Bush takes large lead on Kerry: latest polls

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 6 2004, 04:07 PM
As Tranny likes to say, Wow! I guess when the US decides to bend Canada over for the Alberta tar sands , through either economic pressure, political or military intervention, the tune will change quickly

LOL....what???

It was an extreme example to try and get people to consider the plight of others. When is the line drawn and when do you finally say that what is happening is wrong? Does something have to happen in your own backyard before you pull your head out of the sand and speak out against it? Would a move against Canada be the only way for people to consider the United States wrong? Maybe a better, and more kind example, would be if the US slapped a 500% tarrif on soft wood, wheat and beef imports to try and get a sweetheart of a deal on Canadian fossil fuel reserves. Would that get the cockles up a bit and seem a little oppressive?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Why would I want to debate you Lanny? You know everything. Always have always will.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 6 2004, 04:47 PM

When is the line drawn and when do you finally say that what is happening is wrong? Does something have to happen in your own backyard before you pull your head out of the sand and speak out against it?

Funny, that's exactly what many have said about terrorism.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 6 2004, 04:55 PM

Funny, that's exactly what many have said about terrorism.

Yup, that is correct. And what is the proper response to terrorism? Invading a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on America, or going after the terrorist threat itself? Don't answer that. You'll only paint yourself into a further corner.

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 6 2004, 04:06 PM

He won't? That's what has been dominating his stump stop speeches. He has plenty to talk about too....12 straight months of job creation, a declining unemployment rate and record home ownership for those of us that he 'sold out' in the middle class.

I'm better off since Bush took office DESPITE losing a great job to 9-11. I'm not the only one.

You're swallowing the Kerry/Edwards lines. I'm living a different story than they are telling.

12 straight months of minimal job growth much below what is needed to sustain an economy let alone grow it. Bush is not even keeping up with the average population growth of the USA. Declining unemployment is a subjective number since it is based on citizens actually applying for Unemployment benefits. I think many people have just given up, hoping for a different regime with different results. Record home ownership is Bush's one positive economic indicator that he can campaign on that will be hard to argue with, although Greenspan's low interest rates that are suppose to stimulate a flagging economy may have something to do with the low mortgage rates and thus more emphasis on home ownership.

I would love to see Bush and Kerry talk about
1) Deficits, how much is enough and how much is too much?
2) Taxes, who should they be cut for
3) Medicare
4) Compassionate Conservatism (like the Olympics, it arrives every four years)
5) The Environment, how much should we pollute the earth
6) Social Security
7) Education
8) The fact that the jobs that are being "replaced" are much lower paying than the ones that have been lost
9) Corporate corruption at Haliburton in 98,99 and whether high ranking officials were responsible (I just like this one, do not know how much it has to do with the national debate
10) Cheney's national energy program circa 2001/2002 and the price of gasoline at the pumps.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Sep 6 2004, 05:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Sep 6 2004, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Sep 6 2004, 04:55 PM

Funny, that's exactly what many have said about terrorism.

Yup, that is correct. And what is the proper response to terrorism? Invading a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on America, or going after the terrorist threat itself? Don't answer that. You'll only paint yourself into a further corner. [/b][/quote]
I'm not in a corner Lanny.

The US and it's allies have been going after the terroist threat itself...all over the world. To date, 3/4 of the known Al-Qaeda leadership have been captured or killed.

Iraq may not have been involved in the attack on the US, but it was harboring a terrorist who killed a US citizen in a terrorist act and it's 'unanimously elected' leader was funding terroist attacks on our allies.

Said leader was also known to be in posession of copious amounts of really bad stuff and did not account for it's whereabouts or it's destruction when prodded to do so umpteen times by International Law that you hold so dear...yet the law was not enforced. Ever.

That's enough for me...it might not be for you...that's fine.

[EddyBeers]

I forgot to ask how you are better off, what has Bush done to make you feel or actually be better off than you were under Clinton?

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'd like to see them both talk about many of those issues as well EB. Unfortunately all John Kerry wants to talk about is George Bush.

Again, 12 straight months of job growth is 12 straight months of job growth. Minimal or not.

As I said, I'm living a different story than Kerry is telling...and I'm a typical middle class American who lost his job due to 9-11. That's says something whether you want it to or not.

[CaramonLS]

Drive bys by telling you to watch the Daily show?

LOL Dis someone is a little defensive on this board.

As for the Hallaburton question I ASKED YOU WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE ON THE ISSUE OF HALLIBURTON.

I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU THINK GETTING A LARGE AMOUNT OF CONTRACTS IN IRAQ AND IF IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CONNECTIONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

CAN I MAKE IT CLEARER THAN THAT?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 6 2004, 08:43 AM
The Nazi's of the mid thirties were a party that was considered on the extreme right (like Neo-Conservatives in today's world).

The key word there is 'considered'.

Today's Neo cons are 'considered' on the far right realtive to the rest of the world. Thats fair. If you think they're anywhere near Fascist you have a very poor understanding of history.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Sep 6 2004, 05:16 PM
I forgot to ask how you are better off, what has Bush done to make you feel or actually be better off than you were under Clinton?

Well, that's a tough question and not really a fair one to President Clinton. He was elected in 1992 and I was 21 at the time. Kind of hard for me not to be better off now than I was then....

but, I'm better off now than I was January of 2000. I own a home which I could not afford then despite making more money then. My tax burden has decreased (it decreased under Clinton as well). Bush's extension of Unemployment benefits helped bridge the 10 month gap I had between jobs. His massive funding of the Workforce Investment Act and TRA (a similar program I've forgotten what the acronym stands for) paid for 2 years of further education.

Since the purchase of my home, my kids are now in one of the best school districts in the state of Kansas as opposed to the inner city school that they were attending for all their school years prior because I could not afford to get us out of the neighborhood. I've spent $12,000 getting my daughter caught up to her current class level when the previous district said she was where she was supposed to be. She wasn't. Said neighborhood was crime riddled and we had a very traumatic and personal collision with a crime in that neighborhood. The lax laws in this country regarding pedohphiles are an issue I'll take up with EVERY candidated for every office as a result of this incident. This person will be out in less than 10 years and that's disgusting. I'd like to see harsher penalties for them.

The one area where I'm not better off is health insurance...I had a great and FREE plan at Boeing (wonder why I lost my job after 9/11?) and I haven't had insurance since as the job I got doesn't offer insurance.....until tomorrow...I've been promoted and my family will once again have affordable health insurance.

Fair enough?

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 6 2004, 05:18 PM
I'd like to see them both talk about many of those issues as well EB. Unfortunately all John Kerry wants to talk about is George Bush.

Again, 12 straight months of job growth is 12 straight months of job growth. Minimal or not.

As I said, I'm living a different story than Kerry is telling...and I'm a typical middle class American who lost his job due to 9-11. That's says something whether you want it to or not.

Well first off, I think that you have to talk about Bush when you talk about those issues, he is the man who has been responsible for the last four years. 12 straight months is not job growth if it is not keeping up with population growth in the workforce, if this pace keeps up the economy will continue to shrink in relation to inflation. And finally I do not understand what being a middle class American who lost his job due to 9/11 means, does that mean that 9/11 is an excuse for being in a situation that is less affluent than under Clinton? For how long will it be an excuse, what is the statute of limitations on that excuse? Is it an excuse 10 years from now, 20 years from now?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 6 2004, 05:19 PM
Drive bys by telling you to watch the Daily show?

LOL Dis someone is a little defensive on this board.

As for the Hallaburton question I ASKED YOU WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE ON THE ISSUE OF HALLIBURTON.

I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU THINK GETTING A LARGE AMOUNT OF CONTRACTS IN IRAQ AND IF IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CONNECTIONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

CAN I MAKE IT CLEARER THAN THAT?

I wasn't being defensive...I just wondered why the one-liners with no explanations! Read your posts...they single me out but they don't give any indication why. I was curious...sue me.

As for Halliburton, they are the largest and BEST oil industry service company on the face of the planet. They were the natural choice. Can you find a company that was a better choice? If you can, post the company name and information and then we can talk about White House connections.

To me, your question is like asking if Boeing gets the Air Force one contract because of White House connections.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Sep 6 2004, 05:30 PM

Well first off, I think that you have to talk about Bush when you talk about those issues, he is the man who has been responsible for the last four years. 12 straight months is not job growth if it is not keeping up with population growth in the workforce, if this pace keeps up the economy will continue to shrink in relation to inflation. And finally I do not understand what being a middle class American who lost his job due to 9/11 means, does that mean that 9/11 is an excuse for being in a situation that is less affluent than under Clinton? For how long will it be an excuse, what is the statute of limitations on that excuse? Is it an excuse 10 years from now, 20 years from now?

It means I'm a typical swing voter EB. It means that many voters in this country have been in my situation. It has nothing to do with excuses. Not sure why you would come within 1000 miles of that conclusion.

[transplant99]

It was an extreme example to try and get people to consider the plight of others. When is the line drawn and when do you finally say that what is happening is wrong? Does something have to happen in your own backyard before you pull your head out of the sand and speak out against it? Would a move against Canada be the only way for people to consider the United States wrong? Maybe a better, and more kind example, would be if the US slapped a 500% tarrif on soft wood, wheat and beef imports to try and get a sweetheart of a deal on Canadian fossil fuel reserves. Would that get the cockles up a bit and seem a little oppressive?


You have officially lost your mind.

If you are suggesting that Iraq was a target of Bush for the oil, and as such, that Canada could be next, I have one question.

Why didn't Bush just head to Fort MacMurray from the get go?

Certainly would of been cheaper, would of been easier as they could stage troops just 400 miles from the target instead of going across the continent to do so, and what resistance would of they faced? Never mind they could of skirted the whole oil for food program like Russia and France did, and just BOUGHT it a whole lot cheaper than the current cost of the military action.

If the US wants to slap tarrifs to force unfair trade balances, they have that right. It would kill them in the end economically by losing their biggest trade partner, but what that has to do with my ALLEGED statements that ....

"the US decides to bend Canada over for the Alberta tar sands , through either economic pressure, political or military intervention, the tune will change quickly"

is so completely beyond me i have no idea what to retort.

I congratulate you though Lanny, you have convincingly become a full-fledged fear monger (which is your right in this apparently imperialistic government controlled society) that you accuse the "neo-con Bush supporters" of. Well done.

Fortunatley, I have an entire base of experience in my life that i won't fall for it.

[EddyBeers]

Well my point is that many people who have lost their jobs have seen them replaced with less afluent jobs and if the reason is 9/11 it must have a shelf span where it can be the reason. Whenever I here Melham or one of his ilk speak it is always about the tough times that America has come through, I just want to know when that will no longer be the talking point. Is it 08,12,16 what election is it going to be "you are poorer now than you were before and 9/11 has nothing to do with it". Finally, I sure hope you are not the typical swing voter, otherwise Kerry is screwed.

PS: the reason that Bush could cut taxes and raise spending is the astronomical deficit that he is running, eventually that will have to be paid off, probably by a Liberal democrat President, since they are the only ones with any fiscal sanity.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Sep 6 2004, 05:38 PM
Well my point is that many people who have lost their jobs have seen them replaced with less afluent jobs and if the reason is 9/11 it must have a shelf span where it can be the reason. Whenever I here Melham or one of his ilk speak it is always about the tough times that America has come through, I just want to know when that will no longer be the talking point. Is it 08,12,16 what election is it going to be "you are poorer now than you were before and 9/11 has nothing to do with it". Finally, I sure hope you are not the typical swing voter, otherwise Kerry is screwed.

PS: the reason that Bush could cut taxes and raise spending is the astronomical deficit that he is running, eventually that will have to be paid off, probably by a Liberal democrat President, since they are the only ones with any fiscal sanity.

Huh?

Kerry is screwed because of my thoughts or because he hasn't shown me why he'll do better for my family than George W. Bush?

I'll say the latter...because my vote is and has been up for grabs. I will NOT vote for someone who has told me NOTHING. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by transplant99@Sep 6 2004, 05:34 PM
If you are suggesting that Iraq was a target of Bush for the oil, and as such, that Canada could be next, I have one question.

Why didn't Bush just head to Fort MacMurray from the get go?

Is Ft. McMurray a potentially strategic position for control of the Middle East? The tar sands do have plenty of oil, but I'm not sure how much of springboard Ft. Mack would have in the American's desire to spread their form of Democracy to the region and gain a basis for future actions in the area. Or does that desire not come into the equation as well?

How about getting back to the jest of the whole post and that being America's right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country without the support of the World Court and cooperation of the UN? How about trying to defend these actions? How do they differ from what the Nazi's and Soviets were crucified for in the past?

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 6 2004, 05:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 6 2004, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-EddyBeers@Sep 6 2004, 05:38 PM
Well my point is that many people who have lost their jobs have seen them replaced with less afluent jobs and if the reason is 9/11 it must have a shelf span where it can be the reason. Whenever I here Melham or one of his ilk speak it is always about the tough times that America has come through, I just want to know when that will no longer be the talking point. Is it 08,12,16 what election is it going to be "you are poorer now than you were before and 9/11 has nothing to do with it". Finally, I sure hope you are not the typical swing voter, otherwise Kerry is screwed.

PS: the reason that Bush could cut taxes and raise spending is the astronomical deficit that he is running, eventually that will have to be paid off, probably by a Liberal democrat President, since they are the only ones with any fiscal sanity.

Huh?

Kerry is screwed because of my thoughts or because he hasn't shown me why he'll do better for my family than George W. Bush?

I'll say the latter...because my vote is and has been up for grabs. I will NOT vote for someone who has told me NOTHING. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? [/b][/quote]
I think it is as clear as day to anyone who reads this board that you are intending on voting for dubya, but if you can even find one post where you say something positive about Kerry, I will take that back. So I would say the former, and if you live in Kansas it does not really matter anyway that is one state I will definately cede to Bush

[transplant99]

How about getting back to the jest of the whole post and that being America's right to intervene in the internal affairs of another country without the support of the World Court and cooperation of the UN? How about trying to defend these actions? How do they differ from what the Nazi's and Soviets were crucified for in the past?

So....now you are saying the US had no right to go into Iraq because the "world court" (whatever the hell that means) and the UN didnt support them? Are you suggesting your tune would be one single bit different if the UN had given the nod of agreement? What about the 50+ countries that DID agree and still have troops over there? Are they also tools of the big bad Satan known as the USA and part of this massive conspiracy you continue to drone on about?

If the answer to the above questions is yes...OK...fair enough....but what right did Hussein have to invade Iran...or Kuwait....did he ask those world bodies if it was ok to lob missiles at Israel? Did he receive permission from the UN to gas his own people with WMD? Did Hussein get a yes from the "world court" to pay suicide bombers families that were successful in blowing the smithereens out of busses full of innocent women and children in Israel? Just curious.

Now if you want to compare the US actions to those ones...we can talk.

As for what the differance is between the Soviets running rough shod through the iron curtain and other places and what the Nazi's were doing, compared to the US action in Iraq, I have a simple answer. The US isnt there to take over the country, they went in and removed a dangerous dictator whom reigned terror over an entire region that was unable to fight back....in fact the US have already seceded power to the Iraqi people, something the Soviets nor the Nazis EVER did.

I have another question for you. Even IF Bush is re-elected and continues this vast right wing conspiracy you claim he is on, what happens in 4 years when he HAS to step down? Or are you suggesting that somehow he will repeal the US constitution and plant himself as supreme leader and therefor wont have to follow the law? If that happens...wouldnt you want him removed by force if need be? And if thats the case...isnt that EXACTLY what the US just did in Iraq??

Good lord Lanny...you are so twisted up inside this fabricated conspiracy theory of yours that you have lost all semblance of credibility. You are so biased and willing to believe everything you WANT to believe and ignore everything you DONT want to believe, that is placed right before your eyes. If its not what jives with your story...then its all because the media (ALL OF IT) is some government controlled entity...yet you use a whole bunch of media links to try and backup your outlandish claims!! Which way is it man?