Anti-kerry Film Sparks Dnc Response

[USAir757]

Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever. He got to the Oval Office the good old fashioned American way...connections. How can a guy who got a 2.32 grade average at Yale get so far? C'mon. Our Presidents need to be exceptional; and let's face it, Bush junior is far from exceptional.

Funny how about 50% of this great nation of people would completely disagree with that statement. I guess that won't do much justice to your historical prediction.

Where's NWA/AMT on this "vitriol"? You only call it when they disagree with you, eh?

 

[KCFlyer]

im none too pleased with the direction this country is headed, i have reservation's about iraq, i also feel we are in a precarious sitiuation with our allies but john kerry is not "exceptional" and regardless who wins the oval office we as a nation are going to be hated for the simple fact we exist as a super power. 9/11 did not happen because of "W" the islamic fanatics tried to bring down the world trade center in '93' they hate us and everything we stand for. they call this a jihad or holy war and will stop at nothing to kill every non-muslim, we are fighting an enemy who thinks martyrdom is a one way ticket to heaven. we better be ready to defend this nation at all cost because they are determined to destroy us at all cost.

[post="191954"][/post]​

You are correct. But I don't think our current commander in chief helps matter when the message he sends is "Our God's better than your God". In the eyes of a radical Islamic fundamentalist, what is the difference between flying a plane into a building in the name of Allah, and sending troops to bomb cities (with considerable "collateral damage) while asking for God's guidance....Then saying it's not a holy war?

 

[NWA/AMT]

Where's NWA/AMT on this "vitriol"? You only call it when they disagree with you, eh?

[post="191977"][/post]​

Because his comments were obviously his assessment of George Bush, just as so many here, including yourself, have assessed John Kerry, rather than attacking his fellow posters as your caustic comments did, you're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[local 12 proud]

You are correct. But I don't think our current commander in chief helps matter when the message he sends is "Our God's better than your God". In the eyes of a radical Islamic fundamentalist, what is the difference between flying a plane into a building in the name of Allah, and sending troops to bomb cities (with considerable "collateral damage) while asking for God's guidance....Then saying it's not a holy war?

[post="191978"][/post]​

i agree the president should not wear his religious beliefs on his sleeve but i truly fail to see where bush has turned this around to "our God's better than your God". im certain Iraq "Sadam" would have eventually needed to be dealt with, but we should have surely finished the taliban off first. we as a nation can never afford to let our guard down again, 9/11 hopefully has changed the way all our leaders will see this enemy but when someone who wishes to hold the highest office of the U.S. say's things like "we should treat terrorism like a nuisance" it has me somewhat concerned about their ability to lead. im sorry but i find this terrorist threat somewhat more that just an inconvenience. we are in Iraq be it right, wrong, or indifferent but now we must complete the job and get out, because we may have much bigger fish to fry before to long! BTW i have stated i have reservations about both bush and kerry and im not sure either is up to the task that lies ahead for our country.

 

[KCFlyer]

i agree the president should not wear his religious beliefs on his sleeve but i truly fail to see where bush has turned this around to "our God's better than your God". im certain Iraq "Sadam" would have eventually needed to be dealt with, but we should have surely finished the taliban off first. we as a nation can never afford to let our guard down again, 9/11 hopefully has changed the way all our leaders will see this enemy but when someone who wishes to hold the highest office of the U.S. say's things like "we should treat terrorism like a nuisance" it has me somewhat concerned about their ability to lead. im sorry but i find this terrorist threat somewhat more that just an inconvenience. we are in Iraq be it right, wrong, or indifferent but now we must complete the job and get out, because we may have much bigger fish to fry before to long! BTW i have stated i have reservations about both bush and kerry and im not sure either is up to the task that lies ahead for our country.

[post="191995"][/post]​

I don't think that Kerry views terrorism as a nuisance. And I don't believe he'd "wait for another attack" either, although the Bush campaign is trying to portray Kerry as holding both those thoughts. IMHO, Kerry would not wait for another attack, but I also don't believe that he would go in one meeting, present "facts", say "my way or the highway", and then go off and do what he wanted to in the first place. Does it mean that we'd hold off and hold off indefinately until a member of the UN finally came around? No. But if it means holding off until April 1 instead of attacking on March 1, then how much more "exposed" are we? Hell, one month into the Iraq war, some of the "facts" were turning out to be less than accurate. Imagine if we had given the UN just one more month...and more importantly, imagine if we actually listened to what those other countries were saying instead of going "Uh-huh, uh huh, yeah, well your either with us or against us" and then head out alone.

As far as terrorism being a nuisance. You can sort of see that today. Look at Israel They have fairly regular terrorist attacks on them. It's become a part of life. And if you think the Israelis have sat idly by, well, you haven't read much news. Yep, the world has changed. But if you think that attacking every country we suspect of harboring terrorists will protect us from future attack, I'm afraid you'll find yourself sadly disappointed.

 

[atabuy]

Funny how about 50% of this great nation of people would completely disagree with that statement. I guess that won't do much justice to your historical prediction.

Where's NWA/AMT on this "vitriol"? You only call it when they disagree with you, eh?

[post="191977"][/post]​

757,
I would not class them as supid, as much as I would, not having good judgement.
Bush's record four the first term surely shows his failures and lack of making changes that would help the American people.

With that said, a person who votes for Bush because he is a republican, shows they do not think for themselves and go on party lines.
Bush is not for the majority of the people and takes care of the elite, which I assume, 50% of the people in this country think they are.

We cannot afford 4 more years of a man who is lowering our standard of living and raising our deficits which we are all going to have to pay for, with higher inflation, lower paying jobs.

 

[local 12 proud]

kc i never suggested attacking every country we suspect of harboring terrorist, my god that would imply invading the whole middle east and many other parts of the world. there is no doubt this is a GLOBAL conflict and we need as many allies fighting along side us as we can influence, but we must also be on the offense not just the defense. these "terrorist" have a fundamentally different view of the world than you or I and are hell bent on having it their way. will john kerry be a better leader? i really don't know, but im not pleased with his record in the senate because i fail to see his leadership skill's in that regard. am i pleased that G.W. rushed into Iraq? NO, but we still have to finish the job. im not happy we now have the largest national debt in history, im not happy that we are bearing over 90% of the cost of this conflict, indeed ive said Bush has made error's in judgement and that im not sure he is up to the Huge task that lies ahead, but im equally unsure about kerry's ability. i do know Big Government and Taxes will not solve the ills of this country, but i do agree that both are needed to an extent or we will implode. who ever wins in November has a full plate and we as a Nation should get behind him and not be so devided, we have worse enemies than those "damned ole demican's or republicrat's"

 

[USAir757]

I would not class them as supid, as much as I would, not having good judgement.
Bush's record four the first term surely shows his failures and lack of making changes that would help the American people.

With that said, a person who votes for Bush because he is a republican, shows they do not think for themselves and go on party lines.
Bush is not for the majority of the people and takes care of the elite, which I assume, 50% of the people in this country think they are.

That is quite bold of you to suggest that half of this country does "not have good judgement." It is also completely erroneous to say that 50% of this country is, or thinks they are, among the "elite", and that is why they are going to vote for Bush. I'm sure if you read back on these boards to the pro-Bush posts, you will find many more reasons as to why they will put forward a Bush/Cheney vote on November 2nd, not the least of which is that they don't want to leave this country in the hands of an inconsistent and liberal Senator.

But thanks for not classifying me as "stupid." That's quite a compliment from an obvious democrat.

We cannot afford 4 more years of a man who is lowering our standard of living and raising our deficits which we are all going to have to pay for, with higher inflation, lower paying jobs.

John Kerry says he is going to raise taxes to the wealthy ($200k+/yr), raise the minimum wage to $7+/hr, and still create jobs in America? Who do you think employs these people who are making minimum wage? If you're going to tax them more, and then raise the wage they have to pay, you're going to see more layoffs, not create jobs. It's Economics 101 folks.

 

[KCFlyer]

you will find many more reasons as to why they will put forward a Bush/Cheney vote on November 2nd, not the least of which is that they don't want to leave this country in the hands of an inconsistent and liberal Senator. ...

[post="192026"][/post]​

Why wait? I proudly voted for that "inconsistent and liberal senator" (as opposed to the "consistent but wrong consevative") on Friday. My state has advance voting which started on the 13th and runs thru election day. Sure makes it convenient. Not to worry though guys....my state hasn't leaned to the GOP since 1964, but one never knows...I've seen a LOT more Kerry/Edwards signs, even in "upscale, traditionally republican" neighborhoods than I have for any democratic candidate in any other election in the past 16 years.

 

[NWA/AMT]

we as a nation can never afford to let our guard down again, 9/11 hopefully has changed the way all our leaders will see this enemy but when someone who wishes to hold the highest office of the U.S. say's things like "we should treat terrorism like a nuisance" it has me somewhat concerned about their ability to lead.

[post="191995"][/post]​

I don't think John Kerry's comments,

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance..."

and

''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

mean that he views terrorism as a nuisance by any means. I think they represent a far more realistic view of the world than that put forth by George Bush.

To think that we will ever 'eradicate' terrorism is to engage in wishful thinking. As the sole remaining superpower there will always be those who wish to attack us and, lacking the ability to do so in standard military terms, they will resort to terrorism to do so. I believe that Kerry's comments reflect that reality and I believe he offers us a realistic method of dealing with them.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_s.../terrorism.html

We have lived with terrorism from various sources at the periphery of our lives for decades, and to a far lesser extent than many other nations. The history of Israel and Nothern Ireland are two that come quickly to mind. Even the French, who we deride as not understanding terrorism, have lived with it for quite a while as the Algerian separatists brought their attacks to French soil.

What 9/11 did was make us realize just how dangerous, and how prevalent, such threats are and how deeply rooted such hatred for us is. Attacks against Americans are not something new but the fact that Presidents (from BOTH parties) have failed to realistically address the issue has not helped.

I, for one, would much rather see us reach a point where terrorism can be dealt with as a criminal issue because I believe that terrorism is a crime against humanity and that those who use such methods are criminals. Like Kerry, I hope we someday reach a point where that is possible.

im not happy we now have the largest national debt in history, im not happy that we are bearing over 90% of the cost of this conflict, indeed ive said Bush has made error's in judgement and that im not sure he is up to the Huge task that lies ahead, but im equally unsure about kerry's ability.

[post="192014"][/post]​

While I opposed, and continue to oppose, the decision to invade Iraq, I agree that now that we are there we will have to deal with the situation. I don't believe that George Bush is dealing with the realities of Iraq as much as he is trying to imprint what he wants Iraq to be on Iraq, and I don't believe that this is a viable solution. We have never been able to achieve success when we have tried such things in the past and I see no evidence that he has come up with a more successful plan in this instance.

What I don't want to see is for us to 'declare victory' and leave Iraq to its own devices as the world did with Afghanistan after the Soviets were withdrew. The vacuum created there allowed the Taliban to come to power and allowed Al Qaeda a safe haven to plot and plan. If we leave Iraq with a system that will not work for them so that we can disengage ourselves from Iraq, we risk making that mistake again. I think that John Kerry's plan for "winning the peace" in Iraq offers a far greater potential for real success.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

 

[sentrido]

John Kerry says he is going to raise taxes to the wealthy ($200k+/yr), raise the minimum wage to $7+/hr, and still create jobs in America? Who do you think employs these people who are making minimum wage? If you're going to tax them more, and then raise the wage they have to pay, you're going to see more layoffs, not create jobs. It's Economics 101 folks.

[post="192026"][/post]​

raising the minimum wage does not cause layoffs, and certainly not when its phased in over time. It may raise the cost of a big mac slightly though.

As for the tax cuts vs. job creation, demand creates jobs, not tax cuts. Thats why the current cuts have done such a lousy job. Just cause you have more money, doesnt mean you are going to creat more jobs with it if there is no demand. I learned that in Economics 115.

 

[local 12 proud]

I don't think John Kerry's comments,

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance..."

and

''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

mean that he views terrorism as a nuisance by any means. I think they represent a far more realistic view of the world than that put forth by George Bush.

To think that we will ever 'eradicate' terrorism is to engage in wishful thinking. As the sole remaining superpower there will always be those who wish to attack us and, lacking the ability to do so in standard military terms, they will resort to terrorism to do so. I believe that Kerry's comments reflect that reality and I believe he offers us a realistic method of dealing with them.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_s.../terrorism.html

We have lived with terrorism from various sources at the periphery of our lives for decades, and to a far lesser extent than many other nations. The history of Israel and Nothern Ireland are two that come quickly to mind. Even the French, who we deride as not understanding terrorism, have lived with it for quite a while as the Algerian separatists brought their attacks to French soil.

What 9/11 did was make us realize just how dangerous, and how prevalent, such threats are and how deeply rooted such hatred for us is. Attacks against Americans are not something new but the fact that Presidents (from BOTH parties) have failed to realistically address the issue has not helped.

I, for one, would much rather see us reach a point where terrorism can be dealt with as a criminal issue because I believe that terrorism is a crime against humanity and that those who use such methods are criminals. Like Kerry, I hope we someday reach a point where that is possible.
While I opposed, and continue to oppose, the decision to invade Iraq, I agree that now that we are there we will have to deal with the situation. I don't believe that George Bush is dealing with the realities of Iraq as much as he is trying to imprint what he wants Iraq to be on Iraq, and I don't believe that this is a viable solution. We have never been able to achieve success when we have tried such things in the past and I see no evidence that he has come up with a more successful plan in this instance.

What I don't want to see is for us to 'declare victory' and leave Iraq to its own devices as the world did with Afghanistan after the Soviets were withdrew. The vacuum created there allowed the Taliban to come to power and allowed Al Qaeda a safe haven to plot and plan. If we leave Iraq with a system that will not work for them so that we can disengage ourselves from Iraq, we risk making that mistake again. I think that John Kerry's plan for "winning the peace" in Iraq offers a far greater potential for real success.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/iraq.html

[post="192042"][/post]​

NWA/AMT first i would like to express my gratitude for you and your sons service to our country, there are no greater hero's than those willing to lay down thier lives to protect and serve this wonderful place we call home and i truly stand in admiration of all our troops. you have some very insightful views about this war on terrorism and i truly appreciate your shared concern. ive read kerry's plans on the terrorist threat and it all sounds very good, but my question is can he deliver and in fact is he really genuine because in my oppinion we cannot afford to relent. ive never been one to vote straight party line, i try to look at who i think would do the best job for our country as a whole and not just for "ME". you are dead on in regards to staying the course in Iraq or we risk leaving it a worse place than when we entered, but to tell you the truth in researching history i have serious doubts about ever democritizing that region of the world. as i stated in my previous post the next president has an enormous job ahead and we should all unite, his job will be most burdensome to say the least.

 

[USAir757]

raising the minimum wage does not cause layoffs, and certainly not when its phased in over time. It may raise the cost of a big mac slightly though.

If you want to argue that it won't cause layoffs, then fine. I disagree. But what is for certain is that small businesses that employ minimum to slightly above minimum wage people will likely not go and hire that next employee if Kerry's proposed 35% wage increase hits their payroll across the board. So it does nothing to generate jobs in our economy. The price of a Big Mac is irrelevant, because a huge corporation like McDonald's is used to absorbing the democrats increases in the minimum wage. It is the small business sector (an unparalleled portion of our economy) that will suffer the most, and I'll say it again... JOBS WON'T BE CREATED, and we'll see even more companies shipping jobs offshore.

 

[KCFlyer]

If you want to argue that it won't cause layoffs, then fine. I disagree. But what is for certain is that small businesses that employ minimum to slightly above minimum wage people will likely not go and hire that next employee if Kerry's proposed 35% wage increase hits their payroll across the board. So it does nothing to generate jobs in our economy. The price of a Big Mac is irrelevant, because a huge corporation like McDonald's is used to absorbing the democrats increases in the minimum wage. It is the small business sector (an unparalleled portion of our economy) that will suffer the most, and I'll say it again... JOBS WON'T BE CREATED, and we'll see even more companies shipping jobs offshore.

[post="192067"][/post]​

YEt a company who pays considerably higher than minimum wage (Sprint Corporation), recently announced an additional 700 layoffs. That's on top of the previous 10,000 plus layoffs. And this after Bush's tax cuts. Maybe he didn't cut deep enough. But I have an idea that even if he eliminated corporate taxes (and hey, maybe he can buy them a ticket to Bermuda where they can do just that), we'd still be seeing layoffs. Don't know where it ends, but it seems that we've lost Henry Fords vision of paying a worker enough to buy the product that they provide, thus insuring a very large pool of consumers.

 

[NWA/AMT]

NWA/AMT first i would like to express my gratitude for you and your sons service to our country, there are no greater hero's than those willing to lay down thier lives to protect and serve this wonderful place we call home and i truly stand in admiration of all our troops.

[post="192063"][/post]​

Thank you, I'll pass your kind words along.

you have some very insightful views about this war on terrorism and i truly appreciate your shared concern.

And I appreciate yours. Thank you again.

ive read kerry's plans on the terrorist threat and it all sounds very good, but my question is can he deliver and in fact is he really genuine because in my oppinion we cannot afford to relent.

That's the question for ANY politician anytime on any subject. I think he can and I think he will. There are a few issues where I disagree with John Kerry to some degree, but on this one I believe he has a plan that will work and the will to carry it out.

ive never been one to vote straight party line, i try to look at who i think would do the best job for our country as a whole and not just for "ME".

Exactly. As someone who helped campaign for Barry Goldwater in '64, although not old enough to vote myself at the time, and who still believes in the many of the 'old school' Republican ideas like fiscal responsibility, I often find it ironic to find myself referred to as a 'Liberal Democrat" because I disagree on some issue with those currently running the Republican party.

you are dead on in regards to staying the course in Iraq or we risk leaving it a worse place than when we entered, but to tell you the truth in researching history i have serious doubts about ever democritizing that region of the world.

As I alluded to in an earlier post in this thread, there are reasons any "Middle Eastern Democracies Club" would have problems with a recruiting drive. The work of trying to help a people who have never known a democratic form of government would be hard enough but if we disregard the role that the Islamic religion plays in their society we are doing the Iraqis and ourselves a real, and very dangerous, disservice. I think it's important for us to realize the realities facing anyone trying to combine the two, often incompatible, concepts, and realize that there are no quick fixes.

One of the reasons I opposed going into Iraq is because I believe that, once there, we are committed to a endeavor that may take generations to complete successfully and to the costs, human and monetary, associated with that endeavor.

as i stated in my previous post the next president has an enormous job ahead and we should all unite, his job will be most burdensome to say the least.

I hope that we are able to. I know that, for my part, I will try to.