Bush is getting desperate in his campaign.

[Ramo]

Because he disagreed with the way the bill would funded. It's as simple as that. This isn't worse than a lie, a lie, or even marginally dishonest.

I believe that forcing the Iraqi people to pay for our corporate welfare would've been a sleezebag thing to do, but that isn't the argument the GOP or you are trotting out.

[Ramo]

It's what this thread is about is it not? I figured we might as well have a discussion about it.

It's sad that you believe that they're true.

What is it with you and your hypocritical cries for honesty in the midst of a Presidential campaign?

I'm responding to you, not Rove or Carville. So I don't see the "hypocrisy."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
<-- Proud to be a liberal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Do you think the President's decision to cut taxes without cutting federal spending -- indeed, while increasing Federal spending -- was a good idea or a bad idea at this time?"

or this way...

"After the recent balanced budgets submitted to congress by President Clinton, do you think President Bush's idea of returning to unbalanced budgets and running a deficit is a good idea or a bad idea at this time?"

Do you really think you'd get the same level of support for the prez with such questions?

Seeing as how the general policy question (ie, everything except the first one... I don't know why you keep harping on the first one, when I said that wasn't what I was focusing on... perhaps because it is the only one that makes your point?) are either or questions which are neutral and fair, I think they are very representative of the population.

Still haven't provided counter polls.

Neo-cons are doing stuff outside of the country, which pleases a certain traditionaly conservative crowd.

It also happens that they're doing stuff in America that doesn't seem to be in touch with traditional conservatism.

Still, they get the traditionally conservative vote. My spin on this is that terrorism has become a major issue for Americans, and thus foreign policy is overshadowing domestic mistakes.

The original claim made was that Buchanan was whining that neo-conservatives were increasing domestic spending when neo-conservativism has nothing to do with domestic policy.

People can act like neo-conservatives in foriegn policy, but that doesn't mean they are acting under that moniker in domestic policy. Like a person can act like a liberal in the American domestic policy but that doesn't mean he has to act like a liberal in foreign policy. Seeing as neo-conservativism does not have a domestic component, a person who is a neo-con in foriegn policy cannot be labeled with the same term in his domestic policies.

For example there are Democrats who are Neo-conservatives. I don't think most would consider Scoop Jackson (former Democratic Senator) to be in favor of Bush's current policies.

[MrFun]

thanks for the info, Imran

[Fake Boris]

But Imran that's just it, he's complaining that neo-cons are still sucking conservative votes. The fallacy in his statement was, it seems like, to assume that this voting crowd is in essence 'truly' conservative (hence his talking about a perversion, decadence, etc).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
From what I gather, liberal has become something of an insult in middle America Just like "libertarian" or "Jew" was an insult in Nazi Germany... idiots prefer labels to fabric, as it were.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I happen to think, in my opinion, that stupidity leads to conservatism... just as I happen to think find racism and homophobia to be "bad things".

I don't know about you, but I find comparing things like this to be amusing.

Does whaleboy have any other brilliant observations to share with us?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Which doesn't say much about American voters. Apparently, y'all can be swayed by name calling.

"Did ya hear that Mabel? That Kerry fellow's a Liberal. I ain't gonna vote for him no way."
[My attempt at classic, proper Elizabethan English]

I can't believe you would post something like that with a straight face after the last Canadian election.

[Drachasor]

It is a simple fact that the Bush administration has engaged in a campaign of lies and deceptions against the American people.

Does Kerry lie too? Yes. Does Kerry lie as much? Not by a long shot. Are Kerry's lies nearly as egregious as Bush's? Generally, not by a long shot.

Kerry is clearly the more honest and upstanding candidate in terms of honesty. He is also the more fiscally responsible candidate, as neutral groups have found his math to add up on his health care proposal for instance (which is not government-run healthcare). He is likewise the candidate that will be tougher on terror because he will truly work with our allies and build strong coalitions. You need the entire world acting together as much as possible to fight terrorism, and Bush isn't interested in that. On every major issue, Kerry has a stronger position than Bush does, so the Bush team is forced to use negative appellations and lies against Kerry.

When you consider that the Bush administration had information that Al Qaeda was planning an attack (a memo entitled "Bin Laden intent on attack within the U.S." that Rice claimed didn't say anything about an internal attack); When you consider that Bush could have looked into Iraq's WMD situation carefully by using the inspectors but didn't; When you consider that Bush wildly spends money and doesn't cut a dang thing nor can he veto *anything*; When you consider that they lie a lot more than Kerry (go add up the lies on Factcheck.org); When you consider that they regularly totally distort what their opponents say; When you consider that they aggressively attack anyone that disagrees with them, even compromising secret agent security to do so; When you consider that they refuse to listen to advice from those that disagree with them; When you consider that we have a President that is woefully ignorant of the world, not even knowing that Sweden is not Switzerland; When you consider that they ignored the advice and help of the former administration, an administration that knew an attack was coming; When you consider that they have alienated our long-term allies for a quagmire in the middle-east and no gain; When you consider they are seemingly incapable of admitting error; When you consider that when faced with facts that they are in the wrong, they take no steps to alter how they are handling the situation; When you consider they have no qualms about making a sky-rocketing deficiet; When you consider they promise things like the ability to invest some of your social security money, but there is no money to fund such a change; When you consider they are totally disconnected from the American worker; When you consider that they freely use the term "unpatriotic" against those they disagree with; When you consider they use 9/11 for political ends; And when you consider that every Super-power of the past fell when they decided they no longer needed the aid and help of their allies...

When you consider all this, only someone woefully ignorant of what is going on or woefully misguiding into thinking that honesty, integrity, and basic decency towards others doesn't matter that much would vote for Bush.

he media has failed us, my friends, for they refuse to call people on their lies, painting a picture that Bush and Kerry are equally honest. They have failed is in forgetting that they have a responsibility to let people know the truth. They have failed us in forgetting that most Americans believe what they see on T.V. and making no effort to make what they show take into account the profound affect they have on the American people. They have failed us, and because of that a President that should be below 40% in the polls (and likely lower) has a fighting chance of winning.

So, hard-core Bush supporters, continue with your distortions and your support of a President that freely and willingly lies. Just know that if you ever complain about how you can't trust politicians, then you have helped and supported the problem. Everyone else needs to look at the big picture of Bush, the media, and the American people, and see just how much room for improvement there is.

-Drachasor

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because he disagreed with the way the bill would funded. It's as simple as that. This isn't worse than a lie, a lie, or even marginally dishonest.

Who is being dishonest? After 20 years in the senate you'ld think he'ld know that there is give and take on every bill. Apparently he felt tax cut issues of more supreme importance then the well being of the troops.

Yey Kerry!

But as everyone knows that is simple spin meistering on his part. His own campaign admitted "off the record" it was done for political expediency as Dean was making inroads with the rabid anti-war crowd.

Yey Kerry!

[Ramo]

Tax cut issues aren't directly related to this - the issue, if you were paying attention, was whether the reconstruction funds would be offered as a grant or a loan. As for the "well-being of the troops," if you believe that another attempt at funding the troops wouldn't have been made if the bill went down, you're totally delusional; in any case, it was simply a protest vote since there was no chance in hell of stopping the bill. So yes, saying that Kerry wanted to leave the troops on the field without support is pretty damn dishonest.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo
So yes, saying that Kerry wanted to leave the troops on the field without support is pretty damn dishonest.

Regardless of the fact that it is how he voted .



Also, as Drachasor recommended, I just checked out factcheck.org. The whole front page is filled with Kerry lies. Kerry supporters just don't have a clue.

[Ramo]

Regardless of the fact that it is how he voted .

Again it was a protest vote that had no chance of blocking the bill, and he wanted a law that was funded differently wrt reconstruction. I don't see what's so complicated about this.

[Ramo]

Also, as Drachasor recommended, I just checked out factcheck.org. The whole front page is filled with Kerry lies. Kerry supporters just don't have a clue.

Duh. They both lie. It's just that Bush lies a lot more.

And the front page is about half and half, BTW.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

Regardless of the fact that it is how he voted .

Again it was a protest vote that had no chance of blocking the bill, and he wanted a law that was funded differently wrt reconstruction. I don't see what's so complicated about this.

Again, it is how he voted . I don't see what is very complicated about that at all. He went on the record as against supporting the troops...period. Anything else is just spin.