Jim Kelly at Republican Convention?

[USMCBillsFan]

Well, they arent George Bush, they were in vietnam....they like old people and the poor....and evidently they have a plan to help the economy, but wont tell us until they get elected.....

 

Yeah, great platform guys...Brilliant...  You dont win an election by not being someone.  Ask Rick Lazio how that works.  It might work for 40% of the population, but in order to get the other 11% you actually need to have something more than your questionable service in vietnam 40 years ago to back you up.

 

For the first time in my life, im considering NOT voting republican. But I sure as stevstojan wont be voting for Mr. Kerry. 

 

I have had it up to my ears with the 2 party system in this country.  Its not about whats best for america, its about winning.  If you can take both sides of every issue and make 51% of the people happy with you...so be it.  If you dont have the balls to do what needs to be done in Iraq, because you are worried about political fallout, so be it.  Keep mismanaging the war and letting our boys die over there, yeah, thats a better strategy.  Mr. Bush PLEASE dont be afraid to do what needs to be done.

 

So instead of focusing on these important issues, we talk about whether John Kerry was in Cambodia during christmas of 1968, or whether George Bush's service was good enough to be considered noble and worthy of the presidency.

 

Screw both parties.  I will be voting for Ralph Nader.  Not because I agree with him on any issue.  (Because I dont think there is a single one).  But because a vote for nadar is a vote against the establishment of 2 political parties.  And honestly the way the parties are treating 3rd party candidates these days are ridiculous.  Ballot access denied because the pages were in the wrong order...Give me a break.

12575[/snapback]

 

You are an idiot. You would vote for someone just because you don't agree with the other two? You said you don't agree with anything Nader stands for but you'd vote for him? Idiot.... If you don't agree with Bush or Kerry then don't vote. The reality is that we have a two party system and it's here to stay. Go Bush and Go Bills.....

[checkmate]

so if he was a democrat it'd be better?

 

give me one good argument that demonstrates that the democratic party has better ideals and is better for the country long term.

 

i registered as a dem in 1988, and that hasn't changed. what has changed is i realized that theres an abundance of bad ideas and hypocrisy there.

 

if the pat robertson types didn't ruin the right with their moralizing, i'd make the switch. Conservatism has common sense on its side.

12526[/snapback]

 

I probably can give you several reasons why the Democratic Party has better ideals and is better for the country in the long term, but I only have a minute.

 

I wanted to comment on your point about Pat Robertson types. The religious right was without a party prior to Ronald Reagan. He brought them into the Republican Party which previously had been reserved for only "economic conservatives." Those economic conservatives would be sick based on what the Republican Party has done to the federal debt and the budget deficit. The conservative ideals of old have been replaced with the new conservativism that involves more social issues than economic. Oddly, the social conservatives are not really following the ideals of conservatism, as they want the government to be involved in our lives, telling us who we can marry, what we can do with our bodies, and demand that we pray in schools. Conservative thought would say that the government has no place this decision-making. If it wasn't for the need to get votes, I suspect most big business conservatives would rather leave the government out of these social issues.

[jad1]

Does anyone know if Kelly is a delegate or a guest at the convention? I'm guessing that Kemp is a delegate.

[callemasiseesem]

Yet, blanket opposition to stem cell research has certainly moved many a conservative such as Nancy Ragan to openly question the President.

12511[/snapback]

 

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_15_archive.html

[nodnarb]

Try to make a case FOR john kerry.  I have yet to hear a good one. 

12648[/snapback]

 

either have i. CHeers. I think i stopped reading your post after the first para (mistake). didn't realize that you were coming from that angle.

 

good to hear you're not going to vote for kerry just because you don't like bush.

[checkmate]

either have i. CHeers. I think i stopped reading your post after the first para (mistake). didn't realize that you were coming from that angle.

 

good to hear you're not going to vote for kerry just because you don't like bush.

12848[/snapback]

 

My case for Kerry. I don't believe we should pursue programs of corporate welfare to the detriment of the working class and neither does Kerry.

 

Bush continues to ascribe to the economic theory his father called voo-doo economics which proved to be one of deficit spending, corporate welfare, and a deterioration of good-paying jobs.

[stevestojan]

I know the argument of "well he isn't George Bush, so im voting for him" sounds sophomoric to some of you, but with the election system we have set up, that is really the only way some of us can vote. I feel (my opinion) that George Bush could not have handled his four years in office worse than he has. So I like Kerry? I don't really know too much about him, but "at least he's not bush". Seriously, what other choice do I have? Vote for Nader, thus basically taking a vote from Kerry (in turn basically giving another vote to Bush)?

 

Like someone said in the thread entitled "What will the Iraqi Soccer Players do if they lose", some one said "Well, they wont have to worry about going home and having Uday kill them, they wont have to worry for their families, etc" ...

 

Ok, great. But guess what, over 1000 US soldiers died. And our main reason going into Iraq was NOT to make sure the Iraqi soccer team could sleep peacefully at night. It was so we could get rid of the WOMD that threated OUR people. Do you think for a second that if the USA fell under a evil dictator that Iraq or its people would give a good god-damn about us? Please.

 

But the point is, we went into Iraq based on lies (or even misinformation) from this President. I am SOoooo happy the Iraqis have things slightly better now. Im sure that makes the parents of OUR fallen soldiers sleep better at night.

 

And all of that comes back to the point that, even though i dont know much about Kerry - "at least he isn't Bush".

[jad1]

A vote against a candidate is just as valid as a vote for a candidate. A ballot is a multiple choice question, not an essay question.

[JimBob2232]

If you don't agree with Bush or Kerry then don't vote. The reality is that we have a two party system and it's here to stay.

 

Well isnt this an american comment if I have ever heard one. Every non-felon citizen above the age of 18 in this country is entiled to express his or her opinion at the polls in november. My opinion is that the 2 party system is destroying this country. Class warfare and political correctness in the name of a couple votes have overcome freedom, liberty, and the security of our homeland.

 

Illegal aliens should be deported, not given drivers licences. But Mr. Bush is too worried about losing the mexican vote, so he cant do that.

 

The party not in the white house has no incentive to help improve america. The current democrats, and the republicans before them, try to tear down the country, with the hopes of winning the white house, so they can regain power. Its all a game in a very serious world. And that scares me. And it needs to change.

 

Until we have open dialogue in this country about real issues; until we can be one america, where there are no political parties, no republicans or democrats, just americans fighting for our survival as a nation, we will be losing the war on terror. And neither major political party is ready to take that step.

[IDBillzFan]

But the point is, we went into Iraq based on lies (or even misinformation) from this President. I am SOoooo happy the Iraqis have things slightly better now.

 

S-hit, you need to do more reading and less scanning. We went to war in Iraq based on information we believed, at the time, was accurate. If you want to not vote for Bush because of that fact, you should also know that Kerry did the exact same thing; voted for the war based on the same information Bush had. Bush didn't create the information. He was given the information. Was the data flawed? Yes. Does that make Bush a liar? Only if it makes Kerry a liar too since he made his decision based on the exact same information.

 

And if you think, for one moment, that the Iraqis made everything better since they took over, you REALLY either need to read more and lay off the Playstation because that statement in and of itself makes selecting Manning with your number 5 pick a brilliant idea.

 

Anyone with military experience want to back up S-hit's idea that Iraq is better now that Iraqis are in charge???

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2004_08_15_archive.html

12847[/snapback]

 

You are correct that I overstated the case in describing Nancy Reagan and others as reacting to Bush's blanket opposition of stem cell research. He actually has tried to carve a course which both provides red meat to his political base that is interested in blanket opposition and a more moderate view which bans only federal funding for new stem cell lines and allow federal funding for research on exisiting lines (which currently number at 22 rather than the triple digits talked about when the pre made his original proposal).

 

Perhaps a more accurate thing to state is that Nancy Reagan and others are reacting to the lack of effective leadership shown by the President in dealing with the issue of promoting good scientific research and doing our best to help kids and others suffering from debilitiating diseases.

 

It is an overstatement (again my apologies) to even imply that the President has blanket opposition to stem cell research. Yet it is also an overstatement try to claim as the article you link to does that the President is leading the charge on stem cell research and not hurting the best pursuit of good sciience, that his policies have not slowed the process of helping people with horrible diseases and that he is letting other countries get an economic lead in these areas.

 

Federal funding for research is a key to us getting the most rapid advances possible in scienific research and actually the restrictions fostered by the feds on funding cause researchers to slow their work as they try to serve the masters of both realistic research and federal restrictions.

 

There was a clear statement by the Feds and the President of the number of stem cells lines which would be available for federal funding (a number which offered restrictions to research even if it were true) and the actual number of lines has been quite small.

 

I'm more thn willing to admit that the concept of describing the bush policy as a :blanket" opposition is wrong. i hope that those who also make the claim of President Bush being a leader in stem cell research are willing to admit they are overstating his production in this area.

 

People can honestly disagree about the priority they give to abortion issues. However, there seems to be little doubt that many who are committed to exploring stem cell research and potentially finding cures to many horrendous diseases have been retarded in their efforts by the ban on federal funding for research into new stem cell lines.

[nobody]

i just remembered that you're a fan of ya-yas, per your avatar. i'm sending you a link to the best you'll ever see. i'm not kidding. tell me i'm wrong.

12601[/snapback]

 

 

It's nice to see that the most hated opponents can come together for a good cause.

[JimBob2232]

Ok, great. But guess what, over 1000 US soldiers died. And our main reason going into Iraq was NOT to make sure the Iraqi soccer team could sleep peacefully at night. It was so we could get rid of the WOMD that threated OUR people.

 

See, this is just it. President bush went into iraq based on bad intellegence. I think its pretty clear he felt there were WMD in Iraq. He said it, Clinton Said it, Kerry said it. Virtually EVERYONE said they had WMD in iraq. (including France and Russia). I still think they had them and shipped them somewhere, but thats neither here nor there. I dont think there was any lying or deception involved, just bad information, which as president he is responsible for.

 

The problem is, now that we are there, President bush will not do what needs to be done to get out of there. Instead he is letting our boys be picked off one at a time, because he doesnt want to take care of business once and for all and be done with it. He could have taken out sadr, but he chose not to.

 

On the flip side of the coin, John Kerry says he would go to war in Iraq even knowing what he knows now about WMD.

 

So the two essentially have the same plan. Except Kerry wants to turn our national security over to France and Germany, thus causing a less secure american and more attacks on our homeland and more deaths in america, and Bush wants to take the proactive approach, but not finish the job, thus leaving the blood of thousands of our armed forces in Iraq.

 

There has to be a better way.

[stevestojan]

Do we have to have a President?

[callemasiseesem]

I'm more thn willing to admit that the concept of describing the bush policy as a :blanket" opposition is wrong.  i hope that those who also make the claim of President Bush being a leader in stem cell research are willing to admit they are overstating his production in this area.

12919[/snapback]

 

The top story for today does a good job of that:

http://www.spinsanity.org/

[Chilly]

Poor Jim Kelly, I see he's turned delusional after he retired. Must be that post NFL depression he's going through.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

S-hit, you need to do more reading and less scanning. We went to war in Iraq based on information we believed, at the time, was accurate. If you want to not vote for Bush because of that fact, you should also know that Kerry did the exact same thing; voted for the war based on the same information Bush had. Bush didn't create the information. He was given the information. Was the data flawed? Yes. Does that make Bush a liar? Only if it makes Kerry a liar too since he made his decision based on the exact same information.

12907[/snapback]

 

 

Hell, the lemmings who want to harp on WMD's night and day are missing the big picture anyway. Sure they were part of it but I think we went into Iraq simply to project more of a presence into the Middle East. It wasn't Irishmen or Ethiopions who flew those planes into the WTC. Terrorist resources have now been diverted to dealing with the US there, rather than here. That alone probably merited the War against Saddam.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

The call for someone to state their best Pro-Kerry arguments and the difficulty of some folks to do this rather than stating their anti-Bush arguments is actually a reflection of how this election will turn out based on how voters ask the final question leading to their vote.

 

If folks are looking for arguments that convince them that a Kerry presidency will b a good one, they are setting a high standard for him which he may or may not reach but it is a high one. If on the other hand, folks are asking to be convinced whether Kerry is better than Bush they have already made a judgment for change and Kerry will actually need to meet a lower standard of is he adequate and is he good enough to be an adequate President.

 

For me, I have already made my judgement that I really doubt that Kerry is going to be a great President if elected and I seriously doubt he will even be a good one.

 

However, as an American, I think one thing that makes us improve is accountability. I think we will be a better country overall if there are some consequences for actions. For example, on the WMD question, I'm less interested in whether we made the same mistake as others than in there being some accountability for making a pretty serious intelligence mistake leading to at least questions about whether we made a bad warfare decision based in part of this bad intelligence.

 

I know tenet resigned, but he sure didn't resign publicly virtually in disgrace for some horrendous intelligence errors. Perhaps it is Colin Powell's head which should roll since he trotted out speicific WMD intelligence as truth and as a major rational for going to war. He is still around however.

 

Yet, the WMD seems ti be inly part of pretty huge mistakes around this war. i was glad to see the Prez finally step to the plate this past weekend and acknowledge at leastr some miscalculation in terms of judgments around the Iraqi insurgency, mistakes which he linked to the swift victory which no one expected. Excuse me, we pay the Administration to expect just this type of thing and at least be prepared for it.

 

It seems to me the critical mistakes were these:

 

1. Trying to win the war on the cheap and commiting far fewer troops to the post-war period that recommended by military types like Gen. Shaliskasvili.

2. Undersestimating how good US troops were because if you really believed in our troops you would know there was at least a reasonable if not good chance they would clean the Iraqi army's clock in record time.

3. Not managing the coalition-building for the war in a manner similar to what Bush '41 did in Operation Desert Storm. That coaliton saw far greater sharing of the cost and even part of the risk than this coalition.

 

Perhaps you want to judge the first war as being an easier one to build a coaltion around because it involved a response to an invasion of Kuwait rather than the "voluntary" war this time. Okay, but if this is the case then perhaps you don't go to war this time rather than bear all the risks and cost yourself. This is why the Iraq/WMD claims are important because if the intelligence is correct the war is not voluntary, but it was incorrect and the goals of containing Saddam's threat could have been achieved without costing 1000+ US lives. As far as the goal of deposing a horrible dictator, that's a good thing, but there are enough horrible dictators out there (Korea and Iran for example) that also pose a real threat to the US and now we have shot our wad on Saddam.

 

I don't think Kerry will be a great Prez and he ay well not even be a good one, but I think there should be some accountability for errors and this Administration has made some huge boners and our troops have had to pay the price. Kerry does strike me as meeting the standard of adequacy and that being better than President Bush he will get my vote.

 

 

 

Hell, the lemmings who want to harp on WMD's night and day are missing the big picture anyway. Sure they were part of it but I think we went into Iraq simply to project more of a presence into the Middle East. It wasn't Irishmen or Ethiopions who flew those planes into the WTC. Terrorist resources have now been diverted to dealing with the US there, rather than here. That alone probably merited the War against Saddam.

13485[/snapback]

[CoachChuckDickerson]

I know the argument of "well he isn't George Bush, so im voting for him" sounds sophomoric to some of you, but with the election system we have set up, that is really the only way some of us can vote. I feel (my opinion) that George Bush could not have handled his four years in office worse than he has. So I like Kerry? I don't really know too much about him, but "at least he's not bush". Seriously, what other choice do I have? Vote for Nader, thus basically taking a vote from Kerry (in turn basically giving another vote to Bush)?

 

Like someone said in the thread entitled "What will the Iraqi Soccer Players do if they lose", some one said "Well, they wont have to worry about going home and having Uday kill them, they wont have to worry for their families, etc" ...

 

Ok, great.  But guess what, over 1000 US soldiers died. And our main reason going into Iraq was NOT to make sure the Iraqi soccer team could sleep peacefully at night. It was so we could get rid of the WOMD that threated OUR people. Do you think for a second that if the USA fell under a evil dictator that Iraq or its people would give a good god-damn about us? Please.

 

But the point is, we went into Iraq based on lies (or even misinformation) from this President.  I am SOoooo happy the Iraqis have things slightly better now. Im sure that makes the parents of OUR fallen soldiers sleep better at night.

 

And all of that comes back to the point that, even though i dont know much about Kerry - "at least he isn't Bush".

12880[/snapback]

 

Nice post. I couldn't agree more. The basic rule of thumb I use is as follows: Am I better off than I was 4 years ago? The answer: NO.

[Guest Guest_dry martini_*]

The call for someone to state their best Pro-Kerry arguments and the difficulty of some folks to do this rather than stating their anti-Bush arguments is actually a reflection of how this election will turn out based on how voters ask the final question leading to their vote.

 

 

I had the impression going into 2000 that many people voted for Bush precisely because he wasn't Al Gore. Gore had a strong economy and peace going for him, while Bush could only offer compassionate conservatism. Yet, GW still won (electorally at least), because he wasn't Al Gore (or Clinton's VP, however you want to put it). So, voting against an incumbent (or perceived incumbent) is as legitimate as voting for a person. It simply means that you are not satisfied with the current state of affairs and would like to give the other side a chance to see what they can do.