Democratic Primary Discussion Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Dang...I tried looking up a quote, but "George Bush pray Iraq War" comes up with some pretty freaky stuff when you type it into google. But I can say with certainty that Dubya has mentioned on more than one occasion that he prayed to Jesus about what to do in Iraq, and recieved the answer that invasion was the right thing to do.

Now, maybe Dubya has an open phone line to Jesus, and maybe Jesus had faulty intelligence too and told him to do it, but some how "shock and awe" doesn't seem like the big J's M.O., except for that one time he detonated a Mother of All Bomb(s) outside Jerusalem right after the Last Supper.

.

---

ok, but that is tremendously unfair, Truman mentioned that he prayed for guidence before dropping the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki, and if you look, you will find that most world leaders, regardless of the depth of their religious convictions, will say that they prayed on the subject, its just human nature before making a monumental decision too make an appeal to the highest authority that you feel connected to, its hardly as specific to bush as you point it out to be. the bottom line is that yes, if any of the ostensably christian influenced (or, correctly-interpreted muslim for that matter) truely looked at their faith, they would have no army outside of a strictly defensive force, but that is one of the perks of seperation of church and state, church is fully pacifistic, state must provide for their defence, but anyone who is religious will pray for guidence before making a decision of this level. your prior post makes it sound like bush was launching a crusade not reflecting on his faith before commiting to a military action against a repressive dictator. you can do better than that, bring reality to the plate, not slander and straw-men.

That was very well put Frost.

Bush has always had my vote. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

And they also handed him an economy that was already sinking and a dotcom bubble that already burst.

And then two planes flew into the World Trade Center.

---

Both are very valid. However, three years have passed and we've 3 million fewer jobs and a record deficit. How long can he go on blaming 9/11?

Quote:

---

The democrats also handed Dubya a shitload of documents and testimonials about Iraq's nuclear weapons capabilities.

---

Maybe so, but there wasn't anything there they thought was worth invading over.

So now here we are, a year later, and no WMD. No Saddam links to 9/11 either. I guess "freeing the Iraqui people" will have to suffice as justification, as the first two reasons didn't pan out. While toppling Saddam was noble, it would have sold better if it had been labeled as the primary reason for invading instead of WMDs.

I was watching Bush's commercials today. I'm not surprised he's going the "great leader and Commander in Chief" route. It's not like he can fill half a minute with his domestic victories. I do think, however, that he's wrong by going positive. He needs to attack Kerry and start defining him now, otherwise the Dems will nail him. The economy has never been a friend to the Bush family and Kerry knows this. He's going to play it out for all it's worth. As long as Bush trumpets Iraq and Afghanistan and doesn't attack Kerry's liberal record, he's doing the Dems a favor. I do think he'll go negative when his poll numbers don't move much. Politicians always do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nic0

That was very well put Frost.

Bush has always had my vote. ;)

---

strangely, my vote is not assured, i dotn like kerry, but bush has not impressed me, he has spent liek a fucking democrat, the war,while i agree something had to be done, he really did a lot wrong in dealing with other countries,and he carries a strong taint of corruption with how he handled bigger buisnesses that behaved badly, plus he is just too vulnerable with his past. if anythign i hope we get him in just so we can run a republican with vision and character after him, if kerry gets in, the leadership could try to force him on us again. If you excuse me, i have to go cry over my photo of john mcCaine(who i respect, despite misspelling his name), a cantidate who would have eaten kerry and gore for lunch in back to back shots and pissed them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

Maybe so, but there wasn't anything there they thought was worth invading over.

---

no it was just worth running bombing runs when clinton was getting impeached. cry me a river

Moderate to Conservative Democrat President, Conservative Congress. That's the way it ought to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

no it was just worth running bombing runs when clinton was getting impeached. cry me a river

---

Which is obviously the same thing in terms of military commitment, spending, and U.S. lives lost...

no just unprovoked aggression resulting in lost lives, kind of passive aggresive really, you fly some planes over, kill a few people, dont really have any justification to speak of, just kind of fly off and attack another country , clearly the action of a clearer thinking man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone

Moderate to Conservative Democrat President, Conservative Congress. That's the way it ought to be.

---

bah, conservative democrat, are you familiar with william casey? its the reason i left the democratic party in high school and joined the young republicans. democrats are a big tent,if you agree with everything th party tells you to, otherwise you get shut out.

There's not a lot of room for moderates in either party - the Democrats have Lieberman, the Republicans McCain, and a handful of other people on either side, that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

no just unprovoked aggression resulting in lost lives, kind of passive aggresive really, you fly some planes over, kill a few people, dont really have any justification to speak of, just kind of fly off and attack another country , clearly the action of a clearer thinking man.

---

Notice I didn't include morality in my comparison? Neither is morally sound.


...and I'd be a fool to argue morality when Bill Clinton is involved. :p

I was referring to cost and U.S. lives lost. When you send 139,000 troops to a foreign country, you tend to need better justification than when you send some planes to bomb.

I was slowly heading down the road towards "moderate" up until a few weeks ago.

Now, this FCC stuff is turning me into a conspiracy theorist. The Fellowship is brought up on the AP and they're shown to be actual members of Senate and Congress? There's a push being made for a ban on same-sex marriages? Howard Stern starts complaining about Bush and suddenly he's off six stations, with another heavy fine coming up this weekend against him for supposed indecency (and he most likely will be taken off all channels)? We get attacked by terrorists and now we're using it as an motivation for reduction of civil rights and an excuse for aggression against other countries? The economy is doing poorly (check NY Times - February job growth stalled) so the people are willing to accept scapegoats for such things? My common sense says to take these things as they are, as I've been doing.

It's getting harder to control my inner rebel, though.