the ground yet. And as a soldier in the US Army, I take offense to your sig. The Iraqi "resistance" is a bunch of terrorists, my unit was attacked by them and they killed 3 of our men. Don't hate us, hate our government for placing us here. Your "resistance" is killing our men AND civilians, mainly civilians, when all we do is follow the orders we are told. My unit was shot at while handing out FOOD to Iraqi civilians by nearby snipers, 4 of us wounded including myself (was shot left arm, through and through) and 3 dead. Worse yet, we took mortar fire, but only 2 soldiers were wounded in the mortar attack. 8 CIVILIANS were seriously wounded, 4 dead.

I am just a soldier following orders, as are the other soldiers. We get our orders from the higher ups in the government, and then do our job. I didn't ask to be sent to Iraq, or "invade" as you call it, I just want to serve my country and help people...as do many others...but we get killed and injured for it. Ungrateful bunch..

 

[Mechagodzilla]

LOL, you sound like John Kerry. He didn't vote for the war, he just voted for the authorization for the use of force. I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it. No matter how you manipulate the words, if that vote didn't pass we wouldn't have gone to war when we did. It would have been delayed.

I'm not manipulating the words at all.
In fact, that is what you are doing by saying that a vote giving the president the authority to declare war and a vote that actually declares the war are the same thing.

That 87 billion thing does make sense. It only sounds unreasonable when you have to condense it down to a one-sentence soundbite. Things are much more complex than that in real life.

 

[Neutrino]

Kerry is no better than Bush. end of story. why do people try to make kerry look better, when most kerry voters are just "anyone but bush!!!1111".

Kerry says 'no' now, but you never know what he would've done if he was teh pres.
at this point, anybody competing bush would claim to say 'no' somehow. even if he voted 'yes'.

Why? Because from my research I honestly think Kerry will make a much better president. I admire and agree with a lot of things he's done and many of his ideas for this country.

Of course he's not perfect. No one is, and especially not politicians. But I am definitely pro Kerry. I'm not just voting against Bush. I'm voting for Kerry.

 

[Fishlore]

some of the players were the same: the neo cons

"By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. "

Jacques Chirac built a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Britain used to be at war with Germany and the US was in a life and death struggle against the U.S.S.R. Believe it or not things change in the political landscape over decades of time. I'm not condoning the actions of distant administrations. I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld isn't trying to bust his buddy Saddam out of jail though.

Again, you're talking about 1982. I'm talking about the 2004 election. We keep talking about Bush. Let's talk about Kerry. What has he done to prove to people he's a capable leader at this point in time? What is his plan? I know, I know, as soon as Kerry comes to office every foreign country's government will be in love with us again and pouring troops in. Yeah right.

If Kerry would come out with a detailed comprehensive plan on how he's going to improve things that would probably help. Stop telling me things are wrong and tell me how you'll fix them.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Why? Because from my research I honestly think Kerry will make a much better president. I admire and agree with a lot of things he's done and many of his ideas for this country.

Of course he's not perfect. No one is, and especially not politicians. But I am definitely pro Kerry. I'm not just voting against Bush. I'm voting for Kerry.

Same here, except for the voting part. (Canadian)

I started out as just anti-Bush, but the more I learnt about Kerry, the more I liked him.

 

[Fishlore]

Why? Because from my research I honestly think Kerry will make a much better president. I admire and agree with a lot of things he's done and many of his ideas for this country

Can you please elaborate on this. I keep hearing about my friends doing all this research too. They won't or can't give me more than that. I want to know what he's done. From my point of view he was a fairly incompetent Senator with a highly questionable voting record.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Can you please elaborate on this. I keep hearing about my friends doing all this research too. They won't or can't give me more than that. I want to know what he's done. From my point of view he was a fairly incompetent Senator with a highly questionable voting record.

Page 3 of this thread, for starters.
For more of Neut's research, just look at any political thread from the last year. He's always got many good points.

Edit: As for me, I recommend this link, which I posted earlier:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83505/larry-diamond/what-went-wrong-in-iraq.html
This one that Neutrino found:
http://www.newsaic.com/f911index.html

And the books Plan Of Attack by Bob Woodward and Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. (to name a few)

That's all about Iraq, though. Most of my Kerry info comes from CNN, (yeah, liberal media. shaddup) since I only recently took any intrest in him.
I don't really have any links on hand, except thisaone here, about his senate voting record.
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=44570

 

[Fishlore]

To be honest I don't care about copy and pasted links. I've probably already read them. I like to see what individuals have to say. Most of the people I know have no clue why they vote the way they vote. I always get this "I've done research" and never get those people to elaborate.

I look at hard facts. Kerry's voting record being one set of data. Spin machines on both sides of the fence take it way to far. All that we have to judge Kerry on is his Senate record. Nothing else matters. Not what he says he'll do. Not what he says is wrong. Things he's said in the past aren't equal to what he says now.

 

[CptStern]

Jacques Chirac built a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Britain used to be at war with Germany and the US was in a life and death struggle against the U.S.S.R. Believe it or not things change in the political landscape over decades of time. I'm not condoning the actions of distant administrations. I'm sure Donald Rumsfeld isn't trying to bust his buddy Saddam out of jail though.

Again, you're talking about 1982.

I'm trying to point out that using the justification for the invasion that saddam was killing his own people, developing WMD and supporting terrorism was more than a little hypocritical as the US had a hand in it. The war was a sham from the very start.

Stop telling me things are wrong and tell me how you'll fix them.

I cant turn back the clock, you should never have invaded Iraq in the first palce ..naturally I'd want the person (his henchmen scare me ) responsible for the invasion out of office ..if that means siding with kerry well so be it

 

[Neutrino]

Can you please elaborate on this. I keep hearing about my friends doing all this research too. They won't or can't give me more than that. I want to know what he's done. From my point of view he was a fairly incompetent Senator with a highly questionable voting record.

I can try. Here I'll just give you somewhat of a brief list of some fo the things I've done:

1) I watched all four debates. I read the news and opinion articles on those debates on:

www.msnbc.com
www.cnn.com
www.foxnews.com

I then check the facts behind every debate on:

www.factcheck.org

Specifically if you want info on Kerry these articles were helpful from factcheck:

http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

Yes, that's not a fair list of articles, but you asked for info on Kerry, and those provide quite a bit. There are of course articles on both candidates.

2) I've gone to both:

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html
http://www.georgewbush.com/

and tried to look around a bit.

3) I read about Kerry's record and history.

Senate record: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=44570&highlight=senate

General info:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry
(I love wikipedia)

4) I've tried to keep up with news articles about the candidates.

Good example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6238826/

And other articles specifically about one candidate or the other.

Current example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/kerry.science/index.html

5) I've found a couple candidate comparisons:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5993610/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.html

6) I watched the Democratic National Convention

7) I actually just found this site recently http://www.refdesk.com/

Which lead me to things like this:

The issues:

John Kerry: http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm
George Bush: http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm

2004 Presidential Election News: http://www.topix.net/news/2004-presidential-election



And just for more general info I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and then read this site: http://www.newsaic.com/f911index.html

Don't worry, I'm not basing my decision off anything I watched in a movie. But the combination of the movie and that site were interesting and informative.

Furthermore I make sure to try not to expose myself to any political ads. I find them to be very misleading and inaccurate from both sides so I think seeing them only muddies the waters and makes it more difficult to really learn about the issues and the candidate real positions.

Um, that's really all I could think of off the top of my head.

I hope that might help you some. If you want any more info I can certainly try to help. I think I know Kerry's position on most key issues.

Edit:

To be honest I don't care about copy and pasted links. I've probably already read them. I like to see what individuals have to say. Most of the people I know have no clue why they vote the way they vote. I always get this "I've done research" and never get those people to elaborate.

I look at hard facts. Kerry's voting record being one set of data. Spin machines on both sides of the fence take it way to far. All that we have to judge Kerry on is his Senate record. Nothing else matters. Not what he says he'll do. Not what he says is wrong. Things he's said in the past aren't equal to what he says now.

Well, what exactly do you want? You asked for clarification about what I mean by research. That's what I've done and using that information and other sources I've come to form my opinion. I think that's a pretty good explanation of what I mean by "research".

 

[Jakeic]

Some people are so dumb that this is all they can come back with. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter?

we have had a number of discussions about this on this forum. however, few people have come out saying other than talking points. you make a post where you all you say is what you heard someone say on a news show. those points don't hold any water.

an example of such a point is the "Global Test" thing that was going on awhile ago. apparently John Kerry was suggesting that american's need to pass some sort of "Global Test" before we can take action to protect our country. the entire topic was more than a little ridiculous, as if you listened to what John Kerry said it makes perfect sense.

if you want to make a valid arguement against john kerry, then go for it, but don't come out spouting off nonesense.

 

[Korgoth]

Want to know how we fix our Iraq problem? We get the hell out of there. Whats the point in still being there? The mission is accomplished right? We've handed power over to the Iraqis' right? You know what we do, we take the billions we are overpaying haliburton, hand it to the iraqis to do the rebuilding, and pull our troops out completely. The Iraqis will rebuild themselves, which will give them jobs and boost the economy, terrorists there won't have a leg to stand on because working people, good economy, and no american occupation, they have no reason to fight.

 

[OCybrManO]

All that we have to judge Kerry on is his Senate record. Nothing else matters.

That's not entirely true. He volunteered to go to Vietnam while Bush allegedly (this coming from a close friend of his father... the one that actually recommended Georgie for the National Guard) used family connections to dodge the draft. Then, when he came back he was a very important figure in the anti-war movement. He knew he wanted to be a politician and he knew leading a movement against it and speaking out against the military in front of Congress could seriously jeopardize that dream, but he did it anyway because he knew that it was the right thing to do. I admire the courage (the balls, if you will) and conviction needed to take those actions. Frankly, the way people try to portray him as traitor and a coward (it draws a striking parallel to the way the Nixon guys tried to do it to Kerry during his anti-war period because they "couldn't find anything on him"... so, they got outsiders to make stuff up)... and the way they also attacked Max Cleland, a Silver Star decorated triple amputee who also fought in the Vietnam War... or the way they attacked John McCain in the South Carolina primary, saying he allegedly fathered a black child and was psychologically unfit to be president after 5 1/2 years as a POW. How people like that are made to appear worse than someone that didn't even fight is beyond me...

EDIT: Even if you forget all that other stuff, he is still much more qualified than Bush was before his first term. Another commonly misconstrued point is that Kerry's overall voting record ranks him (at the highest of all career estimates) as the 11th most liberal senator (that's not even the top 20% of the current democratic senators)... not the most liberal, as seen in a Bush ad. Also, the reason he has "passed" very few bills (even though he has an amazingly high 6,000+ total votes¹) is that he is from the same state as Ted Kennedy... and if you were from Massachusetts who would you go to for the most influence? Ted Kennedy is the obvious choice... so Kerry got the short end of the stick on that issue. Yet, even with that obstacle he still played a major role in taking down the BCCI (a bank that was involved in laundering a lot of terrorist money) even while many democrats were fighting against him... but you don't hear much about that because his publicists said the American people would think he went after the BBC, so they didn't use that in his campaign.

¹ That is an important number because Bush & Co say he slacks off and misses a lot of votes (that was only during his campaign for presidency)... while George W. Bush has taken the most vacation time of any president in the history of the USA. Don't you love politics?

 

[Korgoth]

That's not entirely true. He volunteered to go to Vietnam while Bush allegedly (this coming from a close friend of his father... the one that actually recommended Georgie for the National Guard) used family connections to dodge the draft. Then, when he came back he was a very important figure in the anti-war movement. He knew he wanted to be a politician and he knew leading a movement against it and speaking out against the military in front of Congress could seriously jeopardize that dream, but he did it anyway because he knew that it was the right thing to do. I admire the courage (the balls, if you will) and conviction needed to take those actions. Frankly, the way people try to portray him as traitor and a coward (it draws a striking parallel to the way the Nixon guys tried to do it to Kerry during his anti-war period because they "couldn't find anything on him"... so, they got outsiders to make stuff up)... and the way they also attacked Max Cleland, a Silver Star decorated triple amputee who also fought in the Vietnam War... or the way they attacked John McCain in the South Carolina primary, saying he allegedly fathered a black child and was psychologically unfit to be president after 5 1/2 years as a POW. How people like that are made to appear worse than someone that didn't even fight is beyond me...

And quoted for emphasis....
Isn't it funny how someone who goes to war and fights for this country is a traitor for saying the war was horrible, yet someone who dodged the draft and didn't fight, then lies about it, is considered the ultimate patriot.

 

[Neutrino]

Oh, and something else about Kerry. I've found I can pretty much debunk every single claim George Bush has ever made against him.

I know that's not saying a whole lot, but he is definetly not the man that the GOP would like you to believe he is.

 

[OCybrManO]

Oh, I forgot a couple of Bush facts (that is, if no one else has mentioned them):

He was the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

He was personally involved in something similar to the Enron scandal:

In 1986, one would have had to consider Mr. Bush a failed businessman. He had run through millions of dollars of other people's money, with nothing to show for it but a company losing money and heavily burdened with debt. But he was rescued from failure when Harken Energy bought his company at an astonishingly high price. There is no question that Harken was basically paying for Mr. Bush's connections.

Despite these connections, Harken did badly. But for a time it concealed its failure — sustaining its stock price, as it turned out, just long enough for Mr. Bush to sell most of his stake at a large profit — with an accounting trick identical to one of the main ploys used by Enron a decade later. (Yes, Arthur Andersen was the accountant.) As I explained in my previous column, the ploy works as follows: corporate insiders create a front organization that seems independent but is really under their control. This front buys some of the firm's assets at unrealistically high prices, creating a phantom profit that inflates the stock price, allowing the executives to cash in their stock.

 

[hasan]

as a soldier in the US Army, I take offense to your sig.

good ..

The Iraqi "resistance" is a bunch of terrorists

ofcourse, and you are the brave liberators. :hmph:

Your "resistance" is killing our men AND civilians

Our resistance is DEFENDING our civilans and our country.

all we do is follow the orders we are told

yes, they tell you to shoot at my people, and you do. it's not your fault, there is no reason for me to hate you.

Ungrateful bunch..

Stupid.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

To be honest I don't care about copy and pasted links. I've probably already read them. I like to see what individuals have to say. Most of the people I know have no clue why they vote the way they vote. I always get this "I've done research" and never get those people to elaborate.

I look at hard facts. Kerry's voting record being one set of data. Spin machines on both sides of the fence take it way to far. All that we have to judge Kerry on is his Senate record. Nothing else matters. Not what he says he'll do. Not what he says is wrong. Things he's said in the past aren't equal to what he says now.

Well, I think Neutrino and Cyberman already cleared that up plenty, but there's a few things I should add.

First of all, my support for Kerry is almost a coincidence.
Before I knew who Dick Clarke was, I had specific criticism towards the war in Iraq. Then I read his book, and it turned out that all my criticism was backed up by the guy formerly in charge of the CSG. Before there were official reports about the lack of WMDs, I saw that there was not enough evidence to start a war on those grounds. Then the reports came out, and the evidence proved false. And before I knew about Kerry, I knew that far too many Bush policies needed to be replaced. Turns out, almost everything I disliked about Bush will be at least partially fixed up if Kerry is elected and he lives up to his word.

So I never really found any research to back up one party's candidate. I found a candidate who backed up the research I did almost before I knew what the parties were. (Actually, libertarian is possibly a closer match, but they'll never win )

It's less research though, than it is a general effort to stay informed, stay true to my personal philosophies and use common sense to put two and two together. I'd warrant a guess that that's why your friends can't provide thier sources and describe them to you. It's more of a spidey-sense than a pamphlet, you might say.

It also might have something to do with religion. As an athiest, I'm not letting either candidate's appeals to christianity sway me.
I really think Bush's strongest point is his ability to appeal to the christian crowd. Without that, however, it's easier to stack up the two, and Kerry comes out far ahead to me. In fact, I've not encountered a pro-Bush atheist in my life. And since religion really should be irrelevant to government policy, except to prevent interference and discrimination, that seems like a reasonable take on things.

Bush, however, appeals to those who would like to see a mix of church and state and he does a great job of it, but church and state are seperate for a reason. I'm not opposed to a religious president, but I am opposed to that religion being used to directly influencing the president's secular decisions. And with gay marriage, and stem cell research, and abortion, Bush is going to far in letting his religious beliefs become national laws.
It's frustrating to me that so many americans have no qualms with that sort of religion-based favoritism that is de-secularising law. Especially since secular government is the #1 thing protecting christians' right to worship what they want.


Second, everyone asks about what Kerry has ever done, but no-one compares that to what Bush did before presidential office. All he really did was pass the death penalty and not fight in 'Nam, after all.
Arguably, I'd say a senator is better equipped to be president than a regional governor, but does that really matter at all now anyways? Bush is currently doing a sucky job. Currently, Kerry is proposing better alternatives.

As a result, you could say that I don't give a crap about what the guy did ten, thirty or whatever years ago. Even if Kerry came out better experience-wise, so what? I want to know what he's doing now. And now, Kerry looks, sounds, and acts like the better president. And when it looks, acts, sounds and whatever like a duck, then it's probably a duck. That's why 'Swift Boat Veterans For Truth' and their ilk show a certain desperation to me. They can't find flaw with Kerry now, so they have to criticise stuff that happened so many years ago.

 

[aeroripper]

Isn't it funny how someone who goes to war and fights for this country is a traitor for saying the war was horrible, yet someone who dodged the draft and didn't fight, then lies about it, is considered the ultimate patriot.

Thanks for my sig innervsion961 :-P

 

[sublidieminal]

Aight, http://www.georgewbush.com/Record/Default.aspx

Try getting something OTHER THAN his website.... I'd love to see something with sources and numbers just as the first site had to offer. I am now for the other candidate.

 

[sublidieminal]

Won't let me edit. lol I didnt realize this thread was 6 pages...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh great! Not another one of these...

..."TeeHee, its all about Bush *snickersnicker*!/OMG TELL ME ONE THANG ABOUT HIM OTHARWISE IM MOVING OUT OF AMERICA OMGZOMGZ END OF WORLD/endrant"

Jesus, we've had enough of these. Electorials are coming. Vote, and be prepared for either outcomes. Otherwise, get ready for a harsh reality of Darwinism executed in your forced absence or otherwise not needed presence amungst friends/family discussions.