Yes Kerry, terrorism is issue #15 and not really important.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
8,461
Location
Colorado
Yes John Kerry, terrorism is issue #15 and not really important in this world. There was a major terrorism incident in Madrid, Spain. Passenger trains were blown up in a deliberate attempt to murder as many human beings as possible. They are still counting the bodies. The last I heard the death count was approaching 200, with something like 1000 wounded. It is likely the terrorists were not al Qaeda but they were terrorists nonetheless.

Kerry, you might want to note the effect on the stock market here as well. Now, the stock market was heading down anyway but the terrorist attack did not help the situation. The Democrats who consider the economy to be the most important issue should note the effect that terrorism has on world stock markets and world economies.

Kind of brings home the fact that no matter how the economy may or may not improve under the Kerry administration, one major terrorist attack could undo everything. Looks like it may be necessary to do more then work with our 'European allies' and the UN.

But don't expect for the people who run the Democratic Party today to get the point. One of the first things they will do after winning the White House will be to increase taxes and cut military spending. Kerry has repeatedly voted against about every military weapons program that can be mentioned-it is in his voting record in Congress which is a public record.

It appears at this time that the American people will actually vote this guy into office. Look forward to a wonderful 4-8 years of Kerry administration, maybe followed by another 4-8 years of wonderful Hillary administration.

Look forward to higher taxes, a less secure world, less of a leadership role for America in the world, perhaps terrifying new terrorist attacks, and perhaps even world war if nuclear warfare takes place in the Middle East.

Yep, terrorism is issue #15, yes sir, you betca!
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mystic:
... It appears at this time that the American people will actually vote this guy into office.

Don't bet on it. Recall that Dukakis led G.H.W. Bush by 17 points in the polls just before his democratic convention. After 1 year of constant one sided G.W. Bush bashing, the democrats have just about evened out the polling or pulled slightly ahead. Big deal.

Keith.
 
President George H.W. Bush in State of Union
"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

Secretary of Defense **** Cheney
"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend."

Secretary of Defense **** Cheney (to Congress)
"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them."

you'd better see who was against what when those votes were made.
 
I agree with you, Keith. It is WAY too early to being calling the presidential race - either way. Actually, a Kerry win may be a big wrench thrown into the plans to make Hillary the next president. It would be easier a thousand times over for Hillary to get elected in the next election if Bush were to be voted in for a second term. However, if Kerry were to win this election, Hillary would have to wait at least another 8 years to get her chance. I would almost guarantee there is some serious closed-door-talks going on in the Democratic camps about this. Which is worse - Kerry now, or Hillary later? Either way, it's a lose lose situation.
frown.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by ZiTS:
Which is worse - Kerry now, or Hillary later?

Hillary has to worry about Rudy Giuliani. If he runs for her Senate seat in 2006, all her dreams could go up in smoke. Rudy is very popular, might even end up on the Bush ticket as VP which would be good for Hillary! If I were Hillary, I would push for the VP ticket now. If Kerry loses, Hillary still has her day job and can run at the top of the ticket in 2008. If Kerry wins and she is not VP, she is out of the limelight and loses power.

If Kerry selects another VP, and wins, that VP will be the frontrunner in 2012 (assuming Kerry wins in 2008). If the VP wins in 2012, Hillary could be shut out until 2020. Way too long for her to wait, she will be old news by then.

Keith.
 
Once again I don't like to get into these threads on www.bobisthepoliticsguy.com but I wonder what it is we (West and Europe) have done to offend said badguys? Not saying if we did something that we were wrong but I don't beleive some guy was sitting 10,000 miles away and decided to kill people and himself in another country out of boredom or the old "they hate our freedom" bull. Once again I'm not saying we are wrong or that we are the bad guys or to blame but what is it they are mad about and did we have anything to do with it?
 
I don't think that real men blow up innocent people in trains because they have a beef about something. A real man fights like a man.

It is now beginning to look like this incident could involve Moslem terrorists after all. People did not think so at first, but now they have found a van with detonators in it and a tape with Moslem verses from the Koran. It fact, just right now al Qaeda is claiming responsibility.

President Bush has sent his regards to the Spanish people and Spain. Will Kerry, the likely Democratic nominee, send his?
 
The last I heard the stock market has dropped almost 200 points. It was heading down anyway but FOX News economic newspeople are saying that the terrorism in Spain helped bring the market down.

Is future president Kerry paying any attention to this? Earth to Kerry. Might want to bring terrorism up to at least the number 3 item to be concerned with. After all, item number 1, the economy, can be affected by item number 15, terrorism.

The French (some of those wonderful European allies, Kerry) are very concerned about possible terrorism taking place in France like what happened in Spain. They are trying to take steps to prevent similar stuff happening in France.

Maybe our future president, Kerry, can take care of all of these terrorism threats by consulting with our European allies after he takes office and then filing a stern protest at the UN. Maybe he can even make peace with al Qaeda. He can reason with them and have a frank face to face discussion with Osama bin Laden.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mystic:
Look forward to higher taxes, a less secure world, less of a leadership role for America in the world, perhaps terrifying new terrorist attacks, and perhaps even world war if nuclear warfare takes place in the Middle East.

cool.gif
My take is that the baddies in the Mideast only respect you when they fear you. And they don't respect you when they don't fear you (like when you try to make nice). Therefore, they will be on their good behavior as far as attacks on American soil because they know Dubya will put the whomp on them. Should Kerry be elected, then I'd say look out, they'll come after us because they know all he'll do is dial up the U.N. Osama & Co. know that if they attack us now, Bush's response would make him look good and increase his chances for re-election. If they lay low, people aren't worried about national defense so much, an area where Kerry is obviously weak. My .02.
cheers.gif
patriot.gif


quote:

Originally posted by Mystic:
It is now beginning to look like this incident could involve Moslem terrorists after all. People did not think so at first, but now they have found a van with detonators in it and a tape with Moslem verses from the Koran.

cool.gif
Name for me a terrorist incident over the past 32 years that was not perpetrated by Muslim extremists.
dunno.gif


[ March 11, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: JohnnyO ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by tweeker43:
President George H.W. Bush in State of Union
"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

Secretary of Defense **** Cheney
"Overall, since I've been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. … And now we're adding to that another $50 billion … of so-called peace dividend."

Secretary of Defense **** Cheney (to Congress)
"Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them."

you'd better see who was against what when those votes were made.


This nonsense again? You think people are too dumb to see the difference in opposing ALL defense spending and opposing programs we can do without? Do you liberals have any honest arguments? Posting nonsense like that hurts your case.
 
quote:

Originally posted by labman:
This nonsense again? You think people are too dumb to see the difference in opposing ALL defense spending and opposing programs we can do without? Do you liberals have any honest arguments? Posting nonsense like that hurts your case.

the dishonest arguments are coming from the republicans on this one. he has not opposed all defense spending. the programs that he voted against are in the minority of defense bills that were voted on.

if he voted against defense spending bills that **** cheney wanted killed as well, why is that a fault?

when the current administration came into office, they had great plans to kill numerous defense programs; several that the military wanted.
slate#1

slate #2
 
JohnnyO, there are some rumors about Kerry. I would hate to go through all of that stuff again. People might start considering the Democratic Party the 'party' Party.

Clinton was a disgrace to this country. But he is still big stuff in the Democratic Party. Hillary may have actually been running the White House during the Clinton years and now a lot of people want her to be president!
 
How can you tell me with a straight face that Bush has done good things for this country?

Unemployment= Down
Education= Down
Spending= Up

This was from a guy that said he was against big government. First thing he did was create homeland security. He was plotting against Saddam in the first month of office. Ever read Rebuilding America's Defenses? http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf It was written by a bunch of NeoCons in the current administration.

Here is one quote where they were talking about expanding America's presence.
quote:

Further, the process of transformation,even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

What did Bush say in his journal the day of 9/11? He said it was like Pearl Harbor all over again.

Look at this website for further reading if you are interested. http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759
What that guy says is totally on-mark.
 
quote:

Originally posted by riot8ap:
He was plotting against Saddam in the first month of office.

I have bad news for you. The policy of "plotting against" Saddam started while Bill Clinton was in office. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998.

Isn't it about time the democrat talking points got updated? It's hard enough keeping track of the truth, let alone the revisionist anti Bush BS.

Keith.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mystic:
People might start considering the Democratic Party the 'party' Party.

cool.gif
Yeah, I may have to switch and go to the dark side, it sounds like they have more fun. All the GOP has is serial kisser Sen. Packwood chasing a few ladies around the desk, Newt, and Gov. Ahnold while the Dems have FDR, LBJ, JFK, Gary Hart, Gary Condit, Wilber Mills (now there's a party animal!), Ted Kennedy, Mel ("I hit the Lotto!") Reynolds, Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, Wayne Hays, Gov Paul Patton, Bill Clinton, and possibly John Kerry all getting some action on the side. Strom Thurmond working both sides of the aisle, so to speak (he had previously been a Dem for many years). Not to mention Billy Carter if you want to forget the ladies and just drink.
cheers.gif
 
Thats true about Clinton...he kept Saddam in check but didn't flat-out invade Iraq. It wasn't necessary...they didn't have any WMD as we can all clearly see. Why aren't you Bush fans not saying anything about that anymore?
 
quote:

Originally posted by riot8ap:
Thats true about Clinton...he kept Saddam in check but didn't flat-out invade Iraq. It wasn't necessary...they didn't have any WMD as we can all clearly see. Why aren't you Bush fans not saying anything about that anymore?

That's all you have to say about the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, after accusing Bush of plotting against Saddam when this was merely continuing a Clinton era policy? Clinton already bombed Iraq, admittedly more of a PR move than anything effective.

I do have something to say about Saddam and WMD. GOOD RIDDANCE.

Keith.
 
More top notch hindsight. Nobody, not even the French and Germans, was saying he didn't have any WMD. The whole debate was whether we should do something about it. Frankly I think he may have even fooled himself into thing he actually had some.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom