Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  anyway, your selection of quotes doesn't even discuss the international conference that he's proposed on iraq so he can get international approval on what america can do.

this is the one position the bewilders me most, what makes you think the US should do whatever they want without concern for what the rest of the world thinks, thats just wrong on a moral level for me

[grotty]

Originally posted by Arthwys:
   But econo is right, the president is "in charge" and "the leader" in most all of this stuff, but in reality he has loads of staff that are smart specialists in foreign policy and military matters,  

Again - I agree. But again - how can you reconcile the fact that the face of your country and its leader is a "Dummy"[your words]?
 
 Not me. We can talk issues all day. I have huge disagreements with all parties regarding issues. The debate is at a much higher level - I'm very clear on the fact that I do not want someone like Bush representing ME.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by grotty:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 
 anyway, your selection of quotes doesn't even discuss the international conference that he's proposed on iraq so he can get international approval on what america can do.

You had already mentioned it and discounted it. Why bring it up again?
 
 How can you write-off the ideas of someone who wants to make changes, yet ignore the fact that the one person who actually is in a position to make changes has no ideas at all? [/b]

the point of that remark is that you quoted from one question, when 95% of the debate was basically centered on iraq and how to get out it.
 
 as to your latter point. . .there's a fundamental problem with it:  bush doesn't think he's wrong, so why should he change?  he believes that staying in iraq, building up a police force and army is the right course in this matter, international opinion be-damned.  bush believes that the lot of good, hard-working people in iraq will get the job done. . .now, whether you think that in-and-of itself is wrong, is your right, and you get to exercise that right when you vote.
 
 honestly, i don't think kerry can win on this issue. . .no matter how well he did last night, iraq is not a winning issue for him, instead, i'd look for the other 2 debates on economic and domestic issues for him to do something.

[Arthwys]

Sure the government is already pervasive, it's been that way for decades.  Can't change that at this point, I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.
 
 I wouldn't say the money remark was childish, rather, it was irreverent.  An offhand, "oh haha there goes the silly liberal throwing money around" kind of remark that all political conservatives in this country like to snort at or sigh about whenever they come across it.  
 
 As for the dummmy bit.  Sigh.  This is exactly why I am a 22 year old and already thoroughly disillusioned with American politics.  I'm convinced that America is slowly going crazy, and it's only a matter of time before something has to give.  The extreme deadlock resulting in the election fiasco 4 years ago is just one early indicator of that.

[grotty]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  as to your latter point. . .there's a fundamental problem with it:  bush doesn't think he's wrong, so why should he change?  he believes that staying in iraq, building up a police force and army is the right course in this matter, international opinion be-damned.  bush believes that the lot of good, hard-working people in iraq will get the job done. . .
 

Bush never once said that he firmly believed we were on the right track in Iraq. He had ample opportunities as Kerry challenged that "you can be certain and be wrong." All Bush did was juvenilely make excuses - "it's hard work."
 
 Bush's 'no-turning back now' approach is much worse than Kerry's alleged waffling. Especially when you peel back the layers and try to determine what is driving Bush (e.g., his theocratic beliefs).

[Arthwys]

And to respond to something from way back in the thread about the population bit.... I said 38  times the people, not 38  percent more.  Makes a big difference.

[grotty]

Originally posted by Arthwys:
    I'm convinced that America is slowly going crazy, and it's only a matter of time before something has to give.

You know I agree with you...again. Except can you guess what I see as a major symptom of this "craziness"?

[Random Citizen]

I must say it's nice to see an intelligent debate on this subject from both sides as well as those in the middle.
 
 I'm reading a similar thread on the WOXY boards, too. Perhaps it's because the DC-area has more educated residents, but it's really sad on both sides.

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Arthwys:
  Sure the government is already pervasive, it's been that way for decades.  Can't change that at this point, I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.
 

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists
 

Spending increases have been dramatic under this Republican-run federal government in recent years. In fact, it's so bad that, on this particular issue, I almost long for the days of - dare I say it? - Bill Clinton. During the Clinton years, federal government expenditures increased at an annual average rate of 3.6 percent. During the first three years under Bush, spending increases have averaged 7.5 percent.
 
 Ah, but this must all be about defense spending, right? After all, defense took a major hit during the Clinton years, and since 9/11 we are a nation at war. But outlays less defense spending increased at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent during Clinton's eight years and 6.2 percent during Bush's first three years in office. It gets worse when you also take net interest payments out of the equation in order to get to spending on non-defense federal programs. That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
 

[thirsty moore]

Thank you GGW.  Deepak, what the hell are you saying?  
 
   

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   

Originally posted by Deepak Chopra:
  Right now it looks like America may be on the verge of building an empire.

Huh? [/b]

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by pollard:
   

Originally posted by Arthwys:
  Sure the government is already pervasive, it's been that way for decades.  Can't change that at this point, I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.
 

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists
   

Spending increases have been dramatic under this Republican-run federal government in recent years. In fact, it's so bad that, on this particular issue, I almost long for the days of - dare I say it? - Bill Clinton. During the Clinton years, federal government expenditures increased at an annual average rate of 3.6 percent. During the first three years under Bush, spending increases have averaged 7.5 percent.
 
 Ah, but this must all be about defense spending, right? After all, defense took a major hit during the Clinton years, and since 9/11 we are a nation at war. But outlays less defense spending increased at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent during Clinton's eight years and 6.2 percent during Bush's first three years in office. It gets worse when you also take net interest payments out of the equation in order to get to spending on non-defense federal programs. That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
 

[/b]

that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education.    

[ratioci nation]

Its hardly a new criticism that the Iraq war smacks of Empire building.  If you were one to believe the U.S. is occupying Iraq, then you are probably one who could believe it is empire building
 
 empire - a group of countries ruled by just one of them

[thirsty moore]

I wrote what I did because I really just don't trust politicians.  This isn't a they're all out to get us sort of thing, it's just that I want to at least know who it is I'm voting for.  Television doesn't cut it, nor do meet and greets.  
 
 To further make you all think I'm a loon, I believe government should be far more local than it already is.  Put more trust in States, hell, Counties even.    
 
 I won't be voting Nader because I don't think he'd make a very good president.  Last time I saw him as a decent man, and voted for him because I believed it was the right thing to do.  Morals are one thing, and a very good thing, but that's not the only aspect of a leader.
 
 

Originally posted by pollard:
 So what is your point of view here?  Were you expecting to have a candidate that gave you actual plans.  No candidate ever does that, they dont need to.  I know you probably dont support Bush, but you have been more critical of Kerry on this thread.  You voting Nader?

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by grotty:
   

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  as to your latter point. . .there's a fundamental problem with it:  bush doesn't think he's wrong, so why should he change?  he believes that staying in iraq, building up a police force and army is the right course in this matter, international opinion be-damned.  bush believes that the lot of good, hard-working people in iraq will get the job done. . .
 

Bush never once said that he firmly believed we were on the right track in Iraq. He had ample opportunities as Kerry challenged that "you can be certain and be wrong." All Bush did was juvenilely make excuses - "it's hard work."
 
 Bush's 'no-turning back now' approach is much worse than Kerry's alleged waffling. Especially when you peel back the layers and try to determine what is driving Bush (e.g., his theocratic beliefs). [/b]

theocratic beliefs?  i hope this isn't a manifest destiny argument. . .if anything his "theocratic beliefs" drive his domestic policy more than his foreign policy.

[ggw]

I'd be curious to see the comparison on a first-term vs first-term basis.
 
 

Originally posted by pollard:
   http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/columnists/ny-vpkea073958407sep07,0,2441062.column?coll=ny-opinion-columnists