Dave Buckley wrote…“In NY you mean. Not that way all over, sad to say. It is a very real thought process though in the minds of many, of which I guess we are all here included. I guess the thing about it was the use of a casket.”
I have a hard time believing that it’s not in the thought process of everyone all over America every day. 9/11 didn’t just happen in NY but in Washington DC, and Virginia as well. Now I obviously can’t confirm this thought but with the election coming up and these trash campaigns all over the place I think it’s a safe bet to say it was and still is on the American consciousness. If it isn’t, then this country is certainly in a sad state.
Rob wrote…”The dems are scared because its gonna be a close one and we don’t need Nader in these messing up the works.”
Ralph Nader was on Meet the Press (if you don’t watch this show, get your arse up early on Sunday and check it out) and what he said was totally American and made sense. To paraphrase, “it is un-American to limit the choice of candidates running for President of the United States. The Republicans and Democrats don’t have a monopoly on politics and it is unfair for ANYBODY to tell him that he can’t run.”
I agree. I know Democrats are scared of this guy because he will pull votes away from Kerry but he does have the right to run. I wouldn’t be happy if he was taking away votes from my favorite but it surprises me that anybody seems to be trying to take away Nader’s right to run. “Yeah, it’s on Robby.” ;D
I’m all for a third party, fourth party, etc. We need more contributors with original thoughts and policies. More choices = more involvement.
Rob wrote…“It was exploitive and distasteful and everyone knows it. The argument made by my fellow poster that 9/11 should be brought in conversation is valid. But I take that entirely as spin to validate Bush's exploitation. Typical that our presidents supporters would employ the very same means of subterfuge.”
It is “spin” to discuss 9/11?
It is “spin” that Bush, the acting president during the biggest ambush on American soil in living memory, should want to discuss 9/11 and his leadership during the campaign?
In my mind the definition of “spin” is taking a situation and manipulating it to make a political figure look “better.” GW doesn’t have to manipulate it. He has stood by his convictions from the beginning, unlike wishy-washy Kerry
who doesn’t even have a firm platform. He changes his mind every day.
Great president. Invade, retreat, raise taxes, no lower them, black shirt, no white shirt, take it in the butt from Kennedy, no give it to Kennedy in the butt.
Rob wrote…“The only reason to be outraged is that 9/11 did take place and it should considered a delicate topic.”
9/11 isn’t a delicate topic. It should be spoken about, remembered, acted on. If we treat it as a delicate topic we rob (no pun intended ;D) ourselves of it’s overall effect and lull ourselves into submission. It wasn’t a natural event or an act of God, it was an attack and we can react to it, show emotion, grieve, and go to war over it.
Rob wrote…“And as far as misguided i believe that word defines the American people under the Bush administration.”
Except Democrats of course. Hee Hee. ;D
Rob, incredibly wrote, “I believe Hitler would more accurately be compared to Bush. Anyhow, the way its done is the republicans fight the wars and the democrats piece the nation back together.”
Rob, this is just disappointing.
I hope and pray you just wrote this to get my goat. Well, my goat won’t be got, so just leave it alone.
I’m not a war mongerer. My country was ATTACKED by a group of people, specifically Muslims, who don’t owe allegiance to any one country, but to a terrorist group. If it was an attack by a country it would be easy, but it wasn’t. Should that mean we should just ignore it? I believe we cannot. A war against terror is almost impossible, but I believe we should fight the good fight.
Somebody used the word “appeasement.” We cannot appease these terrorists. We need to go where they live and kill them.
Rob wrote…“When did bush become the strongman. He’s a child, a moron, and its obvious. He’s the guy who hid in the National Guard and even went AWOL from that. He’s the guy who rode his daddy’s coattails into the oval office. Kerry is the big Frankenstein looking dude with shrapnel still in his ass. The guy who saved lives in Vietnam. Oh yeah, and Kerry leads in every poll.”
Many people admire Bush because he stands by his convictions even when they are not popular. He stays his course of action and does not flounder. I respect that. Kerry is the opposite. He flounders on every issue. He does not have a solid stance on anything. His voting record will attest to that. I don’t respect that. Maybe you do. Good luck with that. Not to mention, Kerry is a total liberal, and has Kennedy’s prick embedded deep in his behind.
To live by your convictions is not childish or moronish, it’s very strong. To bend and fold to pressure is adolescent and childish. Kerry is not a strong man. He has been molded by the Kennedys, lives off the fortune of a ketchup millionairess and is responsible for his own spin zone. He just recently bought a Harley Davidson so he could look more American. What a guy.
Rob wrote…”Well see once you actually fight in a war you gain the credibility to do this. He protested Vietnam because it was apparent we were never gonna win. He along with everyone else in congress on all sides had to support the war effort. That’s what everyone's constituency wanted at the time.”
Can’t argue with this and nobody is arguing this. However, under this logic, no president who has never gone to war should ever enter us into one? This logic is totally unrealistic.
Over 200 days to go before the election? By that time people will be going to each other’s house and punching them in the face while screaming their Message Board posts. I fear we will never make it.