| Which Male Politician should run for President? |
| John Kerry |
|
16% |
[ 2 ] |
| John Edwards |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| John Mccain |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Howard Dean |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| Jeb Bush |
|
16% |
[ 2 ] |
| Al Sharpton |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| Wesley Clark |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| All of them |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| None of them |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
 Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:03 pm |
|
I hate it when people laugh about politics and make it out to be a joke - ESPECIALLY when they're on the side of the guy who runs off to bomb countries so that he can get some oil for his home state where all they do is drive SUVs and other obscenely foolish huge cars/trucks that need the God damned oil. But, RM, whoever he is, won't give a damn about Bush's flip flopping, especially because its on the evil liberal media Daily Show. http://www.lisarein.com/videos/tvclips/dailyapril2003/4-28-03-bushvbush-sm.mov
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:11 pm |
|
I certainly hope that video was posted purely for entertainment, and not as a reference for factual information  .
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:17 pm |
|
I believe I can find the links to the GOVERNMENT website that also has those videos or at least hard copies of the speaches.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:38 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | I hate it when people laugh about politics and make it out to be a joke - ESPECIALLY when they're on the side of the guy who runs off to bomb countries so that he can get some oil for his home state where all they do is drive SUVs and other obscenely foolish huge cars/trucks that need the God damned oil. But, RM, whoever he is, won't give a damn about Bush's flip flopping, especially because its on the evil liberal media Daily Show. http://www.lisarein.com/videos/tvclips/dailyapril2003/4-28-03-bushvbush-sm.mov |
People who watch that show for news are just silly. Many of them are what the independent Bill O'Reilly calls "stone slackers" 
I wouldn't trust them as a source of news
And you DO know that you have NOTHING to substantiate your claim of oil, right? 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:42 pm |
|
And you do know that those are ACTUAL clips credited TO ABC, CBS, and NBC, right? You want me to find something to substantiate my claim? No problem. Give me 5-10 minutes.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:43 pm |
|
I never quite bought the flip-flop thing, most politicians do it, but Kerry did a lot.
As for "war for oil", it's the biggest joke of an argument i've ever heard. Honestly, if President Bush was corrupt, and wanted oil, then he just would've done under the table business with Hussein, just like Chirac did.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:48 pm |
|
| Quote: | (CBS) The charge of "flip-flopping" has resounded throughout the presidential race, with the Bush campaign repeatedly accusing Sen. John Kerry of changing his mind on the issues. The Kerry campaign, in turn, has declared that Mr. Bush is the one doing the flip-flopping.
CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn looks at the record and finds both men are correct. Here, the president's most notable flip-flops.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Announcing the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Mr. Bush said, �Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.�
Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.
�We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,� Mr. Bush told Polish television. �For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: �I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there.�
Nation Building and the War in Iraq
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.
During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."
Iraq and the Sept. 11 Attacks
In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, �you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.�
In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: �We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Though he added that �there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,� the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were �equally bad.�
The Sept. 11 commission found there was no evidence Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
The Sept. 11 Commission
President Bush initially opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. In May 2002, he said, �Since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee.�
Bowing to pressure from victims' families, Mr. Bush reversed his position. The following September, he backed an independent investigation.
Free Trade
During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.
Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country � Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia � the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.
Homeland Security Department
President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.
Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.
Same-Sex Marriage
During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.
Four year later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.
Citing recent decisions by �activist judges� in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.
Winning the War on Terror
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush said of the war on terror in August. In an interview on NBC's "Today" show, he said, �I think you can create conditions so that . . . those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
Before the month closed, Mr. Bush reversed himself at the American Legion national convention in Nashville. He said: "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win." He later added, �we are winning, and we will win."
Campaign Finance Reform
President Bush was initially against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. He opposed any soft-money limits on individuals to national parties.
But Mr. Bush later signed McCain-Feingold into law. The law, named for Senate sponsors John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., barred both national parties from collecting soft money from individuals.
During the 2000 race, Mr. Bush showed support for the so-called 527 groups� right to air advertising.
In March 2000, he told CBS News' "Face the Nation," "There have been ads, independent expenditures, that are saying bad things about me. I don't particularly care when they do, but that's what freedom of speech is all about.�
In late August of this year, in an effort to distance himself from controversial anti-Kerry ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Mr. Bush reversed his position, announcing he would join McCain in legal action to stop these "shadowy" organizations.
Though it would close the Swift Boat group's funding, court action would also silence well-funded liberal 527 organizations like MoveOn.org and America Coming Together.
Gas Prices
Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of �the administration that's been in charge� while the �price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.� In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton �must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.�
As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or �jawbone,� Mideast oil producers to increase output.
A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.
By David Paul Kuhn
�MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:49 pm |
|
Every politician does it. You know they dug to find those examples.
It's when it's apparant and happens all the time that it's a problem.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:50 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | And you do know that those are ACTUAL clips credited TO ABC, CBS, and NBC, right? You want me to find something to substantiate my claim? No problem. Give me 5-10 minutes. |
Yes, they are clips. The veiwer gets no context, and they are not shown what the actual subject President is speaking on is. They are 3 second clips. You cannot conclude anything from stuff like this.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:53 pm |
|
| Quote: | war stories
Bush Flip-Flops on Iran
If we're lucky, he'll flip-flop on North Korea next.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, March 11, 2005, at 1:06 PM PT
Don't look now, but it seems that George W. Bush is committing diplomacy. The New York Times reports today that Bush has agreed to join France, Britain, and Germany in their nuclear-arms talks with Iran. This marks a major reversal for Bush, who until now has refused to negotiate with any Iranian officials, arguing that to do so would reward them for bad behavior.
Not only is Bush climbing on board the negotiations, he's doing so in a smart way. Bush will go along with the European plan to offer Iranians economic inducements�selling them commercial airplane parts, supporting the country's entry into the World Trade Organization. But in order to get these benefits, the Iranians must agree not merely to suspend but permanently to halt the enrichment of uranium. And the Europeans have agreed that if Iran turns down the offer after a certain amount of time, they will join Bush in calling for sanctions at the U.N. Security Council.
This arrangement amounts to a mutual recognition of two key facts that both parties have tried until now to ignore. Bush apparently recognizes that the talks cannot succeed unless the United States is a party; only Washington can offer the range of benefits and the guarantees of security that might lure Iran into forgoing its nuclear ambitions. At the same time, the Europeans recognize that no accord can be reached unless they appear serious about invoking sanctions in the event the talks do break down; until now, no one has believed the Europeans, especially the French, would forgo revenue from Iranian trade.
Before, in other words, the United States wouldn't offer carrots, and the Europeans wouldn't threaten sticks. Now they seem on the same track to deal both. A starker way to put it: Before, the talks couldn't be serious; now, they might be.
I write this with some hesitation. Two or three times in the past couple of years, I've declared, on the basis of a vague remark or slight shift, that the Bush administration seemed to have "come to its senses" in seeking a diplomatic solution to stop North Korea's nuclear-weapons program�only to be proved wrong a few days later. But today's news about talks isn't a matter of reading tea leaves. It's a flashing neon billboard.
So, does this mean the crisis is nearly over? Alas, not yet. The Iranian negotiators can be expected to do everything they can to drive wedges between the Americans and the Europeans, taking half-steps in the hope that the Europeans deem them sufficient to justify postponing the talks' deadline. Part of today's agreement is that the Europeans promise they won't do this. (The Associated Press quotes from a five-page document to this effect.) Since the deal threatens sanctions�a less extreme recourse than the invasion that was threatened in the showdown with Iraq�maybe they'll keep their pledge. Still, it's hard to believe there won't be any internecine eruptions.
More serious still, it's not clear the Iranians will accept any deal that requires them to halt enriching uranium. It may be that, for any number of reasons, they just want some nukes. My guess is that the Bush administration's hawks (possibly including the president) hold this view, and they're going along with the Europeans on the assumption that the talks won't go anywhere and that, at least, they'll have France and Britain�permanent members of the Security Council�committed to pushing for sanctions.
The hawks may be right on this score. But if they are, and if some kind of action (sanctions or otherwise) is needed to keep Iran from going nuclear, it would be a good thing for the world�and it would put more potent pressure on Iran�if the United States had the full support of powerful allies. Sen. John Kerry made exactly this point during last fall's presidential campaign.
Yes, George W. Bush is flip-flopping. And everyone should be glad of it. If it works out well in Iran, maybe he'll flip-flop on North Korea next.
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at [email protected].
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2114704/ |
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:57 pm |
|
and since I don't know if you're interested enough for me to waste my time on doing it all, here's a website http://flipflops.compassiongate.com/ all the information comes from credible sources
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:49 pm |
|
Again, they're digging deep to get this stuff against Bush, while Kerry seemed to do it with every other issue.
It's not a matter of the action, it's the frequency.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:09 pm |
|
show me Kerry's so called "every issue flip flops"
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:05 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Again, they're digging deep to get this stuff against Bush, while Kerry seemed to do it with every other issue.
It's not a matter of the action, it's the frequency. |
Exactly. They don't put it into context for Bush, and that's the point. But then again, the Liberal media doesn't NEED to put things into context when it involves a Republican
And I will, as soon as I can find my research.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:31 am |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | show me Kerry's so called "every issue flip flops" |
"Every other issue" was hyperbole, and you know it. Fact is Kerry's position on the war in Iraq (the biggest of the 'flips') changed about three or four times.
Again, I think most politions flip flop, Kerry just seemed to have a record of doing it on big issues, and often.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:08 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Starbuck wrote: | | show me Kerry's so called "every issue flip flops" |
"Every other issue" was hyperbole, and you know it. Fact is Kerry's position on the war in Iraq (the biggest of the 'flips') changed about three or four times.
Again, I think most politions flip flop, Kerry just seemed to have a record of doing it on big issues, and often. |
You mean how Kerry doesn't support the war in Iraq, but he supports the troops?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:32 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | | Starbuck wrote: | | show me Kerry's so called "every issue flip flops" |
"Every other issue" was hyperbole, and you know it. Fact is Kerry's position on the war in Iraq (the biggest of the 'flips') changed about three or four times.
Again, I think most politions flip flop, Kerry just seemed to have a record of doing it on big issues, and often. |
You mean how Kerry doesn't support the war in Iraq, but he supports the troops? |
Supports the troops? I seem to remember, uh, "I actually DID vote for the $87 billion, BEFORE I voted against it." Yeah, that's supporting our troops alright
And no, he meant on the 87 billion, for and against the war, saying that we were mislead after supporting it and pushing it for years...gosh, do I really have to dig through all the posts I posted? Besides, the election year is over, Kerry lost. No real use in arguing this now, is there?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:35 pm |
|
Can't you have a female president once in a while?
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:38 pm |
|
Maybe one day we will have a woman president. But in my opinion, I don't think some men won't like it and some will.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:41 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | Can't you have a female president once in a while? |
I'm fine with that, providing that her politics are fine, of course, however they tend to not succeed here...at least not yet.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:44 pm |
|
I think Debs should run for president... 
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:45 pm |
|
Lol. Well, I think a good republican woman should. Even I am one, I wouldn't make a good one sweety but thanks for the sweet compliment.
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:51 pm |
|
Meh, I'll just become Prime Minister and invade your country then... or just apply for US citizenship after I get my diploma in biochemistry.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:53 pm |
|
That's mean lol Well we need a president that will protect America and don't go by polls. Someone who will not flip flop and some that has good morals. A president that don't take no crap.
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:58 pm |
|
Bossy and stubborn, that's me! But I also do listen to others and take into account their opinions and views and try to solve things diplomatically. I'm not a pacifist though. I believe there is always a time when the only way to conquer evil is to fight back. And I won't tell the people what to do, I'll just brainwash them with propaganda and adverts, the good old American way.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
