Thread: Bold campaigning gone too far?
10-27-2004, 10:05 AM #1
Bold campaigning gone too far?
The Kerry campaign has made some HUGE promises on what Kerry will do when (or if, who knows at this point) he gets elected. My question is: Do you Kerry supporters believe he can accoplish the things he is promising? And if not, do you think these big promises will come back to haunt him?
If Kerry gets elected, I wonder if any of his big campaign promises will come back to haunt him. After all, hes promised to win the war on terror, lower your health care payments and taxes, put 40,000 more troops in Iraq while simultaneously getting them out of there faster, increase the number of amount forces in the military, get other countries to militarily support the U.S occupation of Iraq, increase employment, cut the national debt in half, and oh yeah......something Edwards said might prove difficult too:
Edwards: "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again"
So it looks like we now have Jesus running for president.
10-27-2004, 11:06 AM #2
A Jesus wanna be, Maybe
A failed politician who will say anything to get elected, Most likely
By the way did you know Kerry was in Vietnam.....
10-27-2004, 11:15 AM #3
Kerry should just concentrate on calling Bush out on what a failed presidency has done.
1. 911 occured on BUSH's watch......he let US get attacked
2. Bush's ill conceived response has been a disaster
those two items alone should be enough for anyone NOT to vote for Bush.......the rest are just side issues.
10-27-2004, 11:36 AM #4Originally Posted by Badgerman
10-27-2004, 11:43 AM #5Junior Member
Originally Posted by Will Power
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
10-27-2004, 11:47 AM #6Originally Posted by atlgadoll
10-27-2004, 11:56 AM #7
It's what's called the "Silly Season," where both parties make all sorts of crazy allegations.
I'm glad I'm in Texas where they aren't spending much $$$ on those BS ads . . .
10-27-2004, 01:34 PM #8Originally Posted by Will Power
I think he was actully being sarcastic bro. It just doesn't convey well over the internet without smilies or knowing how the person posts.
But seriously, I wonder if Kerry will have to live up to the things he has promised. Likely the media will just focus attention elsewhere.......but at some point its going to become obvious he can't do the things he is talking about. That may be before or after the election though, only time will tell.
10-27-2004, 02:45 PM #9Originally Posted by Will Power
Then he calls chasing around in Iraq proactive against terrorism. Proactive should have been along time ago. Proactive would be getting the Israel -Palestinian problem SOLVED......proactive would have been getting the hell out of Saudi Arabia which was the major Bin Laden sore spot. Proactive woiuld have been daddy not spreading arms all over the mideast with sales to Iraq and Iran through the contras. Bush thinks the CIA and overthrows and war can solve the mideast problems......he is wrong. He comes from a long line of power people who think the same way.......unfortunately our children are coming back wounded and in coffins......for what????......
10-27-2004, 03:05 PM #10Originally Posted by Badgerman
I cannot believfe you actually blame GW for 9-11. Even Kerry thinks he handled it well......I'm not going to blame Clinton for anything because its not like he really did anything *wrong* at the time, but he could have had Bin Laden when the Saudis captured him and he said no. That would have been it, no 9-11, there would have been no money and leadership for the terrorists to pull off what the did. Not to mention how Clinton had allowed the inteligence agnecies to become what they were at teh time, with poor communication, etc. But I'm not going to point fingers at Clinton, its not like he did the *wrong* thing based on what was known at the time......entirely.
But wait a minute, don't you think that Bush was secretly behind 9-11?
Don't use Iraq against Bush if you aren't goin to use it against Kerry. Kerry voted against the Gulf War when Kuwait was invaded, and there was a real problem. He votes for the war when it ends up not being worth anything. Even Clinton agreed with Bush and defended him when they found out there weren't WMD's there, it was a big suprise to everyone.
10-27-2004, 03:53 PM #11
Fact is there was intelligence circulating at the time specifically warning about the use of aircraft to attack the US.......Bush failed as president to take charge and increase flight security......it's definitely his fault.
I agree with not going into Kuwait........they were stealing Iraq's oil.......they were dumping oil on the market undermining Iraq's economy.......they were always historically part of Iraq and should never have been a seperate country in the first place.......thanks again to the British......no wonder they are so small now.....the "glorious British empire".......what a bunch of puffed up boneheads.
10-27-2004, 04:17 PM #12
You guys are funny...
To believe ANY election promise from ANY candidate is downright laughable.
Politicians are all liars and thieves... I don't care what side they are on. They are there to push their and their buddies agendas, they are so high up in their ivory towers they don't even realize we working class schmucks even exist.
So wether the candidates name is Bush or Kerry it makes no difference... they're both lying sacks of shît... like all the other politicians out there they'll say anything to get your vote.
10-27-2004, 04:34 PM #13Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
10-27-2004, 06:02 PM #14Originally Posted by Badgerman
10-27-2004, 06:22 PM #15Originally Posted by Badgerman
Last edited by cjp85; 10-27-2004 at 06:24 PM.
10-27-2004, 06:26 PM #16
Bush spouted off promises that were never fulfilled on his way to the presidency, just like the president before him and that president's proceeding president. It's a fact of politics. Not every promise can be fulfilled when you have to fight congress over every issue you want to pass.
10-27-2004, 06:29 PM #17Originally Posted by Will Power
10-27-2004, 06:55 PM #18
i agree most politicians are liars. This doesn't really concern me since i'm in canada. but one of the comments that edward made about Christopher Reeve walking again is better then letting Bush having is religion dictate how he should be president. At least the kerry camp will be opening doors in to stem cell research - which can cure many diseases, unlike bush who would rather let theese people die becuase of his own personal beliefs.
Just my opinion
10-27-2004, 07:21 PM #19
Great we can do stem cell research for all the dead Americans that will be littering
the streets if Mr. (I will negotiate with terrorists) Kerry is in office.
Get real, the guy is a one way ticket to opening us up to get waxed.
He couldn't even support his own brothers in-arms let alone the guys we
got doing the job over there now. Yeah, I know 1100 dead americans.
About the number of murders every month in the country.
10-27-2004, 07:36 PM #20
Plagerized from elsewhere on the net:
Q: What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
10-27-2004, 07:41 PM #21Originally Posted by Tock
i think not.
10-27-2004, 07:55 PM #22
All politicians will sell you the sky, the moon and the stars if you let them…It is the name of the game
Red, truer words could not have been spoken…good call and Tock that was funny…
10-27-2004, 08:20 PM #23Originally Posted by MrMondodondo
10-27-2004, 08:39 PM #24Originally Posted by Tock
While that hardly the only difference, thats not what this is about......needless to say, Vietnam and Iraq can hardly be compared at this point, other than by how we went to war when there apparently was no need to.
Kerry has no plan for getting us out of Iraq. His plan is nearly identical to Bush's until it becomes a lot of hot air, with things like 40,000 magical troop appearing from somewhere, etc........So if we are going to have the same plan carried out, the question is, who would it best be done by? I don't know who at this point, but I think its Bush. He will do a better job cleaning up his mess, Kerry will do a better job making a bigger one.
10-27-2004, 09:00 PM #25Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
Something tells me that Kerry's got a better chance of getting other countries to help out than Bush does.
Seems most other nations hate Bush. I wonder why . . .
10-27-2004, 09:09 PM #26
bushes fault for 911 huh? i'm sure it was bush that allowed the terrosist teh right to reside in teh US huh? after all, those 8 months he was in office all the terroists moved into the us....get a clue. bush had to deal with and clean up the mess from previous presidents who's foreign policy opened the door for things like this to happen.
10-27-2004, 09:19 PM #27Originally Posted by GQSuperman
His administration were told of major problems, but they shrugged 'em off.
So Bush was in charge at the time, had the info, so it's his responsibility. Maybe not all his fault, but it was all his responsibility.
Time for a change, IMHO.
10-27-2004, 10:30 PM #28
Too busy swinging the bushwacker at the ol' ranch to notice. Gawl Dang......guess I'll just sit here reading with the third graders while planes are crashing into buildings.......wouldn't want to frighten the little critters.
10-28-2004, 08:08 AM #29Originally Posted by ECoastVIP
What Im saying is that Bush is being blamed for inactions, and failure by the previous Democratic administration. Period.
10-28-2004, 08:23 AM #30Originally Posted by Tock
If the previous administration knew of these dangers, Why did they wait until the next administration took office to tell somebody, why didn't they do a frikkin thing about it.
The terrorists of 9/11 entered the US during the Clinton administration, Why did he let them in?
Why didn't the previous administration close borders, inform the public, implement checks at airports............
Why didn't they do anything to ensure the safety of the American people?
Personally I blame the Democrats for Aids, poverty, drug abuse, violent crime, and lets not forget the black plague.
10-28-2004, 09:54 AM #31Originally Posted by Will Power
Um, I was referring to the BUSH administration.
They (Condaleeza Rice & others) were told about possible terrorist activity specific to airplane hijacking, and they shrugged it off as "small potatos." They had bigger fish to fry.
Too bad the Bush Administration didn't do a frikkin thing about it . . .
10-28-2004, 10:19 AM #32Originally Posted by Tock
They (Condaleeza Rice & others) were warned of the issues by the previous administration, why didn't they do anything about it. Why did they let the terrorists enter the country.
Terror wasn't invented the day Bush took office.
10-28-2004, 10:37 AM #33Originally Posted by Will Power
Because they were warned by intelligence people earlier in 1991, long after Clinton was gone . . .
A minor point, but, significant nonetheless, don't you agree?
10-28-2004, 10:46 AM #34Originally Posted by Tock
The twin towers in early 90s, the Cole, The embassy's in Africa, Airline hijackings all over the world, .... You believe the US never worried about terrorism until Bush? the US never gathered intel regarding terror until Bush?Isn't that just a little naive at best, and partisan perversion at worst?
10-28-2004, 11:13 AM #35Originally Posted by Will Power
My point is that some people hold the Bush Administration blameless for the 9/11 attack, when in fact, they had ample and multiple warnings that trouble was brewing. It's wrong to place all the blame on the previous administration, just as it's wrong to excuse Bush of all culpability.
Add to the Bush Administration's brushing aside of the 9/11 warnings, the warnings from NASA scientists:
Expert: Bush Hides Global Warming Evidence
Wed Oct 27, 1:38 PM ET Science - AP
By CHUCK SCHOFFNER, Associated Press Writer
IOWA CITY, Iowa - The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA (news - web sites) scientist said Tuesday night.
. . . along with their ignoring other scientific findings in favor of polluters and other social miscreants, I'd say the people running the White House today really need to be replaced with better stewards of the country's welfare.
10-28-2004, 11:27 AM #36Originally Posted by Tock
I just cannot subscribe to this interpretation. Because this now implies that Global warming, pollution, and more, are new issues that arose only after Bush took office. It implies that previous administrations had it all under control,. and them came bush the terrible.
Sorry man it just doesn't fly, or even crawl.
10-28-2004, 11:33 AM #37Originally Posted by Will Power
What I'm saying here is that the Bush Adminstration ignores
the advice it gets from experts. And who suffers? We do.
And if you can't subscribe to this, I'll arrange for a gift subscription . . . $18.95 for 12 months. I'll have it sent to your front door. It'll take 6 weeks to start, though, so don't expect any immediate attitude or opinion changes . .
10-28-2004, 11:38 AM #38Originally Posted by Tock
10-29-2004, 12:12 AM #39New Member
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
"hes promised to win the war on terror "
well bush has promised this too. and i think kerry has a better chance of pulling this off cause i think bush has the wrong idea about the war on terror. it's not a conventional "invade countries" war, but that's how bush is running it and it's not working.
lower your health care payments and taxes
he's basically rehired the clinton economic team and is claiming that everything is paid for, laid out and paid for, and that he's cut back on smaller efforts to make sure bigger things like medicare and wutnot are saved. i haven't seen his budget but he has claimed that it's balanced so he's either blatantly lying or it's true. he was also part of the effort to balance the budget at the end of the first bush administration and it worked.
"put 40,000 more troops in Iraq while simultaneously getting them out of there faster, increase the number of amount forces in the military,"
maybe i'm just crazy or i heard wrong, but i could swear that kerry didn't say he would add 40,000 troops to iraq. he said he would add 40,000 troops to the military. right now we can't even fulfill any other obligations around the world. we can't help out in sudan cause we're too deep into iraq. i got the impression that the 40,000 was for that type of ****, and increasing our special forces was for getting the terrorists.
"get other countries to militarily support the U.S occupation of Iraq,"
i think kerry has a much better chance of doing this than bush, seeing as how bush has pissed these allies off and kerry hasn't. and i may be wrong, but i heard that germany was hinting that they would help out with a change of presidents.
"increase employment "
i don't know his specifics here, but seeing as bush has lost jobs i trust kerry more than bush right now, and i feel kerry/edwards are stronger on the economy overall.
cut the national debt in half,
mentioned that up above
and oh yeah......something Edwards said might prove difficult too:
Edwards: "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again"
obviously he said that before reeves was dead and didn't mean that he would be bringing peeps back to life, but rather giving more options to stem cell research.
so, overall, i don't think that he's made any outlandish promises and that he can fulfill them
there u go urbanlegend
10-29-2004, 09:18 AM #40
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)