Comments | pinklola: at saschas request

pinklola

at saschas request

Oct 14, 2004 09:22

Here is a list of 4 topics pertaining to this upcomming debate. Gimme answers and specifics and just maybe i wont vote for bush *muttering-doubtfully*. u guys have approximately 3 weeks to give it a shot ( Read more... )

Comments 13

woobydooby October 14 2004, 07:35:18 UTC

See I'm not a supporter of either canidate (mike badnarik is the canidate i support)...but I'll end up voting for kerry cause I don't want cheney in office. In my opinion, Bush is simply the result of never actually having to work in life. His father and his father's friends have taken care of everything for him, he's breezed by in life and now he's the president...most likely an idea pushed by his father. The real bad guys in office are Bush's administration...you know Bush Sr.'s friends. Cheney has been involved with White house affairs since Nixon (someone who helped get cheney's foot in the door). I feel he's the man really running this country and Cheney is an evil, evil man and needs to not be there anymore. Just my opinion, might be something you haven't really considered...whatever you do on Nov. 2 is up to you dood!

~Val

pinklola October 14 2004, 10:30:11 UTC

well, obviosly you missed my previous posting which said ill not respond to opinion, however...ill entertain: Name one recent day president who wasnt a "priveledged" being. theyve all been pampered, whether by wealth or a large head given by constant admiration. no president to my knowlege (which obviously isnt complete) has risen to presidency from poverty...excluding the founding fathers of our nation, cuz thats all subjective, so i dont see your son of bush sr argument as holding any water. also including that children from more succesful families are more likely to be pushed to threshold then someone from a lesser succesful family a to carry on the family tradition, as to the cheney comment, i simply dont agree...many other people have to deal with these issues before they even reach the president, and his dealings of a vice president hardly ever overlap directly with those of the presidents.

mi6hero006 October 14 2004, 07:45:57 UTC

It isn't my place to tell you which way to vote, so I'm not going to try to convince you to vote Kerry on nov. 2. In response to your questions however...
1.) Not entirely sure on this one... I'll come back to it when I have a little more time to think.
2.) You can never be 100% positive unless you search the country high and low with your own hands, which clearly isn't going to happen. Given the sources that have said that Saddam had no WMDs however, I would say I'm probably about 95% certain that they had no WMDs, and even if they did have starts of them, I doubt they were in operable condition.
3.) Didn't watch the debate, so no comments here.
4.) Cut the military budget. We spend several times what any other country in the world spends on military. Take just a small fraction of the military's budget and you've got money for healthcare. Another fraction and you've got a huge chunk of financial aid. I appologize that I don't have the figures on hand, but they're quite remarkable.
-Eric

pinklola October 14 2004, 10:32:51 UTC

he said in his debate he wants to raise funding to the military to get them done with their job and home sooner...so the money aint commin quickly from their pockets. both candidates agree that with people overseas, its not a good tiem to cut back on military money

guitarzan October 14 2004, 10:00:48 UTC

good frame for a good discussion, jon. here goes ( ... )

guitarzan October 14 2004, 10:00:58 UTC

4) It's a tricky question, as macroeconomics isn't easy to understand, and despite a few economics courses under my belt I would certainly not claim to be an expert in US Economy by any stretch of the imagination. That said, you can see from Kerry's economic plan (which can be found at www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy) there are a few ways that the deficit can be cut without additional taxation. Bush's tax cuts that went through Congress take time to come into affect; the tax reduction for those making over $200K a year takes a few years to kick in. Kerry proposes to rollback those tax cuts before they actually go into affect as a way to keep more money in the government's operating budget. Also, in the 1990s we had Budget Caps which insured that programs aside from Education, Medicare, and Defense would be limited by how much they can grow compared to the rate of inflation in the country. This proverbial tightening of the belt can do quite a bit to help the deficit. There are lots of other little tricks he'd like to try - conserve ( ... )

pinklola October 14 2004, 11:07:25 UTC

responses for andy: is it right to blame bush's entire administration or moreso those who collected this "intelligence"? the bush administration was handed the same documents as anyone else in the house of representatives. sure, their words weigh heavy, but so would any one voice in the group that coulda said...."wait...this aint right". if your gonna remove bush for believing the documents he was handed, i say its time to rotate all the senators etc ( ... )

lastplaceulook October 14 2004, 11:47:16 UTC

1) bush (and i agree with andy, he and his administration are a package deal) was the one who turned our attention to iraq in the first place. osama bin laden was responsible for the destruction of the twin towers. osama bin laden is still free and hiding out somewhere. US special forces were aware of his location in afghanistan soon after the attacks, and yet after the initial attack on afghanistan and the take out of the taliban, the search for bin laden was left in large part to afghan warlords. meanwhile, the gaze of the US turned to saddam hussein and his alleged WMDs in iraq. there was (and still is) no connection between the attacks on 9/11 or bin laden and hussein. and that is where i place bush's fault -- he created a connection in the minds of american people between al queda and iraq. essentially, he lied ( ... )

pinklola October 15 2004, 08:13:51 UTC

agree with the both of yas, elect a prez, you elect his entire administration. they had their heads turned to iraqby this "intelligence" which they were led to be true...as far as i knwo it was some democratic nut job forging these papers to screw over bush. (not saying dems are nut jobs..there are liberal and republican and dictorial nut jobs as well)...the connection that was made was a pathetic one between saddam and osama, but they did make another connection, again...made by intelligence, and later to be proved false. ive looked for it online, but its so deep in the past and theres been so much thats happened since then i can only find small worthless opinionated crap about it. this my friend was what the connection: i believe it was 3...but coulda been 4...pretty sure 3 though, of the highjackers from logan airport were at one point or another in some of saddams huge friggen training camps. not knwoing much of their origin, if they were subjects of saddam or not, also with no evidence at the time that they werent, it looked ( ... )