Page 3 of 3

Posted: Sep 12th 2003, 5:46 pm
by lance
TomSpeed wrote:The Gore campaign didn't also selectively target Florida counties for a recount?

The fact that the people who supposedly would be the best judges of Gore's fitness to be president, the people of Tennessee, didn't vote for him is telling.

Despite your feelings about whether the election was stolen or not, you should be looking at Congress to check the president. That's one of the reasons why we have three branches of government. Congress would bring the troops home very quickly by cutting off funds. I haven't heard many people suggest that Congress take that action. The members of Congress will hold their noses and vote yes.

Also, we must all keep in mind that politics and corruption go together. The Democrats have friends, just like Republicans.
Bear in mind that all three branches of government, for the moment, are controlled by the same party. This makes oversight really hard to do.

I do agree that the Gore campaign was poorly run. That being said, the media gave W a huge pass in his campaign. If he managed to remember the names of foreign heads of state, they gushed. Lowered expectations, lowered results... and 49.9% of the crowd went wild.


Posted: Sep 12th 2003, 5:49 pm
by lance
andrewgd wrote:Exactly. Damn proud to be an American. Thats why I'm so mad it's being led as poorly as it is. I saw how hurt we were at 9/11, and was proud of our men and women at ground zero.

It hurts so much to see that goodwill turned towards political and personal gain. To pervert it to fit previous agendas. THAT is sick. THAT is un-American.

How DARE they try and take away our freedoms to protect us. And call it the 'Patriot Act'.

How DARE they call those speaking out un-American. We're as f##king American as it GETS.
Word. Preach it andrewgd!

It is the patrotic duty of any American, or citizen of the world for that matter, to question his/her government. Nothing wrong with that.


Posted: Sep 12th 2003, 5:58 pm
by lance
TomSpeed wrote:I guess that I classify myself as a liberal-Republican. I don't think the government should be involved in too many social issues, but I recognize the need to have a government do more than a Libertarian wants it to do. I am also an optimist about most things that don't directly involve myself. I also think that anyone who can become the president, whether he's Clinton, Bush, or Carter, is usually a pretty smart person who can make good decisions most of the time. I'm very distressed by the fact that Pres. Bush seemed to rush the US into war based on many false assumptions and faulty information. I preferred his father's way of handling Iraq, containment. However, I think Bush II wants to be reelected, so he will shift enough on Iraq to make it a UN problem and will pump many dollars into the economy to get it humming. He doesn't want his father's fate to befall him.

I seriously appreciate your point of view and thoughtful posts. As a self described liberal Democrat I agree with your analysis here. On the whole Bush I handled things much better than Bush II, especially in retrospect. I think Bush I recognized the dangers of getting bogged down in a nasty occupation and guerilla war. Gotta give him credit for that.

I don't see the UN forking over 87 Billion to bail W's butt out of the fire though. I don't see countries with large militaries sending their sons/daughters over to Iraq to get killed just so ours won't.

As to the election campaign. I remain the optimist. If 2004 is truly a free and fair election, Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans like yourself (hope you don't mind me calling you this) have a chance to unseat W. The American press has finally, (for love of all that is holy, Finally!) woken up and taken the Bush Administration to task for all those rosy pictures they painted of post war Iraq. There are viable Democratic canidates. Don't buy the W political spin.