AYoKoNA Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 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. How is it below-the-belt? First off the President's ratings DID NOT go up, IDK where you got those facts, they remained unchanged in "most" polls, along with Kerry's.. Secondly the polls were taken on Thursday/Friday, Ridge's terror alert was issued on Sunday, August 1st. How does this have ANYTHING to do with poll Numbers? Do tell? http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...oll-kerry_x.htm http://www.washingtondispatch.com/page2/archives/000451.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackRussell Posted August 5, 2004 Posted August 5, 2004 How is it below-the-belt? First off the President's ratings DID NOT go up, IDK where you got those facts, they remained unchanged in "most" polls, along with Kerry's.. 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?? Secondly the polls were taken on Thursday/Friday, Ridge's terror alert was issued on Sunday, August 1st. How does this have 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 I'm voting for Bush, because he show's that he'll take care of business!!! You MUST remember 9/11, it WAS an act of war, if Gore was in office he would of past the responsiblity on too the UN. We all know the UN is a corrupt bunch of enept people. Nothing would have been done about 9/11. I also think Bush went over there for the oil. And as a US citizen Me and about 200+ million of my friends in America depend on OIL. I think it's the Presidents responsiblity to look out for the US citizen's. Sadam DESERVED to be removed. Someone had to do it. What was the UN going to do? Slap him with another resolution? ohhhhhh I bet he was soooooo scared........... I'm sure he'll add it on top of the pile that he already had (about 14 I think) so I ask you to ask yourself, if the UN is soooooo powerful, when were they going to take action? ON resolution number 53? As far as Kerry goes, all I have to ask him is this " what is your answer this week?" Ya can't pin the guy down on anything, and he has to stick his finger in the wind before he answers any questions. The guy needs to get a back bone. I will say this now so that it is writen in stone, Hillary IS PROBABLY GOING TO RUN IN 08!!!!! Be prepared. Robbie out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackRussell Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 I'm voting for Bush, because he show's that he'll take care of business!!! You MUST remember 9/11, it WAS an act of war, if Gore was in office he would of past the responsiblity on too the UN. We all know the UN is a corrupt bunch of enept people. Nothing would have been done about 9/11. 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. We all know the UN is a corrupt bunch of enept people. 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. I also think Bush went over there for the oil. And as a US citizen Me and about 200+ million of my friends in America depend on OIL. I think it's the Presidents responsiblity to look out for the US citizen's. Wow. Sadam DESERVED to be removed. Oh ok. So who's next on the list for invasion? Alot left to do for the U.S. Military. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
exeter_acres Posted August 6, 2004 Posted August 6, 2004 Oh ok. So who's next on the list for invasion? Alot left to do for the U.S. Military. Pretty Sure it is Tony Blair! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted August 7, 2004 Posted August 7, 2004 Oh ok. So who's next on the list for invasion? Alot left to do for the U.S. Military. YOU!!! Rob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
agentorange Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 Pro-Kerry. I haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 but I have read 1984. Delaying the election because of terror threats? "Article. II. Section. 1. Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years...."- The Constitution of the United States of America. Is familiar with George Orwell's concept of "Doublethink"? It's a way of thinking in which someone can hold to completely contradictory thoughts in their head and believe both simultaneously. Try these two: "I want to protect my freedoms." "I think it's a good idea that my phone should be tapped, my mail read, my packages opened, my luggage searched, my background checked, my email intercepted, and my whereabouts tracked." Now if both those thoughts can fit seamlessly together inside your brain then by all means you need a new one. The revolutionary war was fought for one thing. The right of self determination. That is the right of the people to determine their own government. It will be hard to hold elections in Iraq as long as there is still fighting there. One of the sources of gunfire could pick of and leave in a matter of weeks. That would leave the oil fields unstable I suppose but which is more important: your 18 year old brother in Iraq or cheap gas? Finally I saw in someone's post that they would probably base their vote off this thread. I am sorry that you have lost so much faith in our country's government (the best in the history of the world) that you feel that your vote won't make enough of a difference to worry about it. The last election was the closest in history. Another person mentioned "liberal hogwash". Where did those words come from? Since when was thinking for yourself hogwash. That person wasn't being liberal they were just stating the facts. It makes me sick to think people have become so ignorant to think that anything that contradicts an elected official is untrue. Welcome to Ingsoc. "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations." - President Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 all i can do is laugh at you because of your childness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYoKoNA Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 second, one thing i really don't understand is why people feel that serving in the military, or even being a war hero, has any bearing over one's ability to run a country. It sickens me to think that people would actually vote for someone because they were in the military when an opponent was not...in this election, or any. If you want to vote for Kerry, by all means, that's your right, and you should do so....but if it's because he's a war hero, that is the stupidest reason. Speaking of military command over the country, if Kerry is portrayed as a "war hero" then surely he would get the "ex-military" and current military vote. Although Kerry still has a substantial # of military voting for him, Bush is favored 54% to 41%. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flagg7771234 Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 Bush all the way!!!! Bush getts the job done, some times to get the job done you risk your popularity, and he does not play that way. I also thought Bush sr had the same idea set. Both made decisions based on what they were in office to do, not on how the news paper would read in the morning. Did you know that Bush Jr had the second highest approval rating (2nd to Kennedy). Media will never let that out! I think Kerry will win, but in history for most the third world countries in the Iraq region Bush will go down has a man who changed the area for the best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYoKoNA Posted August 12, 2004 Posted August 12, 2004 Bush getts the job done, some times to get the job done you risk your popularity, and he does not play that way. I also thought Bush sr had the same idea set. Both made decisions based on what they were in office to do, not on how the news paper would read in the morning. I disagree with just "two" of your statements: First as stated above, Bush Sr. is NOTHING like his son. Bush Sr. did follow the polls and news that was the problem. Do you guys forget what Bush Sr. promised "Read my lips, no new taxes" and what did he do? Raise taxes! Why didn't he finish off Saddam in the Gulf War? Why because the "Arab Coalition" didn't want him to take out Saddam, simply free Kuwait. Bush Sr. is a misfortune to the Republican party. His son however, is a Godsend and sticks to his principles, not caring what others believe or what happens to his approval rating I think Kerry will win, but in history for most the third world countries in the Iraq region Bush will go down has a man who changed the area for the best. I really don't believe that. I think Americans will wake up on the day of the election, and tilt the election towards Bush by atleast 3% Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BROWNjello109 Posted September 2, 2004 Posted September 2, 2004 If I am old enough to vote, Kerry would be the one. He will not mislead us into war and will not go unless he have to, not because he wants to. He will go to war with one and only one objective and purpose. If it's after Osama, then it's going to be Osama. Not after Sadam, or weapons of mass destruction, or forming a better Iraq. Kerry will build better schools, and make better roads in his own country before doing so in another. Kerry mostly refers to the middle class, not after the rich big boys. He will do what his people lack. Health care, better education, jobs and much more. 4 years for GW was more than enough for a "leader" like him. Lets give someone else a shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts