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

<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.

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!

Nesselrode it is!

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.

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.

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.

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.

WHY is it a real stretch? What is unbelievable?



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.

Sozobe, remember 9/11?

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.

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:



(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.

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.)

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.

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.

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...

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.

Being against terrorism doesn't mean there's only one way to do it.

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.