America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by DrMaddVibe. 41 replies replies.
Do Kerry's actions match his spoken values??????
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
usahog Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Aug 17 2004, 9:25 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Last night in his acceptance speech before the Democratic National Convention, Senator John Kerry said, "For four years, we've heard a lot of talk about values. But values spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words. They're what we live by. They're about the causes we champion and the people we fight for."

Have John Kerry's "values spoken" agreed with his "actions taken?"

Kerry Values Spoken:

Kerry Says He Personally Believes Life Begins At Conception. "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." (Jonathan Finer, "Kerry Says He Believes Life Starts At Conception," The Washington Post, 7/5/04)

Kerry Actions Taken:

Kerry Voted Against Unborn Victims Of Violence Act "Laci And Conner Peterson Law"

Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion.

Kerry Has Voted At Least 25 Times In Favor Of Using Taxpayer Dollars To Pay For Abortions In United States.

Kerry Has Voted At Least Three Times Against Requiring Parental Consent/Notification For Minor's Abortion.

Kerry Has Voted To Allow Schools To Hand Out The Morning After Pill Without Parental Knowledge.

Kerry Has Said That His First Executive Order Would Be To Reverse The Mexico City Policy Banning U.S. Tax Dollars From Being Spent on International Family Planning.
Kerry Values Spoken:

Kerry Opposes Gay Marriage Due To "Personal Belief" That "Marriage Is An Institution Between Men And Women." "I do not support [gay] marriage ... it's just a personal belief about what the relationship of marriage and how it works ... Marriage is an institution between men and women for the purpose of having children and procreating. That's my belief and some people may not like it." ("Kerry: Worst Jobs Record' Since Hoover," The Washington Post, 7/11/03)

Kerry Actions Taken:

Kerry Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), Which Banned Federal Recognition Of Gay Marriage And Same-Sex Partner Benefits.

Kerry Called Defense of Marriage Act "Fundamentally Unconstitutional"

Kerry Said Resolving The Tension Over Gay Marriage Lies With Judicial Branch, Not Congress.

Kerry Attacked Defense Of Marriage Act As "Gay Bashing."

Kerry Calls President Bush's Support For Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage Attempt To Divide America.


hmmm..

Hog
DrMaddVibe Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 1:42 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
Those votes are when he decides to show up and do his elected J-O-B! I find that an afront to the people that elected him and would NEVER vote for someone regardless of party affiliation if they behaved like that. Too good to do the job? Does it bore you? Are "we" taking too much of your time? It's not like you don't get a break.
CWFoster Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 5:00 AM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
My personal favorite is sitting on the Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee for twenty yeares and then slamming Bush because the intel going into Iraqi Freedom was sucky at best!
AVB Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 8:30 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
DMV, "Those votes are when he decides to show up and do his elected J-O-B!"

Since Bush has taken more vacation in 3 years then Clinton did in 8 and is fast approaching what Eisenhower took off in 8. Doesn't he need to show up more and do his job too?
bassdude Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 8:43 AM EST
Joined: 01-13-2004
Posts: 8,871
Kerry is currently drawing his Senate pay, why? Same for Edwards.
rodnie Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 9:05 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2004
Posts: 506
usahog

The main reason I am voting for Bush is because he does not actively pursue abortion. As concerns moral issues in America, he preserves and works for these. It would be nice if main stream politicians would talk to citizens concerning the abolishing abortion laws, but that will come soon. Kerry on the other hand appears to be anti morals in general. More work needs to be one in order to persuad liberals of human diginity.
penzt8 Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 9:10 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
I'm not defending Bush's vacations but there is a big difference. When Bush is on vacation he continues to get daily briefings and is avaialble to sign documents as necessary. He can also let some things accumulate. When Kerry or any other legislator are away from their jobs, they are missing committee meetings, debates, and votes that cannot be made up later.
usahog Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 9:15 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
AVB can you list all these Vacations? and bounce them off what Clinton had as far as Vacations in his 8 yr tour?

Clinton was on Vacation from Day 1 of stepping into the Whitehouse!!!!

Hog
usahog Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 9:18 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Rodnie, first of all Welcome Aboard Cbid...

Secondly, your exactly right with the Morals and add Ethics also something missing/ or being put aside in the backbone of this Country...

Penzt Well Said!!!

Hog
AVB Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 9:52 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
Hog,

Yes, I can but I have the feeling I'd be talking to the deaf. It's easily found info if you care to look.

AVB can you list all these Vacations? and bounce them off what Clinton had as far as Vacations in his 8 yr tour?

Clinton was on Vacation from Day 1 of stepping into the Whitehouse!!!!
usahog Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 10:09 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
AVB your right it would be falling on deaf ears...

the fact of the matter is.. as Penzt pointed out in his post... Bush took vacations but they were working vacations unlike Clintons and Kerry's...

I personally believe that had Clinton done his Job and not been chasing interns in the whitehouse 911 could have been prevented...

I also personally believe that if John Kerry gets to the whitehouse all the work of the past 4 yrs will be in vain because this man will WRECK this country and send it backwards instead of forwards as the motion we've been going since Bush took Office... it will just be another playboy in office....

Hog
penzt8 Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 10:41 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
Also, just to complete this thought, The Senate has long breaks built in that the Presidency does not. Here's the link to the senate democrats calendar. August is shown as "not in session" and most of the months have at least a couple of "not in session" days besides the normal weekends.


http://democrats.senate.gov/calendar/2004-08.html
428cj Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 11:32 AM EST
Joined: 04-26-2003
Posts: 741
I find it absolutely fascinating about Kerry that he's qualified to run the country in a MUCH better way than Bush can, only because he is a combat veteran. You hear this ALL the time. Ok, that's good.

Why doesn't he mention his time spent as a US Senator?! An almost 20 year career isn't mentioned now?????? Hmm, I can't imagine why he doesn't want people to actually LOOK at his record in the Senate. Of course his record when he actually ATTENDED sessions that is.

He claims to know how to fight the terrorists who threaten our fine country better than the President (im a more "sensitive" way too--- clap, clap, clap). How? He's missed over 75% of the Intelligence Committe meetings. Maybe he learned everything during the 1/4 of the meetings he actually attended? Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic (now), why aren't people catching on to this????

But then again, he IS a combat veteran. Maybe his Senate career is irrelevant because of this. Who knows.
AVB Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 3:07 PM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
While I'll admit Kerry missed 75% of the PUBLIC meetings but nobdy has said anything about the 325(329?) non-public meetings. If you bother to look into it your find the situation more than reversed. Try not to let the facts get in the way.

As for the congress not being in session you'll find that much of that time is spent back with the constituents. Obviously, some is time off too.
Cavallo Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 4:51 PM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
avb: facts DO get in the way.

as soon as someone -- anyone -- becomes a "true believer" about a candidate -- any candidate -- that person no longer even DESIRES to see the facts about his/her candidate.

the reason this happens is, in psychological terms, a matter of resolving cognitive dissonance. whether buying a new car or voting for a candidate, it's the same force at work.

once you make up your mind, you do whatever you can to keep convincing yourself that you made the right decision -- that your choice was good and the other was bad.

i wondered at one time why those who post die-hard, true believer posts here have absolute and total disbelief in "the other side" -- even when they are presented with facts. now i know. it's simple cog dis resolution! present them with facts, and they will go to ridiculous lengths to deny the veracity. they'll say, "well, that doesn't count because..." or "that doesn't matter because..." or "that source is biased..." etc.

the simple fact is this: they have made up their minds which candidate to endorse, and NOTHING is going to convince them that their choice was not the absolute best!

does that mean that anyone taking a stand is doing this? not at all. however, the difference between the true believer and those who have done their homework is this: the true believer looks ONLY at what evidence supports his candidate and damns the opponent; those who have done their homework, however, have done ALL their homework -- they have truly and objectively taken in ALL the evidence from as unbiased a source as possible and THEN made their choice.

they may still be pro-bush or still be pro-kerry (and cognitive dissonance theory applies equally to "true believers" in both courts), but at least they are TRULY informed in making that decision -- they are not scrambling around trying to justify it in hindsight. :)
usahog Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 5:34 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
I've said it on MANY of these threads... I would vote for someone besides Bush "If there was someone worth voting for running against him" with that said... Kerry is the best they can pull up?? I think Not and have said it before and will again.... between the two Bush is the better...

Hog
Cavallo Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 5:43 PM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
russ, my comments weren't about which man to vote for. cognitive dissonance is very human, and i have seen ample proof of it from the rah-rah-kerry side as well as the bushers.

it's not about the end result (who to elect); it's about the process of getting to that decision and, after the decision is made, it's about the equivalent of sticking both fingers in one's ears and humming "old mcdonald had a farm" so as not to hear the FACTS presented that their guy isn't all that he's cracked up to be. pro-bush folks do it; pro-kerry folks do it.
CWFoster Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 5:53 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
Cavallo, I see more and more chinks in Bush's armor all the time! In that respect, I'm not what some on here label me as a "true beleiver", or a "blind follower". I'm not saying that YOU have called me specifically that, but some on here have. I mention that to illustrate YOUR point that the fact that I'm somewhat disenchanted with Bush, but still regard him as head and shoulders above anyone running against him, is an inconvenient fact to those who want "anyone but Bush" and wish to put my arguments in a box labeled "fanatic" and dismiss them without a thought, accusing ME of being the one who's closed minded!
Cavallo Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Aug 18 2004, 6:12 PM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
lol there's a whole lot of pots calling a whole lot of kettles black on just about any online community i've seen, clive. sometimes i read these threads and want to pull the 1/4 inch of hair i have right out of my head. "how ridiculous can you get?!" but then i think of other online places i've ventured and, actually, this is one of the RARE ones -- we can do the "gab and jab" to each other EMPHATICALLY... but at the end of the day, we still have respect for each other.

i mean, there are some boards where i hope that USERX and USERY *never* meet up face to face because one of them would go home in a pine box. they get THAT serious about stuff. and while i don't think that anyone here takes their views (or others') lightly, i DO think that rick could sit down with jon and have a smoke and that the world wouldn't come to an end. :)
428cj Offline
#20 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 7:10 AM EST
Joined: 04-26-2003
Posts: 741
Ok, so I appear to not be intelligent enough to see things about BOTH candidates (as I already have chosen who I will vote for, right?), but please still answer my question. If Kerry's such an incredible candidate why is his Senate service NOT being called into play here? If you served almost 20 years in the US Senate and ran for President wouldn't you be proud of your service?

It seems he is NOT proud of being in the Senate or doesn't want to draw attention to it (any ideas why?). Before you think I'm too one sided I HAVE looked into Kerry's voting record. Have you? If you have do you still feel he is a supporter of the military? How about national security? If so please explain, I'd love to hear your reasoning. Seriously.

I'm know I'm totally biased here (based on what you've said) but don't almost 20 years of voting records count? They do to me. I can now see why he doesn't want this to be publicized too much. Can you?

I know it's easy to generalize about people and label them as being whatever (your common words of the day) but some of us actually ARE educated about both candidates. And to you a 24% attendance record is acceptable (because it was 'only' the public part)? He's being paid to do his job. Would your boss keep you around if you came to work 24% of the time? Nice attempt at an argument, but not good enough.
AVB Offline
#21 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 8:04 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
I don't see where anyone said that a 24% rate was acceptable, just as I don't see anyone saying that 250 days away from the White House (as of Aug, 2003) is acceptable either.

Luckily we are given a choice so you can pick the one you find more fitting to your ideals.
usahog Offline
#22 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 8:14 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
"I don't see where anyone said that a 24% rate was acceptable"

AVB, check the polls... there are still some blind followers who think 24% is acceptable... and what they don't know is that 24% he was doing his Job it wasn't for the betterment of the country or the Military... see his voting records as 428cj pointed out and I have on other threads...

250 days away from the whitehouse and still doing his job for America is a better running record... even Kerry himself doesn't want to take a look at his 20 yrs of senate records... SHAME!!!

Hog
AVB Offline
#23 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 9:33 AM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
I like the way you try to spin public Intelligence Committee meetings into not voting for the country or military. I think you need to re-read Cavallo's post of 09:51 PM in this thread.
usahog Offline
#24 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 9:41 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Well just tell me something...

Kerry is Bashing Bush in his campaign trail as to it being his fault on the 911 and also on the WMD's when in fact Kerry missing most of these Meetings has the stupidity to point the fingers at Bush... but lets not look at what John Kerry's done for America in the aftermath of 911 and Iraq... lets listen to his drivil and believe him like John the Baptist!!!!!

I'm waiving my BS Flag over here!!!!

Hog
usahog Offline
#25 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 9:44 AM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
"for America in the aftermath of 911 and Iraq"

let me refraze and Emphesize on this one....

For America Prior to and in the aftermath of 911 and Iraq... See His Own words thread here...

Hog
penzt8 Offline
#26 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 11:32 AM EST
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
I've checked the Kerry voting record on many of the issues that have been kicked around here. I think that it's great that I can do so because the records are public. But when Kerry is absent from work during public meetings and hearings a substantial part of the time, and doesn't vote on legislation, it makes it difficult to learn anything about the man. If I can't read transcripts of the private meetings then the only thing I can judge him on, is his public record in the senate.

As a senator, he has not been impressive.

OK, this took about 30 minutes to research on the library of congress site http://thomas.loc.gov/

The entire list of Sen. Kerry sponsored bills/resolutions that have passed since 1985

99th Congress
S.CON.RES.62
100th Congress
S.CON.RES.99
S.RES.189
S.RES.279
S.2365
101st Congress
S.RES.201
102nd Congress
S.RES.18
S.RES.133
S.RES.144
S.RES.185
S.RES.324
103rd Congress
S.CON.RES.67
S.RES.183
104th Congress
NONE
105th Congress
S.469
106th Congress
None
107th Congress
S.RES.65
S.RES.123
S.RES.180
S.RES.216
S.RES.264
S.RES.302
108th Congress
None


None of these were significant pieces of legislation. To the contrary, most of them were trivial resolutions to recognize the accommplishments of people like Ted Williams or David Suskind. For a man who wants to be the leader of the free world you'd think he would have been able to get through some type of significant legislation. That's what leadership is about. First you have to have a position on a subject, then you have to convince enough people that it's the right position. In that regard, he has been ineffective

I'm tired of hearing about his 4 months in Viet Nam. Being wounded in action doesn't make him a leader it makes him a survivor. In the military, subordinates follow their leaders (it's the law, it's not a choice). I respect the fact that he served but don't believe that his short time in uniform contributes much to his qualification for being commander in chief.

If that's all it took, there are plenty of guys here that wore the uniform considerably longer that would be significantly more qualified.



GYPSY Offline
#27 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 12:52 PM EST
Joined: 07-02-2004
Posts: 276
I beleive that Kerry when speaking is voicing his personal beleifs. When he votes he is thinking of the rights of others. I fought 4 years for this country to insure people had the right (as much as it turns my stomach)to burn a flag or speak freely about what they felt bad or good about this land. I personaly feel very strongly against abortion, but I'm not personaly involved in every unplanned or unwanted preg to know or judge the circumstances of the decisions made. I think that a true patriot is one who can put the constitutional rights of other US citizens ahead of his own personal agenda.
Cavallo Offline
#28 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 12:53 PM EST
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
i'm still reading through this, but i want to address 428cj's comments.

no, sir, i am NOT saying that anyone who has made up his mind on who to vote for is somehow "not smart" -- nor am i making any accusation at all! you staunchly know which candidate you support, and good on you for it!

what i am saying is that if someone -- anyone -- approaches EITHER candidate by thinking, "i'm just going to seek out info that supports my decision and i'll ignore any info to the contrary," that seems TO ME to be the path of ignorance.

there is a huge difference between stupidity and ignorance. the root of "ignorance" is TO IGNORE. you can be einstein and still actively IGNORE information.

also, this is not directed towards supporters of EITHER bush or kerry -- supporters of either one are prone to falling into the trap of cognitive dissonance (and of willfully ignoring evidence from either side).

i am not name-calling anyone here, i'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. i just hoped to raise some AWARENESS of something that is very, very, very common -- but something that we are generally not aware that we're doing.

whether we're selecting a candidate, buying a house, a new car or deciding to have soup or a sandwhich for lunch, cognitive dissonance HAPPENS ROUTINELY.

so what are we humans to do about it? just be aware of our proclivity towards it and that's that!
usahog Offline
#29 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 1:20 PM EST
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Cav, I've viewed all about Kerry... mainly from his actions in the Senate and many other locations... this is a Man who wants to run this Country.. and I have not seen anything positive he has done nor said... I listened to his words from his campaigning promisses across the land.. and so far it is all hot air..

so from my point of view we got the best of two evils and that would be Bush who is still doing what he said he was going to do... until they can pull up a better offer I'm sticking with what I've seen... not just heard...

Hog
428cj Offline
#30 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 1:26 PM EST
Joined: 04-26-2003
Posts: 741
If anyone is trying to spin here it's you AVB! You combined two separate issues I mentioned into one idea. Oops?! Sorry you read into my post like that, but it's not what I had stated. Like I've said in the past, read my posts at face value, don't read into them! I use no hidden messages or ideas!

I was stating two points that YOU'VE combined into one:

1. I stated a fact about his attendance record on that particular committee (again, not emotional but factual).

2.Then I referenced how he's voted throughout his Senate career (which I obviously disagree with, again only MY take on it).

The two are NOT related. His voting history for some 20 years and his attendance record for a particular committee are separate issues (at least as far as I mentioned them before). Sorry you missed this point earlier. I was NOT combining them, but I did mention both in the same post. My fault I guess!


All I'm saying is (or trying to!):

1. He served in combat for FOUR months, about 30 YEARS AGO. This is his primary claim as to why he can be President. If this is good enough for you then great. Knock yourself out voting for him. I just hope you at least do your civil duty and vote (of course I wish it were for my candidate, but.... Haha!!)

2. He's been a US Senator for about 20 years, yet rarely if ever talks about this. Do you really feel this service is as insignificant as he seemingly does? Really, I'm NOT spinning, I'm ASKING a question.

3. WHEN he was present in the Senate he didn't have a great reputation for voting in a manner he's trying to represent himself as now (i.e. strengthening/supporting the military and matters related to national security). I prefer to go on facts, not emotions (as I've stated many, many times here in the past). I've seen how the man has voted and don't respect him for it. I'm only stating MY opinion based on facts, NOT saying you're wrong for disagreeing.

If you honestly feel being in combat for four months some 30 years ago is more relevant than serving in the US Senate for the past 20 years, well, great. More power to you. I was only bringing it up as something to think about. On this matter we will disagree to the end. Like you said we are free to disagree.

Please note I have NEVER said or implied that voting for someone I don't agree with is wrong in any way. Don't pull a rickamaven now and get all emotional about this, I never said it (as I honestly DON'T believe it)! Seriously, I'm glad to live in a country where we are free to disagree politically. I'm sorry you don't like the fact I'm questioning another candidate, but what can I say? Am I now not allowed to?

I hope I was more clear here, sorry I didn't appear to be earlier.

Oh, I almost forgot. I did read Cavallo's post. Are you now backing his case saying that I'm blind to one side because I made some observations?! That would be funny. Do you see the irony in that?! Does making obersvations now mean one is blind to either side? Pretty sad if that's the case. You're not implying that, are you? Do I think any candidate (or any person for that matter) is perfect? I hate to burst your little bubble, but NO! There are things even I don't care for with Bush. Sorry to disappoint!
AVB Offline
#31 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 4:05 PM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
428CJ,
My reply was to the post directly above mine by USAHog. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
AVB Offline
#32 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 4:20 PM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
Just to add fuel to the fire, Bush just left on his 38th trip to his ranch. Not 38th day but 38th trip. How effectively can one be a "wartime president" (his words) and not be at the center of the government?

One of the points that is missed about voting records is that at least Kerry has a voting record that apparently is sufficient for his constituents. We can't comepare his record to Bush becuase Bush has no history. Simple as that.

Now, if you want to use past voting to form an opinion of what Kerry may or may not do, that is up to you. The same standard has to apply to those looking at what Bush has done. You look at his record and then form an opinion. Neither one is wrong or right because the reasons you have selected one canidate or the other is based on personal preference. While people may not agree with your choice or reasoning they really can't tell you that you are wrong or right.

CWFoster Offline
#33 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 4:30 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
I don't see where anyone said that a 24% rate was acceptable, just as I don't see anyone saying that 250 days away from the White House (as of Aug, 2003) is acceptable either.

AVB, have you ever had friends who served on the White House communications detail? I'm an Electronics Tech, and I've had some. When the president travels, there's two teams that travel with him. One sets up communications where he is, the other goes ahead to the next venue, and has it set up before he gets there. He can access whatever info he needs, and talk to whoever he needs to talk to. Can Kerry do that? Comparing Kerry's 24% attendence rate to Bush not camping out in the White House is comparing apples and oranges.
AVB Offline
#34 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 4:46 PM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
CW, it's very easy to compare them. In MY opinion, neither one is acceptable.

Nothing beats data in real time or meetings face to face. You can't do that if you aren't there. And that applies to both.
CWFoster Offline
#35 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 4:51 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
One of the points that is missed about voting records is that at least Kerry has a voting record that apparently is sufficient for his constituents. We can't comepare his record to Bush becuase Bush has no history. Simple as that.

George W. Bush is the first Governor in the past twenty or thirty years to get re-elected to consecutive terms, but I suppose that counts for nothing.
CWFoster Offline
#36 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 4:54 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
satellite communications isn't the pony express, and he's had high level meeting in Crawford! Stil;l apples and oranges, I suppose your unit still uses mirrors, or maybe smoke signals for comms?
AVB Offline
#37 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 5:08 PM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
That would be news to the following 2 or more term current Govenors:
Mike Huckabee, Arkansas
Dirk A. Kempthorne, Idaho
Thomas J. Vilsack, Iowa
Kenny C. Guinn, Nevada
George E. Pataki, New York
Robert A. Taft II, Ohio
Gary Locke, Washington


BTW, how do you explain Bill Clinton winning 3 terms in a row if Bush was the first one in 20 or 30 years?

OH, you mean just Texas. Now that's impressive.
CWFoster Offline
#38 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 5:13 PM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
in the state of TEXAS dimwit!
AVB Offline
#39 Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2004, 5:17 PM EST
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
Now, now, you know what they say about people who resort to name calling in their arguements.
CWFoster Offline
#40 Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2004, 8:03 AM EST
Joined: 12-12-2003
Posts: 5,414
not name calling, defining! Now if you talk about Senatorial races, I'm surprised that the voters of some states don't eclect dead men for three or four terms before they figure it out, but iun Texas, they haven't been happy with any Governor (Republican OR Democrat) for about thirty years, but they re-elected Bush!
dccrens Offline
#41 Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2004, 10:55 AM EST
Joined: 04-04-2004
Posts: 721
Everything else aside, Presedential Vacations should be a non issue. Clinton, Bush or anyone else that is president DOESNT GET REAL VACATIONS! They work everyday and are constantly ON CALL. They get regular briefings, several times a day on current status of all issues when they on "on vacation". They have the most up to date communication gear, audio, video and other. They don't get to, as we do, turn off their jobs for two weeks when they are "on vacation". They dont have to be in the White House to do their job. Hell, I work from my back porch sometimes and all I have is computer, phone and wireless net. Feel free to bash Clinton, Bush and Kerry for other things that matter. But where they do their job from should not be an issue.

Cheers
DrMaddVibe Offline
#42 Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2004, 11:39 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
428cj...I ran across this one today...http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98winter/winessay.htm

Soldiers used to leave military hospitals and get declared AWOL so they could get back to their units. They felt a moral pang within themselves to complete a mission, seize an objective or conquer an enemy. They realized that they were a part of something bigger than themselves. They were unselfish. They were committed. They followed through. At first look I was impressed with Kerry's commondations. Now, I view them as window dressing. I was luck enough to meet a Congressional Medal of Honor "winner". He didn't brag about what he did. He had a ship named after him for his achievements. If I hadn't seen his ribbon I wouldn't have been able to salute a soldier that earned the respect of being saluted(regardless if he was enlisted!)and hear his story. I "pulled" it out of him because I was curious enough to want to know. He spoke in a vagueness filled with "us" and "we", not "I" or "me". He stayed with the military and made it a career after being wounded in combat. This was a humble man that was "rewarded" for his actions in combat. He earned the highest award the military can bestow upon an individual. It's backed up by eyewitness accounts from those that were there, not those who took it for granted that they got the story straight or were nagged into submitting their name.

Kerry's actions speak to the very core of who he is a man. He's vacant, absent and devoid of urgency. He's compromising and everything to everyone. He's what's wrong with America today. Pointing out what's wrong, and not solving the problem. I don't agree with everything President Bush does, but I'll gladly cast my vote for him because of what he's done and the plan that he's laid out and the one that he's stuck with. I haven't heard anything out of the ordinary (see giveaways) from Kerry to even sway an opinion I've held about him. He's a traitor and a criminal. He's amde his 4 month stint in Vietnam his entire plank. Not his Senate record or anything else, just his "service" to us in Vietnam. Now an organization that's been screaming in the wind is being heard and they're being painted as a Bush operative organization! They were there in 1971 too! Their story isn't changing about events in Vietnam. Kerry's is. I've seen what a real liar in the White House can do and he was impeached over it, I don't think another one needs the chance to sit there.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top