JackRussell

Yes I have a degree - not that my life is any of your business, but all in all you needed to make this about me in defending Bush... I don't see why. I've seen that in the siggy's of some members here... quoting "goofs" of forum members and displaying them <_< And none of the other posts in this thread contained any "campaign issues". The subject matter of this thread looked pretty open to interpretation to me. As for your "not knowing the facts" accusation, I have nothing to prove to you... that's your presumed victory; enjoy it.

You're right. I need need thicker skin to deal with the fact that the President is an untreated dry-drunk, frat boy, meglamaniac. Bush definately has touched a cord with people who think on his level. Often happens with comedians and such, but this guy's the President... I guess elephant skin is what I need lol (not really funny though)

TOTALLY. I couldn't agree more with the intensity of your response. The more adverse the post the more instense, hard hitting and degrading should be the response. You should work for the Shrub campaign. You even went to the extent of wishing that God have mercy on my soul. Nothing like bringing God into it. And I'm just dumb. Thanks for attempting to turn peoples' eyes away from my dumbness. Sorry. Input: Trash... Output: Trash.

Can't you see how you're flocking like sheep around a "cowboy"? "All hat - no cattle"... well that's just wrong and a misplaced criticism... YOU ARE his cattle. With an arrogant smirk he waves his hand and his cattle dance to his morbid tune of greed, fear and loathing.

Correction: the U.N. Security Council was IN FAVOR of taking military action in Afganistan after 9/11. And it's not an either/or of "letting the U.N. handle it OR going it alone". And remember that ALL nations still have the sovereignty to take their own actions and do whatever. Would you like it if the U.S.'s "policing" load were made even heavier? The U.N. Security Council's contribution is felt only by the relative stability we've had for the past several decades (because they communicate, regardless of diplomatic ties and alliances). And if any nation does take some action, then a consensus and support from the Security Council gives that action legitimacy on the World stage... that's far from trivial. It's all about having a mandate that other countries officially see as legitimate (whether or not they happen to agree with the action itself); that's to the U.S.'s benefit. Not sure what you mean with that blanket judgement. Sounds like you think Americans are the only people in the world capable of being accountable and capable. Wow. Oh ok. So who's next on the list for invasion? Alot left to do for the U.S. Military.

We have a different dynamic in an election. Instead of just the President, you got the President and a prospective one. So it's not anymore just about how the approval rises or falls behind a single guy. An "increase in approval for Bush" could show itself in someone who was starting to lean towards Kerry, then didn't suddenly because.... bah... do I really need to explain this?? a "bounce" doesn't necessarily arise immediately after a convention. That's why it's practice to do a cross country tour per se right after. anyway cya gotta go

Oops... didn't mean to barge in like that I'm on the same page Not like I'm shaking my fist fuming. Most of the time, this is hilarious

You're assuming this means that the ONLY reason for a vote is what's wrong with the other guy. That is NOT the case here. As I wrote before: The Kerry campaign has recently lost media focus at key moments due to some pretty serious news flow about threats (Ridge Press Conferences). The first time was the day after Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate. The second time 2 or 3 days after the Democratic convention when Kerry was on tour attempting to help garner that bounce (as all candidates do). Mind you I'm not saying this or that about the Ridge press conferences. Fine, he's warning the country; good. What I am saying is that what you said is rather below-the-belt. Whenever a crisis of national security comes up, the President's ratings usually go up (as if I even need to lecture on that well known tendency)... and that of course could well have an effect on his opponents "bounce". And twice that's happened now at key moments... hence I thought your comment a bit cheap.

I overlooked that nuance in your post before. I never implied, for instance, that the visible armed military personel themselves are there to scare you <_< (and by extension that any other President would remove them; of course not). They've been there for years now because NYC is generally percieved to be a probable target due to it being America's financial center and is where a major attack occured before. That was twisting what I said. My previous replies say nothing like what is italicised above. Nice cheap shot though.

You just demonstrated one of my points:

Are you suggesting the anti-terrorism efforts should be scrapped? Anyway, anything sounds silly when you take it out of context. I know what you're saying... but there's a difference between living-in-fear literally, and fearing a possibility. We have police on the streets because we fear the possibility of crime.

So here you go. Here's why I think Kerry is the right man for the job. 1. Kerry will be fiscally responsible. He's not going to gamble on the economy. Taxes shouldn't be excessive. Tax dollars shouldn't be wasted. Injecting additional money into the economy, keeping down the deficit, education, health care, etc are all things with their own merits and must be balanced responsibly. For many politicians it's tempting to over play the first thing (injecting money, hence "I'll keep everyone's taxes low no matter what happens. Vote for me."). In the long run, exactly how low those taxes can be and for whom and at what cost to society is literally a gamble. 2. Kerry will be strong on National Defense. Paralleling General W. Clark: Anyone implying that any one party has a monopoly on being able to defend the U.S. is commiting a fraud on the American people. 3. Kerry will be smarter and more savy than other candidates in the "War" against Terrorism. And I don't see Kerry calling himself literally a "war time President". That would be a stretch of the phrase and not unlike commiting a kind of fraud on the American people and the World. The current President is not literally a "war time President". Even implying that is scare mongering. 4. Kerry will protect the Sovereignty of the United States. He'll be able do that while making America a good neighbor in the World (still remember the Kyoto Treaty?) and a respectful member of the United Nations. The U.N. is a democratic institution just like the U.S. is democratic. Not all members of the U.N. are democratic nations, but it's the best hope the World has for stability, understanding each other, and discussing problems regardless of current diplomatic ties. When people stop talking, then you've got trouble. Lately the U.S. hasn't been listening. Imagine how potentially dangerous imposing sanctions or having a lack of diplomatic ties would be without the U.N. Kerry has traveled in the World prior to running for President. I've traveled my whole life continuously since age 3. I've lived long term in a few different countries. I appreciate the perspective that gives. The fact that I was born in some country gives me the rights of that country, but not literally a morally defencable entitlement. I value my country-given rights, but I can keep it in perspective. The perception of much of the rest of the free World right now is that the U.S. is a goliath that feels morally entitled to do whatever it sees fit regardless of what anyone thinks. And the careless rhetoric of a certain President very much enhances that view. Kerry has the wisdom, insight, ability and the credibility to reverse that perception and to work with the World. Just because you CAN do something doesn't make it right and the World will regard you appropriately. But suggesting or implying that the very Sovereignty of the U.S. is "at stake" is typical of the scare mongering of some campaigning out there. At the end of the day people will make up their own minds as to which platform is based on honesty and optimism and which is based on stirred up fear.

You reduce my statements to being "absurd". That sounds alot more like mindless flaming of someone than simply criticising a politician that someone else happens to like. As for backing my candidate, that's forthcoming. Me not having posted that yet is not an indication of what facts I know or don't know. I'd like to say more than just, "I'm for this and that" and "he says he'll do this and that if elected". I haven't finished yet trying to make sure it doesn't break the rules.

It's a matter of crafting it to not break the rules. Just have to make sure my "third person" stuff doesn't appear to be pointing to anyone specifically, that someone else believes in, therefore insulting that person's political beliefs (who ever she/he may be). And I'm not even bashing. But politics is not religion. Saying woeful things about someone's candidate is not like insulting them personally. Common sense.

Notice the part that says what your guy is GOING to do...... Hmmm I'm really lost I was excercising my freedom of speech. Does that apply within the borders of your thread? If you read carefully, you'll see I was on topic about this thread and about the topic of this thread. Or do you want to dictate? To staff: If you want a "politics" forum, then make it FREE... Freedom.