Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Let me suggest this......it appears from what I'm seeing and hearing that in simplistic terms:

1. The Clinton administration dropped the ball. Well, they're gone, aren't coming back, so we don't have to worry about them screwing things up anymore.

2. The Bush administration dropped the ball.
Things aren't looking any better or safer than they did before 9/11. the difference is a sh1tload of dead bodies and spent money being diverted from domestic programs including actual homeland security programs.

So both the Clinton and bush administrations are looking more and more incompetent.

Why would we consider having either of them back in the drivers seat?

John Kerry could very possibly do a sh1ttyjob.
george bush HAS done a sh1tty job.

How smart do you have to be to figure this one out?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

george bush HAS done a sh1tty job.

How smart do you have to be to figure this one out?

Apparently very. The evidence is increasingly suggesting that Bush never picked up the ball. Rather he got hit in the head with it and then went after someone in the stands. That point seems to be difficult for a large number of people to grasp.

0 Replies

Quote:

John Kerry could very possibly do a sh1ttyjob.
george bush HAS done a sh1tty job.

Now I am back to square one again. that was exactly my premise when I started this. BWAAAA! (bangs head against wall)

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
John Kerry could very possibly do a sh1ttyjob.
george bush HAS done a sh1tty job.

Now I am back to square one again. that was exactly my premise when I started this. BWAAAA! (bangs head against wall)

So we can agree then, that bush has done a sh1tty job, and hopefully as grownups we can agree that even if Clinton did a sh1tty job (and it looks like he probably did) that does not justify or excuse bush, who at some point has to accept responsibility for what's happened on his watch.

Therefore dear Phoenix you are left with this.......

Glass half empty= You have a fifty fifty chance of Kerry making things worse.

Glass half full= You have a fifty fifty chance of Kerry making things better.

Self examination time. Are you a glass half empty or glass half full person.

What are you more afraid of, the sh1tty job you know bush has done, a given, or the sh1tty job Kerry might do, a possibility?

Fear is healthy if it pushes you to take a chance on what might be better, unhealthy if it mires you in the status quo.

IMO.

0 Replies

See, it's your opinion that he hasn't done a good job.

What we have is a known level of competence (low in your opinion, high in mine) of how terrorism is being handled. Kerry represents an unknown level of competence regarding terrorism. Maybe his administration will handle it competently, or maybe it will be the death of American society, who knows.

I do know that I would rather have powell, Rumsfield, Cheney and Bush at the helm then Kerry and ?,?,?...

0 Replies

PS One thing I feel more strongly about every day...I am happy to be, to paraphrase the mighty and wise Gandalf "Just a little fellow in a wide world"

0 Replies

Scrat, my "silly comment" was meant to convey to you that everything discussed here has been discussed over and over, and links have been provided, yet you still insist that you've never heard any of it before. Obviously you have. Why demand proof over and over again? The links and the proof you want are pasted all over this forum time and again. Windtamer posted the links you demanded, and you pretended like they weren't even there! I just wanted you to know; I'm on to you! Good for Nimh! I wouldn't have bothered taking up the challenge, for the reasons stated above. People can say things over and over, and you pretend like they're news to you! That makes political discourse with you little more than a nuisance. The sole reason I am addressing you now is to answer your insult. I'm done!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

See, it's your opinion that he hasn't done a good job.

What we have is a known level of competence (low in your opinion, high in mine) of how terrorism is being handled. Kerry represents an unknown level of competence regarding terrorism. Maybe his administration will handle it competently, or maybe it will be the death of American society, who knows.

I do know that I would rather have powell, Rumsfield, Cheney and Bush at the helm then Kerry and ?,?,?...

make your decision...unfortunately if enough people make the same decision as you I and many like me around the world will have to live with it as well...many will die because of it.......I doubt that you, those of like mind with you or the leaders you pick will have any care or empathy for those who do on a daily basis, only when you wave the flag at convenient times.....

0 Replies

What bothers me, is that I believe that we are at a major crossroads. Before the advent of world terrorism, I was never too terribly concerned. I believed that the US would muddle along, the politicians would screw up on a regular basis, but the world would go on, as usual. Now I am not so sure, and I am worried!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

And when is a source "reputable"?

I'm counting them as con or lib based on the context of this here discussion, and I'm counting any mainstream media, academic or public official....

Hi, Nimh. Does this mean you didn't "count" any links to JohnKerry.com?

My point, which I've made a couple of times, is that this election is going to be screwy and partisan. (Ahem, it already is.) To me, the truest sense of what the candidates stand for will come from their own words. If either one is willing to say something that is published, I have to assume that he stands behind that. I've become a little chary of both mainstream media & public officials who seem to have their own agenda and I have to discount most academic work because it is going to be a year or two out of date.

At least from the candidates' own websites we KNOW what the agenda is.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I doubt that you, those of like mind with you or the leaders you pick will have any care or empathy for those who do on a daily basis, only when you wave the flag at convenient times.....

It saddens me to think you actually believe that.

The only people I have no empathy for are the bastard terrorists who take innocent lives. I hope they all die scared and crapping their pants as a marine pumps round after round into their useless bodies.

0 Replies

I think that Bush ( and Clinton) were remiss when they did not go after the people responsible for the incubators of terrorism- the Saudi royal family. It was there where the money flowed to the religious schools where the mullahs were teaching hate for the west in general, and America in particular.

0 Replies

Well, that's the kicker! I doubt ANYONE is going to be honest about our dealings with the Saudi Royal family. To turn our backs on them at this juncture would shred our nation's economy! But somebody has to start somewhere! Until that happens, we will always be vulnerable, IMO.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I doubt that you, those of like mind with you or the leaders you pick will have any care or empathy for those who do on a daily basis, only when you wave the flag at convenient times.....

It saddens me to think you actually believe that.

The only people I have no empathy for are the bastard terrorists who take innocent lives. I hope they all die scared and crapping their pants as a marine pumps round after round into their useless bodies.

It saddens me that your posts give me no reason to believe anything else. It is one thing to recognize that these people (terrorists) probably don't need to be here and deserve a bullet to the head. I can accept that.

But to wish and hope for them to die sh1tting their pants while a marine pumps round after round into their lifeless bodies is more than a little pathological IMO.

As I have said many times, war I can accept. People with a hard on for it I cannot.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I'm rather amused that Habibi let himself be suckered into that. If Scrat wants a count of citations, let it do the count itself.

Scrat wrote:
Run along and have a salad, you overgrown hamster. The adults are having a conversation. :wink:

This is the point which EB makes about you, Shirley. You never miss an opportunity to take the cheap shot; and if you succeed in irritating someone enough to make them lose their temper, that's just a bonus for you. You're pathetic--not simply because you will make any specious argument to contradict those whom you disdain, but because of you dedication to addressing them contemptuously. You're a sad case, Shirley.

You chose to jump in the middle of my discussion with nimh, offering another of your usual backhanded insults, then you complain that my response to you--which was trying at being a light-hearted "back off"--shows what's wrong with me. Jesus you must have balls the size of Oregon. (I wonder how you buy pants for those.) :wink:

Look, if you give me grief, I'm going to give it back. When you are civil with me, I'm civil with you. Is that really hard to understand? I can show cases YESTERDAY where I responded civilly to your posts when they were on topic and not just a childish pot-shot at my expense. You want me to play nice, just play nice. See? Or am I responsible for my bad behavior AND yours?

Hold yourself to the standard to which you seem to want to hold me, and we will NEVER have a problem. NEVER. And here's a thought for you, if you really want civility here, TEST that last statement; knock off the insults and thinly veiled attacks and just discuss the issues. If I fail to do likewise with you, you can call it proof that I am everything you want to pretend I am.

Now, hopefully most people would like to get back to the topic. If anybody cares to continue to instruct me as to my shortcomings, please take it to PM. Or better, still, put the energy into fixing yourself, and I'll work on me.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I think that Bush ( and Clinton) were remiss when they did not go after the people responsible for the incubators of terrorism- the Saudi royal family.

I agree. And the same is true for Pakistan. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan is in danger of being taken over by Ismamic fundamentalists, did support Al Quaeda, has nuclear weapons, and has proliferated the technology to places as ugly as North Korea and Libya, without any of the proliferators doing time for it. Yet I have no idea what America's Pakistan policy is under Bush, or what it has been under Clinton.

Now that made your decision easier, didn't it? Wink

0 Replies

I find it hilarious that Shirley thinks it shall have the last word on any topic, and had the right to end discussion. If it weren't so prone to snide comments on others, these things would not happen.

As for the clan of Ibn-Saud, it seems that they are backing away from the Wahabbis who had leant them legitimacy in the past. Those who would control that region must be able to assure the safety of hajis bound for Mecca and Medina. Therefore, when Lawrence managed to raise the tribes against the Turks, he began in the Arabian penninsula, because as soon as the Turks could no longer guarantee the safety of pilgrims going to Mecca and Medina, their political capital with the other arabic tribes plummeted, making it possible for the Brits to recruit more rebels.

Similarly, the Ibn-Saud clan has used the Holy places, and a close association with the Wahabbis to establish their credit with the Islamic world. However, with Al-Qaeda attacks within Saudia Arabia, and a growing agitation for more civil rights, and the (limited) emancipation of women, the Wahabbis are looking less and less desirable as political allies to the royal family. Politics in the Arabian penninsula is going to be very interesting in the decades to come.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I find it hilarious that Shirley thinks it shall have the last word on any topic, and had the right to end discussion.

Where did I attempt to end any discussion?

Setanta wrote:

If it weren't so prone to snide comments on others, these things would not happen.

This is just as I anticipated when I wrote...

Quote:

...am I responsible for my bad behavior AND yours?

Once again, if you really dislike incivility, refrain from it, and you will find that I follow suit. Of course, your current actions suggest that you prefer animosity and would rather keep sniping at me than attend to the topic. If you feel the need to get another shot in, please do. I'm going to get back to the topic. I hope we all can.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Yet I have no idea what America's Pakistan policy is under Bush, or what it has been under Clinton.

Under this administration we have just granted a special ally status to Pakistan because of the hard task we are pressuring them to do in the tribal regions.

However we haven't released the planes they want.

My take is that our support for them will last as long as the manhunt we need them for after which we will be free to take a hard line (or not, I lean toward not as long as Musharraf is in power).

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

A propos "deeply held beliefs", I personally find it ironic that the Bush team is simultaneously trying to slam Kerry as a flip-flopper and as a through-and-through liberal. Of all Congressmen, Kerry's got the highest or second highest rating from liberal pressure groups, they say (ACLU, was it?). He almost always voted with Ted Kennedy, they point out - hell, if anything, he's to the left of Ted Kennedy, they say.

OK, so what is it? If he's a through-and-through liberal, to the left of Ted, then apparently he does have some deeply-held core beliefs. How is that circle supposed to be squared?

This is a good point, and one about which I'll have to think. The issue of Kerry's waffling was brought up by someone, who seemed to me to be claiming that there was no evidence he had waffled. His waffling isn't the big issue to me, though the way he waffles does make me concerned about his integrity.

But if I were to chose a direction from which to explore Kerry's fitness to be our President, I'd suggest we discuss his voting record on defense and intelligence. That's an area where we can consult hard facts and then draw our own conclusions as to whether Kerry's instincts in the areas of defense and intelligence are instincts we want driving US defense and intelligence decisions from 2004 to 2008.

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know