Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The Cost of a Kerry Win

by C1ay / March 29, 2004 9:10 AM PST
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The Cost of a Kerry Win
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The Cost of a Kerry Win
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Absolutely fantastic Clay - Kerry to the letter I would say - joined the E-mail NT
by SteveGargini / March 29, 2004 10:26 AM PST

NT

Collapse -
Re: The Cost of a Kerry Win
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 29, 2004 12:59 PM PST

Hi, Clay.

Well, we've already seen the cost of a Bush win -- a trillion dollar surplus wasted in three years, the worst national security debacle since WWII which was then used to greatly restrict Americans' rights (how about the "free speech zones" for protesters, miles away from the Presiddential motorcade route? What would the Founding Father say about that???) And millions of jobs lost and/or shipped overseas, many never to return again. yeah, there's a lot to loo forward to if we get four more years of THAT -- the country might literally never recover.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re:Re: The Cost of a Kerry Win
by C1ay / March 29, 2004 9:07 PM PST

I think it's very telling that you jumped straight into an attack on Bush. Not one line did you present to discredit the article or to try and sell us on what Kerry is going to do to maintain the momentum against terrorists.

Still trying to blame Bush for 9/11 huh? Bin Laden and Saddam should have been history by the time Bush took office, taken care of by the previous administration. Instead the previous administration set him up for that security debacle you're referring too.

You can't blame Bush either for the economic policy he inherited from Clinton. On top of the security failure he was handed to deal with you expect him to fix Clinton's failed economic policy and security all at one time in one term.

Many of those jobs that are gone are the direct result of 9/11. Al Qaida's actions are not Bushes fault. Many of the IT jobs that are gone are the result of a hollow internet boon that grew under Clinton with no structure to support it. That is not Bush's fault either. Many of the telecom jobs that are gone because of the shell games played by Worldcom and associates under the Clinton administration are not Bush's fault either. In short you can tie the bulk of your missing and lsot jobs to Clinton and his failed policies.

Instead of trying to attack Bush every time someone brings up anything about Kerry why don't you try for once trying to convince us how he's going to do better. How he's going to maintain the momentum against terror. How he's going to fund all of his promises. Try to convince us that he's not just another tax and spend liberal wanting to break Clinton's record of signing the largest tax increase in history.

Collapse -
Re: The Cost of a Kerry Win
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 29, 2004 9:46 PM PST

Hi, Clay.

I gave that hatchet job all the attention it deserves -- none. Kerry has attacked the War on iraq as a distraction from the war on terror. He (and many others, including many Republicans) have attacked the Patriot Act as going to far in curtailing basic civil rights (guaranteed by the Bill of Rights) in the name of security, when many of the powers are in fact being used in non-terror-related cases.
None of that has any bearing on how he would conduct the war on terror -- but he has indicated that more military attention to Al Qaeda would top his agenda. This editorial is simply a continuation of the long-term Republican effort to paint liberals as "weak on defense," when the disagreement is entirely about methods, not goals.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
BS Dave...
by Edward ODaniel / March 30, 2004 2:11 AM PST

Kerry has flip flopped so many times even his most ardent admired has no idea of his actual position on anything--past history must be considered and you are afraid to do that.

Your own little tirade there was nothing more nor less than parroting your party line and disregarding the actual facts. Facts are actually your friends Dave if you would ever stop and take the time to get to know some.

Collapse -
Re: BS Dave...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 30, 2004 2:59 AM PST
In reply to: BS Dave...

Ed, I won't stoop to your foolish level of name-calling, but there's NOTHING factual in that article to which Clay linked. And I do not "parrot the party line" (odd how that has a subtle connotation of Communism, eh?), I call things as I see them.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: NOTHING factual?
by C1ay / March 30, 2004 9:38 AM PST
In reply to: Re: BS Dave...
...there's NOTHING factual in that article to which Clay linked.

So, in effect you are claiming:

Bush has not been accused of lying about Iraq
Bush has not been accused of misleading the country
Bush has not been accused of ignoring Osama Bin Laden
Bush has not been accused of being uncaring about U.S. troops lost in the war.
Bush did not act on the same intelligence that led Clinton to fire missiles into Iraq.
Saddam was not a friend to international terrorism. Do not forget how Saddam paid families of homicide bombers.
After 9-11, Bush did not take the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and seriously cripple Al Qeada.

NOTHING factual? Is this really what you want us to think about "your" interpretation of the article?

Collapse -
Re: NOTHING factual?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 30, 2004 12:11 PM PST
In reply to: Re: NOTHING factual?

Hi, Clay.

I was, of course, speaking of what the article has to do with kerry and his views on the fight against terrorism -- he's every bit as committed to it as Bush. many of us would say more, since we don't think the war in iraq is anything but a distraction, though now that we've foolishyly destabilized the country we're obviously stuck there for a while Sad

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Name calling? WHERE?
by Edward ODaniel / March 31, 2004 12:09 AM PST
In reply to: Re: BS Dave...

I simply stated the bald fact that you can't face facts and you are relegated to parroting the party line. You may not like it but anyone reading your posts can easily see it for themselves.

I can agree that you "call things like you see them", BUT only AFTER you have seen them in your HC Op-Ed pieces or if Molly has already said them.

The article you are having such problems with is quite FILLED with factual information including false and fabricated "slurs" an "smears" against Bush and mentions of Kerry's record. Kerry's record is a matter of public knowledge Dave and although it is almost unbelievable that the man has managed a for/against stand on EVERY ISSUE throughout his ENTIRE Congressional Career it is an irrefutable fact. He has shown NO LEADERSHIP and likely would have been court martialed for his stunts in Vietnam were it not for his influential friends.

No, we can not know for certain how a Kerry presidency would effect us, but we can certainly know he would abandon a very successful strategy in favor of typical Liberal policies of appeasement and weakness. And we already know how costly that is

How do we KNOW this fact? From his own words throughout the Democratic Primaries Dave. Surely even you remember what he was saying between flip flops.

Collapse -
Re: The Cost of a Kerry Win
by C1ay / March 30, 2004 9:29 AM PST

Just as I thought, your only ammo is the Bush attack, nothing on the merits of Kerry. You can't seem to debate any thread in the forum on what Kerry is going to do to fix what you say is broken, only what you claim that Bush broke.

Collapse -
Now there's a new and different policy!
by Kiddpeat / March 30, 2004 12:27 PM PST

Kerry 'has indicated that more military attention to Al Qaeda would top his agenda'. Wow! How is he going to give more military attention than President Bush has done?

Collapse -
Re:Now there's a new and different policy!
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 30, 2004 9:45 PM PST

Hi, KP.

>>Wow! How is he going to give more military attention than President Bush has done?<<
By not being fixated on Iraq, which contrary to the Bushies' belief, is not about Al Qaeda. of course, the irony is that Al Qaeda NOW is active in Iraq, where they weren't before our ill-advised invasion.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
What YOU and other LIBERAL RADICALS fail to note is...
by Edward ODaniel / March 30, 2004 11:57 PM PST

that although Al Quaeda is pre-eminent, Bush essentially declared war on TERRORISM wherever it may hide.

There are long standing terrorism ties with many organizations with Iraq. Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease fire and was providing monies to the families of suicide bombers--that is supporting terror Dave.

Kerry is soft on anything except Internationalism and giving up sovereignty of the US to the UN and any other "World Body" that comes along.

Kerry would indeed want to give up in Iraq and likely Afghanistan and try various "appeasement measures" he has often advocated for getting along with terrorists.

YOUR PROBLEM and that of the party you parrot is that you somehow think that the battle against terrorists should already be finished and cannot get it through your heads that as stated BEFORE we went into Afghanistan, this is going to take a long time. most wars tend to do that. The Spanish American war was fought and settled in just a few months (April 20, 1898 to Decenber 10, 1898) but the gurilla actions went on for years. Their leader, Aguinaldo, was captured in 1901 but gurilla actions continued. We had over 100,000 troops deployed, more than 2,800 engagements, 4,243 KIA and 2818 WIA and the gurillas were armed with much less sophisticated weapons that those in Iraq today.

You can't face FACTS Dave because the FACT is that Kerry's full record speaks for itself--he would opt for appeasing terrorists rather than defeating them as he did in Vietnam and afterwards.

Collapse -
How easy it is to smear when the shoe is on the other foot.
by Kiddpeat / March 30, 2004 12:22 PM PST

That's a double standard isn't it Dave?

Collapse -
OK, now try this....
by Bo Boggs / March 30, 2004 9:33 PM PST

'The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.'

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2004&m=03&d=01&a=12

Bo

Collapse -
(NT) Is that one of those Islamic/Repulican/Conservative pubs? ]:)
by C1ay / March 30, 2004 11:11 PM PST
In reply to: OK, now try this....
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?