and how can the other half of Americans convince themselves that Kerry is really going to change all of this? So it's better to do nothing at all, right? Give change a chance and maybe you'll get it.
People are divided by cultural battle lines this year. Some seem to feel that by voting Bush, it is a statement of their wish for America to take a culturally conservative route that entails the right to life, an agressive world stance, and the ability to hunt turkey with an assault rifle, while many people voting for Kerry seem to believe that though Kerry harbours relatively similar policies (social issues such as abortion aside), he'll do a better
Good stuff, and thanks for the help.
A public servant should be just that. The oppourtunity itself should be enough for the altruistic. There isn't any reason why no monetary means should be given, but the current amounts are over - compensetory.
"Mainstream Democrat" Moore Whoever said this should read Mr. Moore's books. Mike isn't a "mainstream democrat", he's an unabashed hardcore left wing liberal who votes Green party.
GX, I empathize, it's crap I'm voting Kerry this year, but I can't afford the possibility of Bush staying in. Perhaps in an election year where I can afford the luxury to vote third party, I will, as I don't believe a two party system works. I don't believe my vote is synonymous with stupidity or ignorance, but that line is coming from one who will vote for a candidate who currently has less than 1% of the vote according to most polls. </f
I certainly want a civilian goverment official giving military opinions to our commanders......not. What is wrong with people? ...and I'm certain SOD Donald "Rummy" Rumsfield would be very glad to hear you say that. Kripes!
Thanks, Ciperl, and yes, please continue.
Ciperl, it would help if you had links to your sources, then we could have a better understanding of the context of these stories. Your failure to do so makes it difficult for discerning readers to evaluate for themselves your implication that these acts were all comitted by some rabid left wingers. This is no insightful blog, this is pure propaganda for those not critically minded.
Good try, Messy. I, too, have failed miserably at satire, and on this very website, no less!
Ms. Johnson, Thank you for the autobiography, Pam, I certainly have respect for our silver foxes and our gray panthers. This does not mean, however, that you are exempt from young opines pertaining to those such as yourself who would rather bask in diversions then take part in informing oneself of the current politics of the day, which, I would assert, affects you a bit more than a spectator sport
Vote Change so we can see the immense amount of typed cursing coming from the authors of bloggs like this. Hope you didn't spend much time on it...
No, Cheney did not "mean" working". How the heck do you know what he meant anyway? Did you look into his soul? Cheney has a soul? No, wait, I'm getting that mixed up with "heart".
It's simple, Bush policy hasn't served us well these last years, the country is headed not in the wrong direction but into the toilet. Kerry may or may not do any better, but I'm willing to give the most viable alternative the chance, if he fails, his ass is gone too. My statement above certainly refers to my own personal bent on the situation, observations I think only idealogues can be blind to in regards
You still don't get it! The homework assignment that you are refering to was supposed to be done by the CIA no Bush! I understand what you are driving at, that it's not Bush's fault we invaded Iraq based on intelligence he received. I'm telling you that he exaggerated those claims without questioning their veracity and plausibility and that his administration agressively sold the public on
The point I'm making is that, just like Bush at the debates, the homework wasn't done, and the results were disastrous. You are going to tell me that the United States Government doesn't evaluate these reports for their plausibility? When so much intelligence is taken to justify war that falls through, there is a serious problem, either the collective workings of the administration (and that includes G.W.)
...let's see, George Tenet, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Cheney, etc. etc., we had a lot of people assisting Mr. Bush in selling this war, I will not believe he was some uninformed innocent simply because he made the wrong call and has to suffer the consequences of his foolish preemptive action.
It's cynical? Gosh, I seem to recall 4 commercial airliners being hijacked with 3 of them being crashed into buildings in an effort to murder as many Americans as possible. Yep, that happened, but you are betting on what you say will happen if we don't "kill ourselves some terrorists" in Iraq, not what happened. It is important to address the protection of our border
Anyone who thinks that we invaded Iraq primarily because we thought it contained drums of mustard gas or something is ignorant of the facts and deserves nothing but scorn and contempt for their naivete. Regardless, this was the selling point given by the current administration, I doubt much public support would have been given by the people for the war if it were not. Try getting the public behind you to invade North Korea or Iran with
Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. So are the terrorists. And while not an ideal solution, I consider it preferable to Americans fighting and dying here It's cynically speculative to think that Americans would be dying here if we weren't in Iraq. Let's try preventative medicine, not preemptive deception.
Actually most of us who supported the war did not think Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD. We simply considered Saddam's regime to be an unacceptable threat in a post-war Iraq. Perhaps you didn't feel that way, but it's pretty hard to argue that anyone who supported the war did so because they felt there was no imminent threat from WMD's. Why would Saddam's regime be more a threa
Sorry didn't see the debates. . . and why when the Yankees and Twins were playing on Fox. It was probably better then the debates—especially since the "Yankees" lost. Yeah....hey, do you even vote? There was a time in American history when people were more thrilled and involved in politics then they were passively watching some idiots toss a ball around... Sorry, but
Echoing previous Military Times polls and other research, the survey found a group with a close affinity for the Republican Party. About 60 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans, while 13 percent consider themselves Democrats and 20 percent independents. This is correct, I misquoted the Star as saying 35% polled referred to themselves as democrats. This does underline the point that there is crossover among Rep
You'll notice that Edwards kept saying that Cheney was dishonest. This is an attack that would not have worked against Bush. People trust Bush After last nights debate, I came away feeling that Cheney seemed much more trustworthy and competent then the president he serves.
This one goes to Cheney. Edwards was a bit over confident, and got rattled just enough by Cheney to shake his verbal command. He did manage to recover a bit, but by the end of the debate, it was obvious he was out of orbit. It's interesting to note that Cheney was able to appear more competent and knowledgable than Bush ever has.