Election 2004!!! Make YOUR vote count....

[Former Wildcat]

Back to the list of accomplishments. I agree with some of the list, but it read like something out of the RNC website and only told one side of the story.

1. Tax cuts did effect everyone, but they impacted the wealthy and corporations much more than the middle class. Plus, they have created a HUGE deficit

2. Corporate scandals - I agree that Bush did a decent job with this, but he kind of had to. I am skeptical of his ties to the energy industry. Did you know that Ken Lay was somewhat of an advisor to the President before the Enron scandal came to light? Plus, Halliburton was fined by the SEC for financial improprieties during Cheney's reign as CEO.

3. Afghanistan - Yes, Bush did a good job of attacking that problem and causing a positive change.

4. Al Qaida - Time will tell. We have captured lots of them, but they are also recruiting new members at a high rate.

5. Iraq - Bush did remove an evil regime, but he could have done that in a number of places. I do not believe the Iraq War can be listed as a success.

6. Libya giving up their weapons program is a positive, but there has been little progress elsewhere. Kerry makes a good point here. Why are we developing new nukes and expecting other nations not to do the same?

7. Kyota Treaty - Bush dropped the ball here. We pollute more than any other nation. The rest of the world came together to propose a global reduction of pollution and we basically said no and left. Yes, it would have cost some jobs, but it was the right thing to do.

8. Tort reform - I agree with Bush's stance here and I think he would do a better job than Kerry in attacking this problem. He might be too tied to the drug companies, but that affects other areas more than this.

9. No Child Left Behind - Terrible education policy

10. Bush has done well with appointments.

Bottom line: I don't think an argument can be made that Bush is a very accomplished President. He dealt well with a national tragedy and that is quite important. However, from a policies standpoint, I think he has been mediocre at best. Not saying Kerry would be better, but Bush has not set the bar very high.

[southpaw]

Wildcat that was a well thought out post on political issues. Bush's track record hasn't been perfect but that not all his fault.

I could counter point by point but the point I want to make is what will Kerry do different that would be better or worse. Don't listen to what Kerry says but look at what he voted for and against in his senate career.

[LionPride]

I think when you take everything into consideration that happened, the president has done an outstanding job.

Regardless of what you and foghorn want to accuse me of, I did not copy my post from a website. They are my thoughts, based on research I have done. When I put something from another source on here, I give it credit. If you don't believe me, go back and read my posts.

I would like to make a point about your #6. Do you remember back in the 80's when Reagon wanted to build up our nuclear program to defeat the Soviet Union. John Kerry voted against this. Now you tell me, who was correct on this?

Building "bunker buster" bombs is a deterrent to evil nations and hopefully be having that "big stick" we never have to use it. This was Reagon's philosophy, and it worked.

And since I like to copy everything I do from websites :roll: , here's an interesting article from Oliver North I just got done reading.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5332

Regarding your statement on the Kyoto treaty, here's an excerpt from and article of Ralph Reiland from the same website as above:

In reply to my second question, about how he would fight terrorism, Mr. Soros stated that we should start by correcting our own behavior, by looking at what we’ve done wrong. One thing he sees as wrong is that George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief. Another wrong, he explained, is that the United States isn’t yet signed up with the Kyoto treaty or the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

It’s at that point that my own alarm bells began to ring. To implement the UN’s Framework Convention for Climate Change, the Kyoto rules require industrialized nations to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, starting with a 5.2 percent cut over 10 years. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes is already saying that’s not enough and that the reduction should be around 60 percent to really make a difference. The problem, on top of the job losses, is that we don’t even know if the greenhouse effect is actually increasing, or even if human activity has anything to do with it.

And with the International Criminal Court, designed to try people for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, who can say that American troops won’t be pulled up for trial, or anyone caught in a Cadillac Escalade, once driving a big ol’ thang is judged to be a transgression against humanity?

Bottom line? The more I listened, the more I didn't like the idea of a "global test."

[foghorn]

LP: I might disagree with most of your political views, but I've come to realize that your posts are original and thoughful. Indeed, you seem better versed on the president's positions than he does. Maybe you ought to be hired to prepare him for the next debate. There. That's a compliment.

[Former Wildcat]

I do not believe the situation we have now parallels the situation with Russia in the 80's. We do not need a new bunker buster bomb in order to fight terrorists. However, we might be able to negotiate with Iran and North Korea to stop building nukes if we agree to do the same thing. If we are not willing to curtail our nuclear program, why should other countries?

As to the Kyoto Agreement, I had never made the connection between that and the International Criminal Court, which I agree that we should stay away from. I am not sure that the connection is there, but it is an interesting idea. However, it is ignoring science to say that human activity has no impact on the greenhouse effect. My sister is a biologist, and she says that the large majority of scientists who study the greenhouse effect have determined that humans are having an impact. I believe that we should have tried to negotiate with those in Kyoto instead of just cutting and running.

[southpaw]

We need the nukes as a deterent to rogue nations. Your arguement is like the cops saying to the armed robber we'll put our guns down and you put yours down. It doesn't work in either situation. We are the world police force like it or not and we pick and choose where to react. The nukes are there for back up if we need them.

[LionPride]

[quote="Former Wildcat";p="64745"]However, we might be able to negotiate with Iran and North Korea to stop building nukes if we agree to do the same thing. If we are not willing to curtail our nuclear program, why should other countries?[/quote]

You say it doesn't parallel, but the exact same arguements were made then that you are making now. If we stop building them, they will too. Yeah right.

Negotiate with North Korea? How many times do we have to negotiate with North Korea before you all realize that it won't work. Those guys will negotiate to get some type of aid, and once that serves their purpose they will break their end. They always do that. Deal, after deal, after deal. And then they blame the US or whoever for not providing them with the aid they need after breaking their part of the agreement. That is why we have to have multi-lateral talks with them, period. Have more than just us putting the pressure on.

Does it make sense to let a country like North Korea or Iran dictate to us the weapons we need to protect our country? This is the Democratic approach of appeasement at it's finest.

[LionPride]

[quote="foghorn";p="64743"]LP: I might disagree with most of your political views, but I've come to realize that your posts are original and thoughful. Indeed, you seem better versed on the president's positions than he does. Maybe you ought to be hired to prepare him for the next debate. There. That's a compliment.[/quote]

Better than being called a bigot or stupid :lol: .

I'd work for President Bush any day, and be proud to do it.

[fleaflicker]

lol. I said that you seemed bigoted, but didn't go out and say it. Go back and read once. But then, that's more towards southie anyways.
Lionpride, you are seeming very intelligent right now, and know what you're talking about. Don't stop, I like intelligent discussions and debates.
As for the nuclear bunker busting weapons, I wonder if those are necessary. I can see where perhaps stopping the development of those would give us more room to negotiate with North Korea, because we wouldn't be hypocrites in asking them to stop. Also, we have more than enough nukes without developing those to wipe North Korea off the face of the earth I am sure. So I have to wonder if additional nuclear capability is really necessary.
As far as the International Criminal Court, it seems a little hypocritical of us to go after terrorists and want them tried before the world, yet not be willing to subject our troops to the same treatment. This is hurting our international reputation just like the entire war on Iraq thing, and I don't see any redeeming value in not being a member. After all, since our troops aren't criminals, we shouldn't be scared that the entire world is gonna go and try to string them up. And if our troops do something really stupid and go around killing bunches of defenseless people, then I wouldn't mind them being tried by a world community.
Just my thoughts for the day.

[southpaw]

What's the difference, flea? The intent was obvious.