Bush isn't really looking into the welfare either. Has the economy inproved significantly since he has been in office? Not really. Does he care about the enviroment? Not's really.

 

I also think that he should have been focused on getting Osama Bin Laden more so than Saddam. Hussein wasn't a really threat at the time, however Bin Laden is still out there.

If Bush told people that John Kerry eats children they would beleive it. I wish people would look a little deeper into the volleyballs Bush throws. The reality is Kerry actually votes intelligently rather than along a party line. This idiotic "he waffles" crap means that he wont vote for a security measuer that has pork barrell spending or doesnt make sure it can be paid for somehow. But he is willing to break ranks if the legislation makes sense.

 

Instead of nodding and cheering everytime Bush misasseses Kerry, simply look at how two prominent Republicans have said Bush is wrong in characterizing Kerry as weak on defense.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Mar22.html

 

Kerry wont just walk out of Iraq. He will make sure its finished correctly and make sure its done democratically and not for the best interest of non-Iraqis.

 

I know most people dont support the safety net that I do but I hate when people characterize the Dems as being welfare producers. For christ sake any intelligent person knows how economics works and that you have to produce jobs. You have to push free markets and not government waste. Thats why welfare spending is such a low amount of federal government spending. But people dont know that because they dont look things up themselves. They listen to what they are told. Its not welfare that goes to federal spending, its defense, medicare, and social security. Now Soriano fan and I disagree on medicare and social security in terms of existence but Ill admit that they need to be streamlined. So does defense. We waste so much money on things that do nothing against terrorism. Kerry knows this too and knows that being a liberal in America is bad. For christ sakes he supported NAFTA, something most liberals dont like.

 

 

I agree with Sorianofan also on Iraq. How many sources have to come out and say that the President wanted to invade Iraq from day one. He wanted to more badly than he wanted Al Quada. These arent democrats either. These are people who have worked for conservative presidents for years. This is his own resigned press secretary. Are they all lying? The only way we win the war on terrorism is to foster International Cooperation. Bush's Iraq policy has now cost us another ally in Spain. How blind can people be.

 

I love how people talk about big government and the dems when its been nothing but Bush! The MASSIVE DEFECIT. A proposed Constitutional Amdendment to dictate peoples morality based on his views of life. Pure violation of seperation of church and state. Where do I stop.

 

Here is my view. If Bush had stuck to his promise of uniting the nation and being a compassionate conservative, Id give him some slack. But he has driven himself all the way to the right to appease his most loyal supporters at the expense of the rest of the nation. That is why he shouldnt be reelected. Kerry chose not to go to the liberal wing of his party. Dean did and started out hot and then lost it. Kerry knows the majority of America is in the middle.

Yeah, and the welfare state will get better with Kerry

 

Most of the welfare state goes to the elderly. Whether or not you agree with this, its not welfare crack moms who are getting money. Its old people. Now neither party will alientate the elderly. They know better.

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

How about we stopped tolerating lying devils and we stop getting them?? that's the better goal. It is a mtter of principle: we don't tolerate lying presidents that contrive war, end of story. I have the firm belief that anyone who doesn't agree with me concerning this principle is a moron. Contriving war is not acceptable.

 

If Kerry holds serve and stays true to the Democratic Party's school of thought on foreign policy nothing substantive will get done most of the time, and when something is done it will turn into a complete debacle. To refresh your memory, here's a few examples....

Both parties suck, do not lecture me on this. Both parties are guilty of terrible foreign policy.

 

The biggest nightmare I have is a Democratic president falling asleep at the wheel and letting some huge terrorist event take place because he was waiting for the UN or international consensus.

No, both parties have fell asleep at the wheel. Neither clinton nor bush adequately kicked enough ass against al qaeda before 9-11 so I blame both, even though I blame neither for the particular event.

 

You are not justified to have anymore fear of a dem screwing up than a republican. Bush's crappy foreign policy makes him highly suspect. Clinto was bad (very bad), but bush out far beat him with an entirily unecessary CONQUEST. It is rather simple. Both fall asleep at the wheel, it is a matter on not tolerating the inept.

 

All you do is blame clinton. Fine, blame him he's an a**hole. However, Bush is too. People relected a**hole reagan, clinton, and now Bush. We should stop reelecting a**holes and we will stop getting them. THE FIRST STEP to this is not tolerating the very fundamentals of what I call "assholeishness". The highest crime below genocide that a president can do to wrong his people is contrive a war of conquest. There is not greater crime besides genocide, remember this. That's why is is absolutely, 100% unacceptable to vote for Bush, and I assert one commits a MORAL WRONG by doing so, because you are condoning something that is next to the act of genocide in wrongness to the citizens of America and the world.

 

I feel like a sane person in insane times where people are tolerating this. Contrived wars are 100% unacceptable, but the douche bag is going to get reelected. Am I the only sane man left, who is not willing to accept this precedent for presidents to continuely screw us? My distaste for morons will only grow.

 

 

I hate Kerry, but I hate the precedent Bush is continuing even more. Kerry cannot be any worse for national security unless he flat out starts sending people to death camps, which I find unlikely.

 

Furthermore, the republican party has no incentive to cut spending with domination over all the branches of government. A balance of powers, something our forefathers deemed absolutely necessary IS NOT HERE. We are living in a lesser degree of dictatorship, where whatever a party wants done gets done. I'm not saying we're having Hitler running the show, but we are certainly not having a democracy anymore. Furthermore, the republicans WILL have incentive to cut spending if Kerry wins.

 

It is absolutely pathetic when spending is cut under Clinton and increases under Bush. Absolutely pathetic. (Sigh) I'm sure America is gauging their vote by what a know-it-all college freshman thinks.

Sigh) I'm sure America is gauging their vote by what a know-it-all college freshman thinks.

 

Why is his argument dismissed because he is a college freshman who expresses his views based on what he knows? Id say thats the ideal in this country even if you dont agree with what he says. Apathy is the disease that could destroy America. Perhaps America should listen.

Sigh) I'm sure America is gauging their vote by what a know-it-all college freshman thinks.

 

Why is his argument dismissed because he is a college freshman who expresses his views based on what he knows? Id say thats the ideal in this country even if you dont agree with what he says. Apathy is the disease that could destroy America. Perhaps America should listen. I am basing my opinion that many of his rants have language in them that signify that he is smarter than anyone who happens to be reading the rants - i.e. Bush voters are all stupid.

 

His language regarding past American Presidents also reveal a level of informality that is unbecoming of someone of his experience. Bush is an a**hole, Clinton's a douche blah blah blah juvenile crap

 

Third, I generally despise political arguments from people who don't know what they're talking about. Me included. You, being a fan of John Kerry, should know that the world is awash in SHADES OF GRAY. While Kerry uses this as an excuse to flip positions and waffle, I believe that these shades can only be appreciated by those well-versed in the topic itself. Experts. Otherwise, you get misleading claims taken out of context, ridiculous statistics, and rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric.

 

That's why I seem apathetic. No, not really. It's just that I find arguments of people like Craig to be lacking in any real depth and generally obnoxious. Kinda torques me off.

If you don't like his posts, don't read his posts.

 

Simple as that.

a useless war.

how is it a useless war? because hussein poses no "threat: when the guy supported terrorist? once again taking care of something before it gets out of hand. the democrats would have sit back and waited for it to explode in their face Explode what? All terrorist connections were old and outdated, most before even operation desert fox. Furthermore, there were no al qaeda connections and no true dangerous links with organizations currently. Now that saddam is gone, al qaeda is setting up base in Iraq.

 

So yes, a useless was that is doing far more harm than good.

Ok, lets talk right now and take a look at "The Human Waffle" Kerry....

 

1) 1991 Persian Gulf War: Voted agaisnt it, calling the other members of the coalition "shadow battlefield allies." Then a couple of months ago he recanted, saying that the coalition in '91 was "strong." Well, which was it, then?

 

2) John Kerry, circa 1997 speaking about Saddam Hussein and his continued belligerence "Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action." Huh?

 

3) Kerry recently criticized the Bush administration for not providing the materiel support troop in Iraq and Afghanistan needed, ie. body armor, etc. Funny, he was one of 12 Senators who voted against a Bush bill to appropriate more funding for these types of supplies.

 

4) Kerry also voted agisnt spending on, among othe rthings, Tomahawk missles, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and the Apache helicopter.

 

5) Kerry considers action against terrorism not a war ("I don't ant to use that terminology.") Instead he prefers the use of law enforcement. We all have seen how well that works, especially when the original WTC attackers in 1993 were tried in criminal court and sentenced to, GASP, life in prison.

 

Anyway, arguing is arguing, and I assume we shall just have to agree to disagree. In the end is doesn't matter, they all lie like dogs whenever it suites them

You see, I already told you Kerry is an a**hole. I said Bush is a bigger a**hole ebcause he committed the second largest crime committable to man: fabricating a war that had no use so it killed innocent people. It is a matter of principle we vote in anyone else that is no worse than Bush into office. Kerry is a moron, but he didn't fabricate any wars, though he might of voted for one. Nonetheless, we must NOT set the precedent to tolerate murderers and liars.

 

There is not agreeing to disagree, you are just flat out immoral to support such a man who's way of running a country sets a precedent for more injustice. You support for him cannot be justified.

Yeah, and the welfare state will get better with Kerry :confused

Not true, historically an opposition president wil get the other party to go extreme in the house and senate. The result will be a more fiscally responsible government like clinton's last term, when the republican party was good.

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

How about we stopped tolerating lying devils and we stop getting them?? that's the better goal. It is a mtter of principle: we don't tolerate lying presidents that contrive war, end of story. I have the firm belief that anyone who doesn't agree with me concerning this principle is a moron. Contriving war is not acceptable.

 

If Kerry holds serve and stays true to the Democratic Party's school of thought on foreign policy nothing substantive will get done most of the time, and when something is done it will turn into a complete debacle. To refresh your memory, here's a few examples....

Both parties suck, do not lecture me on this. Both parties are guilty of terrible foreign policy.

 

The biggest nightmare I have is a Democratic president falling asleep at the wheel and letting some huge terrorist event take place because he was waiting for the UN or international consensus.

No, both parties have fell asleep at the wheel. Neither clinton nor bush adequately kicked enough ass against al qaeda before 9-11 so I blame both, even though I blame neither for the particular event.

 

You are not justified to have anymore fear of a dem screwing up than a republican. Bush's crappy foreign policy makes him highly suspect. Clinto was bad (very bad), but bush out far beat him with an entirily unecessary CONQUEST. It is rather simple. Both fall asleep at the wheel, it is a matter on not tolerating the inept.

 

All you do is blame clinton. Fine, blame him he's an a**hole. However, Bush is too. People relected a**hole reagan, clinton, and now Bush. We should stop reelecting a**holes and we will stop getting them. THE FIRST STEP to this is not tolerating the very fundamentals of what I call "assholeishness". The highest crime below genocide that a president can do to wrong his people is contrive a war of conquest. There is not greater crime besides genocide, remember this. That's why is is absolutely, 100% unacceptable to vote for Bush, and I assert one commits a MORAL WRONG by doing so, because you are condoning something that is next to the act of genocide in wrongness to the citizens of America and the world.

 

I feel like a sane person in insane times where people are tolerating this. Contrived wars are 100% unacceptable, but the douche bag is going to get reelected. Am I the only sane man left, who is not willing to accept this precedent for presidents to continuely screw us? My distaste for morons will only grow.

 

 

I hate Kerry, but I hate the precedent Bush is continuing even more. Kerry cannot be any worse for national security unless he flat out starts sending people to death camps, which I find unlikely.

 

Furthermore, the republican party has no incentive to cut spending with domination over all the branches of government. A balance of powers, something our forefathers deemed absolutely necessary IS NOT HERE. We are living in a lesser degree of dictatorship, where whatever a party wants done gets done. I'm not saying we're having Hitler running the show, but we are certainly not having a democracy anymore. Furthermore, the republicans WILL have incentive to cut spending if Kerry wins.

 

It is absolutely pathetic when spending is cut under Clinton and increases under Bush. Absolutely pathetic. (Sigh) I'm sure America is gauging their vote by what a know-it-all college freshman thinks. know it all sophmore, correction. I'm not a stupid person. I have a 4.0 this semester and I take my beliefs very seriously (obviously). If you cannot prove my beliefs wrong you have no right to disagree with them.

 

he bring up an ad hominem argument. present a valid counter point or just reveal you have nothing intelligent to say.

How can you prove a belief wrong? A belief is an opinion, o agnostic one! May I humbly disagree with your opinions? If so, I may not be able to provide valid counterpoints considering you don't present any valid points yourself. What am I supposed to say, Bush is NOT an a**hole?

 

Congrats on your 4.0. You did well in your classes. Whoop-de-doo

If you don't like his posts, don't read his posts.

 

Simple as that.

I am allowed to disagree with the way an opinion is presented. It's the American way.

How can you prove a belief wrong? A belief is an opinion, o agnostic one! May I humbly disagree with your opinions? If so, I may not be able to provide valid counterpoints considering you don't present any valid points yourself. What am I supposed to say, Bush is NOT an a**hole?

 

Congrats on your 4.0. You did well in your classes. Whoop-de-doo

First let me say that everyone is entitled to their belief, but they are not entitled to justify their belief unless they present and valid argument with evidence. So you are not justified to claim your belief as true, thus making untrue until proven otherwise.

 

It is mighty low to make light of one's religion or lack thereof. I don't bash one of your posts based on your spiritual beliefs.

 

Lastly, to say I brought no valid points is ridiculous, because I had a rather simple argument that somehow your mind wasn't advanced enough to understand. I said it is a matter of principle that americans never tolerate an incumbnant (sp) that fabricates needless wars, citing it as the second greatest crime against a cititez possible. Now say that I am wrong and tell me how or admit you have no justification for your beliefs because you cannot devise an intelligent argument which isn't ad hominem.

You... should know that the world is awash in SHADES OF GRAY.

 

Ill flat out agree with that.

 

Listen, I know it seems like I have a vendetta against Bush and am a staunch Kerry supporter. But I can assure you that my views have come directly as a conseuqnce of GWB. He was supposed to be a moderate president that united America. He was supposed to be a compromisor who played give and take with Democrats. He has been anything but that. His social policies have been flat out right wing. His economic policies have been cloaked to protect their true motivation. I here people defend Bush's tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy by saying the wealthy pay all the taxes. Thats fine if thats the view but dont pretend that or advertise them as being tax cuts for all Americans. I here Bush cloak his religion views that he places upon Americans as being a defense of morals. Who's morals? Morals are the biggest shade of gray so that is why they should never be imposed so staunchly on everyone. I here Bush tell the elderly he will protect them and then does all the things that dont. If you dont agree with medicare and social security, thats fine. But at least dont pretend you do.

 

Its these things which have driven me so staunchly away from him and solidly into the democratic party. Look at Arnold over in California. I applaud him for comprimising with state democrats on the budget problems and getting a solution that they all agree with. Now the democrats there are all kind of happy with him and so are te Republicans. Why?? He worked for the people of California and not a select few.

 

I understand that the world is driven in shades of gray and politics amongst people can be really riddled with misconceptions and misinformation. That is why it is vital for all political leaders to put aside their self interest and to come up with the best solution. Bush has rarely if ever done that. He sees the world in black and white. Good versus evil. With us or against us. Its like a sports team with him!

 

Bush is avoiding the issues and their complexity by painting Kerry in a small and terrible light that he knows is not true. You talk about shades of gray. He is basically saying Kerry will help terrorists and take everyone's money. His father basically told everyone that Dukakis personally released a convicted murderer who killed again. They play on the naive fears of the average person because they know the average person will not look more deeply than a cover story.

 

And you talk about the layperson's views as opposed to intellectuals. Is this why academics are bashed and called liberals by the right? There are a lot of misconceptions amongst those who support the right and they are based on very little basis. Academics are hated because there studies expose naive misconceptions that are played off of.

 

Everything summed up, I vote for Kerry because I know that he will be a moderate who compromises. Bush hasnt. When you have a moderate who works with everyone and not his party, you get the best solution. Bush has been nothing but a party liner.

what up f_m

 

I'm votin Bush...I like him best....

 

this response should thoroughly piss off Sorianofan, as I have not given any reasons.

:thumbup

what up f_m

 

I'm votin Bush...I like him best....

 

this response should thoroughly piss off Sorianofan, as I have not given any reasons.

:thumbup

:confused can't get mad at someone who simply doesn't have the mental faculties necessary to support or have an informed belief, hey, every person voting Bush is just like you in that respect anyway.

what up f_m

 

Hey g8. No post on the ESPN board anymore?

naw....not really...you should post here more often, buddy

 

hows Tulane?

Yeah, and the welfare state will get better with Kerry?

 

Most of the welfare state goes to the elderly. Whether or not you agree with this, its not welfare crack moms who are getting money. Its old people. Now neither party will alientate the elderly. They know better. instead we will just do the usual and alienate the voter under 30.

what up f_m

 

I'm votin Bush...I like him best....

 

this response should thoroughly piss off Sorianofan, as I have not given any reasons.

:thumbup

:confused can't get mad at someone who simply doesn't have the mental faculties necessary to support or have an informed belief, hey, every person voting Bush is just like you in that respect anyway. thats a fight where i come from! soriano, jump on your donkey and gator, grab your elephant and lets take it outside! :lol

I was at the college republicans meeting today, and the leader there is a smart guy, but he obviously hasn't figured out yelling over someone doesn't mean you have proved them wrong.

 

I pretty much proved him wrong on the counts that Bush himself said there were never any weapons (so the "weapons were sold to iran argument" goes down the crapper.) Furthermore he said UN intelligence agreed with ours. I said the official UN reports noted that amounts of weaponry were MISSING, not actually there. That's a big difference.

 

Then he decided to like me the moment he found out i don't believe in global warming.

wow, this ones for you sorianofan :cheers

global warming will stop as soon as solar powered cars can be distributed to the public. or something else is created i say in 20 - 25 years global warming will not or will stop becoming a problem

global warming will stop as soon as solar powered cars can be distributed to the public. or something else is created i say in 20 - 25 years global warming will not or will stop becoming a problem

Distributed to the public? Get out of here with that.