1
   

This May Be Satire, But It's Deadly Serious to Me!

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:54 am
<please vote for Kerry please please with a cherry on top... would you like some cherry pie? I'd send you some cherry pie.>

At least look at his website, he's really not THAT bad, and the security stuff you worry about, Phoenix, is a priority for him.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:59 am
Soz- the pie offer is sooo tempting, but it has to be Nesselrode. :wink: I will take a look at the site, but it would take a lot of convincing for me to vote for Kerry. I do keep an open mind, though!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:00 am
Nesselrode it is!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:01 am
Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush incurred unbridled hatred leveled at them from those on the left who politic with slurs rather than substance. (Okay, okay there are some on the right who do that too and I find them equally offensive.)

My question is, could the GOP put up anybody with a conservative agenda and conservative values who would not be despised and hated by the left?

Reagan started out with a simple agenda and he stuck to it. Nobody even suggested he attempted to (or needed to) reinvent himself.

While GWB is no Reagan, I have not seen waffling from him on issues important to him. I believe he is pretty much who he presents himself to be and he has remained relatively consistent. So if you want a president who is strong on defense, who will focus on a war against terrorists, and who believes Americans should hold and control more of the money they earn, I think it is quite safe to vote for him.

Kerry has taken so many sides on so many issues, I think we have no clue what we would get with him as president; however, the track record of Democrats in this century has been to raise taxes and to weaken defense until we have to have it. If that's what you want, you are probably pretty safe voting for him.

I agree with Phoenix that the Onion piece does not read like satire.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:04 am
Foxfyre... uh... was there any hatred sent towards Clinton? Just a bit?

I like McCain just fine.

Once again, as I'm getting really tired of the "I don't attack liberals, they're just all hateful illogical people" line, I don't hate Bush because he's a republican -- I fear and dislike him because of his actual ACTIONS.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:08 am
As for waffling from GWB:

http://www.compassiongate.com/promises/

It has a long list of his waffling on issues that are important to him, with quotes and cites.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:11 am
Your source is a real stretch Sozobe and believable only by those who hate GWB.

Even Bill Clinton, in a recent speech, advised his listeners that GWB has done exactly what he said he would do in his campaign--those who voted for him have gotten what they voted for. If Bill doesn't think GWB is a waffler, it is purely ideology that can see it that way.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:24 am
WHY is it a real stretch? What is unbelievable?

Quote:
3/3/01
Will not pass on our budget deficits
(borrowings) to future generations; we owe
this to our children and grandchildren

[Bush]: "...Future generations shouldn't be
forced to pay back money that we have borrowed.
We pay back money that we have borrowed. We
owe this kind of responsibility to our children
and grandchildren..."

1/03

[Bush]: "...we will not deny, we will not
ignore, we will not pass along our problems to
other Congresses, other presidents,
and other generations..."
Budget deficits under Bush hit a record high and
expected to remain deficits as far as the eye can see.

********
National debt hits record high and gets passed on to
future generations.

-snip-

2/27/01
Will protect Social Security surplus in its entirety

[Bush] "...To make sure the retirement savings of
America's seniors are not diverted into any other
program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of
the Social Security surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone..."

10/3/00

A promise made on safeguarding Social Security
surplus will be a promise kept

[Bush]: "...The revenues exceed the expenses in Social Security to the year 2015, which means all retirees are going to get the promises made. So for those of you who [Gore] wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him, hear me loud and clear: A promise made will be a promise kept..."

3/22/01

Will never dip into Social Security Surplus to
finance spending

[Bush] "...For years, politicians in both
parties have dipped into the Trust Fund
to pay for more spending. And I will stop it..."

********
Not only did he not protect the Social Security surplus, he has used up the surplus to finance gigantic budget deficits due to massive tax cuts for millionaires and massive spending.
[Daniel Gross]: "...In his first three budgets, Bush
(who had the good fortune to take office at a time
when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and
Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations?-about $160 billion per year! By so doing, Washington spenders have masked
the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004?-which began
in October 2003?-if you factor out the $164 billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own projections (the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008. That year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion. Only by using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus does the administration arrive at a total, unified deficit of $226 billion...."

-snip-

3/1/01
Tax cuts should provide most help for
those at the bottom end of the income scale

[Bush] "...If you pay taxes, you should get
tax relief...I agree with my critics, however, that
those on the bottom end should get the
most help...."

***********
Tax cuts provided the bulk of the tax "relief" to
higher income Americans.


There are numerous cites and hotlinking to sources on the site. GWB has waffled, big-time. I don't know if this site is sterling... what I have checked has panned out, or else is generally known/ can be found in numerous sources (such as the fact that the bulk of the tax relief went to higher income Americans.) I'm sure there are various sites that describe this. This is just the first one I happened across.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:38 am
Sozobe, remember 9/11?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:42 am
This isn't the first election where neither option was all that thrilling. How about Nixon vs. Humphrey? It's often a case of wanting to vote against someone rather than a strong feeling for the other candidate.

So, let's all get over it, shall we, and face the fact that though neither guy is so wonderful, there's a big difference between them.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:04 pm
Foxfyre, yep, indeed I do. And?

Goose/ gander, pot/ kettle, etc. (When Kerry changes positions over time it's flip-flopping, when Bush does it's... what... pragmatism?)

Found a flip-flop on that one:

Quote:
8/7/02

Recession was inherited from Clinton

[Bush] "...When I took office, our
economy was beginning a recession..."

********

FLOP

Recession was due to war

[Bush: "...We have got a recession
because we went to war..."]

FLIP AGAIN

Recession was inherited


(P.S., all of the compassiongate entries have the formatting above, I just cut and pasted the previous ones without formatting.)

D'Art, I agree.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:43 pm
I'm with dys on this. I may not vote at all. Our county usually goes democratic. I'm a registered democrat and my husband is a registered republican. Sooooooooooooo. We'll cancel out each other's vote, and the county cancels us both. Now that's Onion irony.

(loved those pictures, Phoenix.)
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:48 pm
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/john_kerry_half_cocked.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:55 pm
I think it is the epitome of naivete to think that any president would govern the same after 9/11 than he would have governed had 9/11 never happened.

My vote in November will go for the man I believe has his head on straightest and is the most committed to dealing with a post 9/11 America.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 01:06 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I think it is the epitome of naivete to think that any president would govern the same after 9/11 than he would have governed had 9/11 never happened.

My vote in November will go for the man I believe has his head on straightest and is the most committed to dealing with a post 9/11 America.


I agree completely. 9/11 changed everything.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 02:45 pm
And... a lot of the stuff Kerry is blamed for flip-flopping on occurred pre- and post- 9/11, too.

Bush's recession flip-flops were all post- 9/11. A lot of other stuff was post- 9/11 or not related. (Tax cuts.)

If you're just saying the world changed after 9/11, well, of course. (America especially, at any rate.) If you're saying that the world changed after 9/11 so Bush's flip-flops don't matter, pshaw. If you're saying that Kerry's flip-flops matter but Bush's don't, double pshaw.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 02:48 pm
Let's face it, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to the Bush presidency. It provided a focus: The never-ending war against terrorism, in which any action undertaken by the gov't--both domestic and foreign policy--could be justified by the war.

We'll find out in five months how many Americans still buy this approach...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 02:58 pm
I think if a majority of Americans do not see the danger of radical fundamental Islamic terrorists and unchecked, uncontested terrorism in the world, we will soon expire as the United States of America. I will hope most Americans will get behind anynational leader committed to defend us against all enemies, domestic and foreign.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 03:01 pm
Being against terrorism doesn't mean there's only one way to do it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 03:03 pm
I agree. And the national debate should be on the best way to do that and to encourage our elected leaders to see that it is done.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 09:03:26