Salome
you are what you is
the majority of the americans believe it because it is being repeated over & over again by people like Cheney
it's not a simple A or B
it's not a simple A or B
Headache in a Suitcase said:what's the worse thing for kerry...
a) that cheney said it
or
b) a majority of americans believe it
nbcrusader said:Why is the American public considered "duped" if they believe the GOP version of things?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Shouldn't it be worded; b) a majority of Americans fall for it.
nbcrusader said:The electorate does not have the attention span to study a candidates position on issues.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Fact? It's funny what's passing as fact these days. Starts to put the everything else surrounding this election in perspective.
So now the polls determine terrorist attacks...
sharky said:There's a lead because people believe these scare tactics. They came out after the Democratic convention to scare us with the idea that terrorists are going to attack the election. We've known this since the Madrid bombings in March. Tom Ridge comes out and says the New York Stock Exchange and Financial District are targets and raised the terror alert level for them to orange. Where has he been? NYC has been at an orange alert level since they instituted that dumb system. And can any of you say you're surprised the NYSE was a terror target? Isaw all the cops and National Guard there before that alert. Nothing has changed. But of course, that won't win votes the way scare tactics will.
STING2 said:
Who do you think is more likely to spend more money on the military and national security, Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards?
Who do you think is more likely to take military action in the face of various threats in order to prevent terrorism, Bush/Cheney or Kerry Edwards?
Guess who would rather use the money being spent to support are troops in the field as well as the development of Iraq and Afghanistan on US Domestic programs? Guess who voted against funding of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as money for the development of those countries?
STING2 said:Rubbish. There is a war going on and its absurd after 9/11 to say that the administration is trying to scare the public.
sharky said:
Why is it absurd? it's historic. the Nazis did it.
Oh right, I'm not supposed to question my government. I'm not supposed to think they would ever do anything wrong. That's un-American.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
So sinking money into the military, no matter if it's placing it in the right areas or not guarantees safety?
Many have fallen for that logic, but it still doesn't make anything fact.
I don't agree with your everything is black and white thinking, I see far much gray that you don't.
we sort of try to prevent Hitler references over here (and I do think we're being quiet succesfull in keeping the forum clean from that) but in all fairness I don't see the post you quoted as a "Bush is Hitler" type remarkSTING2 said:
Great, here we go again with the "Bush is Hitler" type remarks. I think you can question your governments actions without making such absurd acusations and comparing them to the Nazi's.
I agree with your post (though I'm not 100% sure that pumping more money into the military by definition leads to less casualties etc) but I don't know enough about american politics to be able to state whether democrats would just spend this money on pet projectsSTING2 said:Military personal and theif families deserve good pay and benefits. It makes me sick when liberals want to raid the military budget for all their pet projects.
Judah said:With limited taxpayer funds available for military and other programs, you gotta be very sure which long-term programs to commit money to...
As has been pointed out by many, Dick Cheney (and Bush Sr.) have in the past opposed major defense spending:
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209
"Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush."
sharky said:and not only benefit cuts for those who serve now -- health care, salary -- but benefit cuts for those who served during WWII and Vietnam. It's not right.
And i wasn't saying Bush is Hitler. I would never do something like that. What I'm saying is that specifically in Germany during the war, no one asked questions because the government had made people afraid to do so. One needs to look no further than the free ride most journalists gave the president after 9/11. For a year, no one asked "Wait, what connection between al Qaeda and Saddam?" or "Why not try to build a coalition?" It was just "Bin Laden stays over at Saddam's palaces" and "FREEDOM FRIES!!!!" even though fries are Belgian. I'm in journalism myself and wish these people would be asking harder questions.
There is a sign someone put in the window of a building across the street from the Trade Center that I walk by everyday with the quote "Dissention is the highest form of patriotism."If Thomas Jefferson said that 200 years ago, why can't we say that today?
BonoVoxSupastar said:Sting2,
I agree that military spending is important. But to say that Kerry is not for military spending because he didn't pass a certain bill is irresponsible. I don't think every military spending bill is effective, I believe Kerry says he didn't pass these bills because he didn't like the way the funds were being allocated and he would have liked to see it alllocated differently. Bush hasn't been 100% military either, there have benefit cuts he's made during war time.
Salome said:we sort of try to prevent Hitler references over here (and I do think we're being quiet succesfull in keeping the forum clean from that) but in all fairness I don't see the post you quoted as a "Bush is Hitler" type remark
it is one of the most obvious examples of a large group of people being pushed into a certain direction by means of fear
MCCAIN: I would be accused of voting against numerous weapon systems, because I voted against defense appropriations bills because they’re loaded down with pork. And they’re obscene today with all of the pork-barrel spending and multi-trillion dollar deficits. I’ll probably vote against the defense appropriations bill this year. I was accused of voting against breast cancer research because that was on a defense appropriations bill that I voted against, so—
Judah said:Sting2, you're right that a person's senate/congress voting records have to be seen in context...and over a long period of time if possible. Maybe a long history of anti-defense voting may help someone earn the label "weak on defense. "
Most of the info. i can find says Kerry's been not that bad...(i probably need to expand my search; for now, i'll just quote FactCheck.org since they try to be balanced).
"And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate.
"It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. "
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177
A Boston Globe story said questions the whole "so and so voted against this at that one time" arguments:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...4/04/29/cheneys_past_defense_cuts_questioned/
"But support for particular weapons ''is not a very useful way to judge strength or weakness," said a former congressional defense staffer who asked not to be named. Using such a yardstick, he added, President Jimmy Carter was the ''strongest" because his budgets resulted in the weapons that won the 1991 Gulf War."
ThatGuy said:I like this bit from John McCain from an appearance on Hannity and Colmes on May 12, 2004: