Us presidential election 2004

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The records, as I stated, started coming out from media and Bush pressure as I previously stated.

Can you find me quote that President Bush directly pressured Kerry to release his records.

I didn't say Bush himself. I said the Bush Camp.

Quote[/b] ]After days of being pressed by Republicans, Senator John Kerry on Wednesday released his military records, which showed uniformly positive evaluations from his commanders in Vietnam.

Washington Post

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Puke

If Kerry won, I would just laugh...    

Unless, he can change my mind....

From that Washington Post article:

Quote[/b] ]

Still unreleased are Mr. Kerry's medical records, which Mr. Meehan said the campaign was collecting. Asked whether the campaign intended to release those records, Mr. Meehan said: "You can't release what you don't have. Let us continue to collect the information from 35 to 40 years ago."

Would not Kerry have those files?

....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121809/posts

........

Quote[/b] ]

I didn't say Bush himself. I said the Bush Camp.

Quote[/b] ]The records, as I stated, started coming out from media and Bush pressure as I previously stated.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote

The records, as I stated, started coming out from media and Bush pressure as I previously stated.

A couple of post later I clarified with the aforementioned "camp".

I'm not quite sure why medical records should be an issue? Kennedy had a bad back. Cheney by all accounts should be dead now. Bush has no brain. Ford musta had an inner-ear problem.

That didn't stop any of them.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not quite sure why medical records should be an issue?

It something that deals with one of his purple hearts.

You forgot to add that Kerry was a zombie in Dawn of the Dead (remake)....

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not quite sure why medical records should be an issue?

It something that deals with one of his purple hearts.

Again. I say so what? ONE of his Purple Hearts?

I think the other two and his Bronze and Silver Stars make up for it. If of course this is dealing with the three wounds and you're out deal, you'll notice that the Officer who raised concerns said nothing at the time about it (refer to article posted).

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again. I say so what? ONE of his Purple Hearts?

If he did not get that purple heart, Vietnam would have been his home for a little longer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/22/politics/main613212.shtml

Quote[/b] ]"Sick Call Treatment Record" from Dec. 3, 1968 on which handwritten notes say, "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl bacitracin dressing. Ret to Duty."

The campaign says it will not release the medical records to the public because Kerry considers them to be a "private medical record." No word on whether that explanation will quiet the questions raised by Hibbard.

Taken the Washington Post article:

Quote[/b] ]

Still unreleased are Mr. Kerry's medical records, which Mr. Meehan said the campaign was collecting. Asked whether the campaign intended to release those records, Mr. Meehan said: "You can't release what you don't have. Let us continue to collect the information from 35 to 40 years ago."

You do have them but Kerry will not release them.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Even a commander who, 36 years after the fact, questioned a Purple Heart awarded to Mr. Kerry in 1968, recorded no reservations at the time. The officer, Grant W. Hibbard, a lieutenant commander during Mr. Kerry's five-month tour in Vietnam, told The Boston Globe last week that the wound for which Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart was no more than a small scratch.

But there was nothing negative about Mr. Kerry in an evaluation that Mr. Hibbard wrote two weeks after that incident.

For the most part, Mr. Hibbard wrote, Mr. Kerry was under his command for too short a time to evaluate him fully. Of 16 categories for rating, including professional knowledge, moral courage and loyalty, Mr. Hibbard checked "not observed" in 12. Mr. Hibbard gave Mr. Kerry the highest rating of "one of the top few" in three categories — initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. He gave Mr. Kerry the second-best rating, "above the majority," in military bearing. Reached Wednesday at his retirement home in Florida, Mr. Hibbard said he had no comment.

[denoir 0]

Then why vote? In that rational you have no idea what would make a good PM or Minister or anything for that matter.

(I'm not sure if it so in Norway, but some local judges are elected like every other official here...state and federal are appointed).

Vote for the platform, not the man. The issues are relevant and what solutions the candidate proposes.

As for a good PM - you don't vote for a PM or any other ministers. You vote for a party and they assign the posts.

Quote[/b] ]

I'm not sure if it so in Norway

Sweden I'm from Sweden.

Quote[/b] ]But leadership in any form is leadership.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Quote[/b] ]And given what we are working with, which do you prefer? Kerry or Bush?

For America I think Kerry is better. For me, for Europe, I'm not quite sure. There is a risk that if Kerry wins that Europe and America will kiss and make up and we'll have to mop up Iraq. Frankly I'm fairly unwilling to spend my tax money on something that I and my government and countrymen were against in the first place. I have better things to do with our money than to pay for Bush's little war adventure. Until the Iraq situation is resolved and paid for (and there are some other policy issues as well), I'm not sure that the interests of the EU and of America coincide. The elementary things we agree on anyway. Bush's Iraq mistakes give us an upper hand in negotiations ("You want help in Iraq? Sure, sign the Kyoto agreement, ICC agreement etc  and then we'll talk"). With Kerry there is a risk of everything being reset to zero.

On the other hand Kerry being a democrat would be far easier to work with.

Plus, it would be a damn shame if the neocons ruled for four more years. With Iraq as it is, I think they are pretty much prevented from doing much more damage, but it would not be right for them to get to stay.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ] Sweden I'm from Sweden.

Cripes! I'm sorry. I saw the original "Insomnia". I know that was a gaffe...

(I knew you were from Sweden....I have no idea why I was thinking of Norway)

Quote[/b] ]Vote for the platform, not the man. The issues are relevant and what solutions the candidate proposes.

As for a good PM - you don't vote for a PM or any other ministers. You vote for a party and they assign the posts.

As do I. I'm not voting for Kerry because he's Kerry. I'm voting for Kerry because he ISN'T Bush, which sadly is the best I can do right now.

Quote[/b] ]For America I think Bush is better.

I'm not so sure, given the atmosphere of dread, fear, and ignorance that has pervaded since 9/11.

Quote[/b] ]There is a risk that if Kerry wins that Europe and America will kiss and make up and we'll have to mop up Iraq. Frankly I'm fairly unwilling to spend my tax money on something that I and my government and countrymen were against in the first place. I have better things to do with our money than to pay for Bush's little war adventure. Until the Iraq situation is resolved and paid for (and there are some other policy issues as well), I'm not sure that the interests of the EU and of America coincide. The elementary things we agree on anyway. Bush's Iraq mistakes give us an upper hand in negotiations ("You want help in Iraq? Sure, sign the Kyoto agreement, ICC agreement etc and then we'll talk"). With Kerry there is a risk of everything being reset to zero.

Granted. But if Kerry becomes President and goes to the UN, admiting that "we" were wrong, with some form of formal apology would you still be against a concerted UN action to stabilize and rebuild Iraq?

(in my pipe dream world that is what I wish to happen)

Quote[/b] ]Plus, it would be a damn shame if the neocons ruled for four more years. With Iraq as it is, I think they are pretty much prevented from doing much more damage, but it would not be right for them to get to stay.

Not only not right, but in my view further detriment to US reputation (not that it has much of one now) and world stability. They will only view it as a mandate to continue doing what they are doing if they win.

[denoir 0]

Sorry, I mean to say Kerry. For America, Kerry is better. Bush has been and is a plain disaster for you.

Quote[/b] ]Granted. But if Kerry becomes President and goes to the UN, admiting that "we" were wrong, with some form of formal apology would you still be against a concerted UN action to stabilize and rebuild Iraq?

(in my pipe dream world that is what I wish to happen)

If and only if America pays for it. And even then I'm not sure. It's blackmail   I can say as much that if Sweden was to send a peace keeping force to Iraq sometimes in the future, I would never volunteer. I did not want to have anything to do with Iraq and I still don't. And I think that is the general sentiment in Europe. There are other areas in the world that can benefit from peace keeping at least as much as Iraq, so I really don't see why we should not focus our efforts there.

Unfortunately (as to be expected) the Iraqis are the ones getting screwed.

[Koolkid101 0]

I still can't believe the Dems picked kerry over Edwards.....

[Akira 0]

I never understood why they would never pick another candidate as VP. Say Kerry-Edwards. That would unite Dems and likely draw wome Repubs as well.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Something that backfired on Bush and Co. BTW.

Not really because Bush was not saying anything about this issue. Anyway, Kerry needs to show his medical records...

why is that Kerry has to be a perfect boy and not Bush?

Quote[/b] ]Kerry has a "liberal" ideology. A group looked at his voting record and found out he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (beating about Sen. Kennedy). Furthermore, he is actually pissing off the Vatican because of his abortion views.

tada! he is willing to divide his religious belief from state affairs. now how about that!

and that group could you please name it?

Quote[/b] ]XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU APRIL 15, 2004 11:04:27 ET XXXXX

TERESA FIGHTS TO KEEP HER TAX RETURNS PRIVATE

i'd give drudge report somewhat of a less credibility than OBL being a good muslim. on top of that Heinz was married to a Republican before she married Kerry(hey that rhymes! ). why wasn't her tax "problem" disclosed at that time and why were republicans not willing to discuss it?

Quote[/b] ]Would not Kerry have those files?

be honest. those files are kept in attic somewhere or is lost/destroyed in personal posession. how many years does your parent's tax documents go back?

[denoir 0]

Why would her tax files be relevant? She's not running for president, is she?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Why would her tax files be relevant?   She's not running for president, is she?

she is heiress of Heinz family, known for Heinz ketchup(or catsup ).

the republican strategy is to portray that Kerry's wife is a rich woman who supports her husband and thus Kerry is a rich hypocrit.

in other words, drag all the family into this instead of focusing on issue.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

ketchup is a chinese term (hell am I smart?!)

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]why is that Kerry has to be a perfect boy and not Bush?

Kerry always talk(ed) about his military record. He must show his whole military record to back him up.

Quote[/b] ]and that group could you please name it?

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm

Quote[/b] ]Judging by National Journal's congressional vote ratings, however, Kerry and Edwards aren't all that different, at least not when it comes to how they voted on key issues before the Senate last year. The results of the vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5. But Edwards wasn't far behind: He had a 2003 composite liberal score of 94.5, making him the fourth-most-liberal senator.

Quote[/b] ]

National Journal's vote ratings rank members of Congress on how they vote relative to each other on a conservative-to-liberal scale in each chamber. The scores, which have been compiled each year since 1981, are based on lawmakers' votes in three areas: economic policy, social policy, and foreign policy. The scores are determined by a computer-assisted calculation that ranks members from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other, based on key votes -- 62 in the Senate in 2003 -- selected by National Journal reporters and editors.

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry has compiled a generally more liberal voting record. After winning election to the Senate in 1984, he ranked among the most-liberal senators during three years of his first term, according to National Journal's vote ratings. In those years -- 1986, 1988, and 1990 -- Kerry did not vote with Senate conservatives a single time out of the total of 138 votes used to prepare those ratings.

Quote[/b] ]

As a result, in the 2003 vote ratings, Kerry received a rating only in the economic policy category, earning a perfect liberal score. Edwards received ratings in the categories of economic and social issues, also putting up perfect liberal scores.

A separate analysis showed that of the votes that Kerry cast in the two categories in which he did not receive scores in 2003 -- social policy and foreign policy -- he consistently took the liberal view within the Senate.

Quote[/b] ]

But interestingly, during Kerry's second term, from 1991 to 1996, he dropped back into the pack of Democratic senators and voted more moderately. In those years, he earned composite liberal scores in National Journal's vote ratings ranging from 78.2 to 85.8.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why would her tax files be relevant? She's not running for president, is she?

Kerry called for a full-disclosure of Bush's tax returns.

Former 1984 Dem VP Candidate Geraldine Ferraro released her husband's tax returns and he did not want his known to the public.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]be honest. those files are kept in attic somewhere or is lost/destroyed in personal posession. how many years does your parent's tax documents go back?

Was talking about Kerry's military medical records. He admitted that he has them but the records are considered a "private medical record" by him and will not release it.

A storm is comin (serious I hear thunder).....

[Tovarish 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why would her tax files be relevant?   She's not running for president, is she?

Kerry called for a full-disclosure of Bush's tax returns.  

Just read the bolded bits and see if you get it.

Quote[/b] ]Former 1984 Dem VP Candidate Geraldine Ferraro released her husband's tax returns and he did not want his known to the public.

and what does that have to do with the state of the rice harvest in China?

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Something that backfired on Bush and Co. BTW.

Not really because Bush was not saying anything about this issue. Anyway, Kerry needs to show his medical records...

why is that Kerry has to be a perfect boy and not Bush?

Did Bush divulge his entire record?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Kerry has a "liberal" ideology. A group looked at his voting record and found out he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate (beating about Sen. Kennedy). Furthermore, he is actually pissing off the Vatican because of his abortion views.

tada! he is willing to divide his religious belief from state affairs. now how about that!

and that group could you please name it?

Since when is having a "liberal" voting record and subscribing to a liberal ideology something to be considered a wrongdoing?  The Republican's precious little wipping boy Georgie has actually expanded government and taxed and spent more than any "liberal" President in the last 100 years.  Someone needs to balance out his neocon ideology that created the fiasco we are in.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU APRIL 15, 2004 11:04:27 ET XXXXX

TERESA FIGHTS TO KEEP HER TAX RETURNS PRIVATE

i'd give drudge report somewhat of a less credibility than OBL being a good muslim. on top of that Heinz was married to a Republican before she married Kerry(hey that rhymes! ). why wasn't her tax "problem" disclosed at that time and why were republicans not willing to discuss it?

Quote[/b] ]Would not Kerry have those files?

be honest. those files are kept in attic somewhere or is lost/destroyed in personal posession. how many years does your parent's tax documents go back?

Personally I don't give a crap about Teresa Heinz-Kerry's tax records.  It irrelevant and it's none of my business or anyone else's for that matter.  It is a matter between her and the IRS.  Besides, two can play at that game.  Bush comes from wealth also.  Why not have a thorough examination of the Bush Family tax records.  Somehow I doubt very much that George wants to go there.

[denoir 0]

billybob2002, you are apparently pro-Bush, so I'd like your opinion on three things:

1) War on Iraq - no WMDs have been found which was the primary reason for the war. The place is in total chaos etc

Do you think that Bush has done a good job?

2) "War on Terror". Osama bin Laden and most of his merry men are still alive and well. During 2002 and 2003 there has been a big number of successful AQ terrorist attacks around the world. Do you think that Bush has done a good job?

3) The global economy is recovering as is Americas. What is not recovering is the US government economy. There is a record budget deficit and the state's debt is at an all time high. Do you think that Bush had done a good job?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

2) "War on Terror". Osama bin Laden and most of his merry men are still alive and well. During 2002 and 2003 there has been a big number of successful AQ terrorist attacks around the world. Do you think that Bush has done a good job  

Oh that is tricky for several reasons:

A) Has there been an attack within the US since 911?

B) Apart from the war in Iraq (which was declared as a war against teror uniquely for public justification) I think the measures taken, the restructuring of the CIA and the improved networking with the FBI, have indeed made great progressThe difficulties of the war against AQ has been presented to us in spain. Such a teror-experienced country ignored even the most obvious indicators. What success would you have expected? Whatever Bush said about capturing Bin Laden was majorly unlikely to happen. But statements must be kept seperate from achievements. You could only proof him wrong if Al Quaida would have achieved another victory in the US. Fact is they havent

Capturing Bin Laden is not a direct action, it is a process. And the war in Afghanistan was the only logical first step to initiate this process.

C) You are adapting a slogan ("war on teror") that by itself is illogical. Therefore a potential reply can only fail.

1) War on Iraq - no WMDs have been found which was the primary reason for the war. The place is in total chaos etc

Do you think that Bush has done a good job?

How do we know that now? He never intended to find WMD. That we should know by now. He for himself wanted revenge and by capturing Saddam and killing his sons he got what he wanted. To free the iraqi people, this again this is process and up and downs are only indicators of the final result but there is still months to come in which the US military is able to turn things around. I think for an american the day of judgement comes on the day of the election. Then he can decide whether Bush made progress or not. Besides, who of us would have thought that Iraq could be occupied that easily. I didnt, in so far is was a success.

3) The global economy is recovering as is Americas. What is not recovering is the US government economy. There is a record budget deficit and the state's debt is at an all time high. Do you think that Bush had done a good job?

This is not an authentic recovery since it is publicly financed. The money pumped into the economy one day have to come back through taxes (and interest rates bla bla bla) . Without it, there would not be a recovery. The effects of 911 have caused damage on the economies but the actual effects are over (see tourism in Asia and and and). So it must be blamed on a false politics. Again one could argue it is a process. But Considering the amount of tax-cuts and direct investments the economy should have shown a much larger growth rate. But for the upper-class it was definetly a good year!

[ralphwiggum 6]

Kerry always talk(ed) about his military record. He must show his whole military record to back him up.

so did Bush. The republicans around him contend that Bush served in military and even showed it off on May 2003 when he flew in to deck of an aircraft carrier.

Quote[/b] ]http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm

thank you.

so what's wrong with being a liberal?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh no, me and Avon had that discussion already. I got realy angry and called her a "a damn israeli liberal". I should have not taken this word into my mouth and I deserve to be banned for calling with such an insultment. I am no better than the stupid liberals myself

So I guess Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and Castro are all damn liberal?