Logically (and seriously) why Bush will win......

[Dr Wogga]

.....and also why the elitist left constantly under-estimate the American public........

If you split the voting electorate into roughly 40% to each party, and of the remaining 20%, perhaps 15% is legitimate undecideds, it appears to me that capturing the undecided vote is going to by and large determine the outcome. And while we can argue the numbers of what truly represents the real undecided vote, I'd think it would be an easy case to make that the winning candidate will undoubtedly do better in the undecided venue than the loser. So lets examine what's important to the undecideds (and truly what the intellectual, elitist hollywood crowd really doesn't get). 1st, National security. Call it terrorism, international policy, homeland security, WW III - it's clearly the #1 issue. All other issues are lower in the pecking order. And, if you're honest about it, that's the way it should be. The economy doesn't matter, the healthcare issues, the stem cell research, the gay marriage carnival, the global warming, alternate fuel sources - THEY DON'T MATTER IF WE AIN'T SAFE. Got it?? Do you really get it demagogues?? No you don't. I'll relate a recent incident where the good Dr was at my son's friend's house, whose parents are really great people. One is a professor in ecology at a state university and the wife is a local freeholder for the democratic party. Other than politics, we get along just swell. However, this particular day I went to pick up my son, they both decided to tag-team me on why Kerry was the right choice. It was, said they, because Bush is wrong "on so many issues!" And I, being the good Dr, told them I could never in conscience vote for Kerry. They looked at me with an incredulity usually reserved for a super-duper magic trick! Continuing, I told them that because Kerry betrayed his constituents trust by missing 70 something votes while on an important national committee - and, more importantly, because his voting record is mostly opposite his positions on issues, I prefer the man in the oval office who doesn't pander to the pollsters, but makes a decision that right, wrong, or indifferent, I know in my heart of hearts, that that's what he believes to be the right choice. My friend's Dad (and he really is a terrific person) looked at me with the disdain for why someone not quite as educated as he, could have such a pathetic position.

And IMHO, this is how most liberals think.

Not that conservatives are bad, but that the right is SOOOOOOO MIS-INFORMED. And that they, the intellectually elite, spouting from their moral highbround, KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR US. "Forgive them father, for they know not what they're doing" Jesus Christ, 33AD, but quite apropos for the pompous liberal of today speaking about people who don't see the issues as they do).

Yes guys, the economy IS an important issue. We can argue numbers. You can tell me which numbers are more important and I can tell you others that I beleive in. I agree with the left with respect to stem cell research (Bush is wrong on this), alternate fuel (no president, Republican or demagogue, has done jack on this - not just Bush), global warming is a f*cking issue George! But don't you get it? These issues are meaningless if we aren't free and secure! They're MEANINGLESS if the terrorists win. The #1 issues is about leadership. That does not mean agreement with ALL the decisions made by the Commander-in-Chief. No sirree!! But it does mean knowing that the decisions the President makes are the decision he BELIEVES IN!! His decision should match not only his rhetoric - but his voting record.

And THAT, my leftist friends and despicable anti-semites, is why Kerry will lose.

"Forgive them father. They mean well. Afterall, their liberals." (Dr Wogga, 2004AD)

[Clarkmeister]

Doctor,

There is a new forum just for politics. Not too late for you to delete this one and move it there. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]

So lets examine what's important to the undecideds (and truly what the intellectual, elitist hollywood crowd really doesn't get). 1st, National security. Call it terrorism, international policy, homeland security, WW III - it's clearly the #1 issue. All other issues are lower in the pecking order.


[/ QUOTE ]

And frankly, that's the thinking that will cost Bush the election.

It's not "the most important issue."

And even if it was, how has Bush done anything to make it safer for average people?

Oh boy .. granny is getting strip searched and is having her crochet needles taken from her at the airport, amd war heros are having their medals stolen from them in the name of security (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/27/war.hero.cnna/), but healthy adult men are allowed to walk on board with a pocket full of nice sharp pencils. Ever see what a sharp piece of wood can do to a human neck?

It's a security side show, and everyone knows it. But the impact is to detere commerce and reduce the profitability of airlines. Bully for GWB - he's produced pretend security at the cost of thousands of American jobs.

In the meantime, GWB destabalized the middle east, producing a veritable flood of pissed off, idealistic young arabs for terrorist groups to provide a home for.

He has done absolutely nothing about the real proliferation of nuclear weapons in N.Korea, Iran, and Pakistan.

Terrorism has increased under GWB worldwide by leaps and bounds. Real, politically and economically significant terrorist organizations in the western hemisphere are all but ignored as we go after Saddam.

Ossama Bin Laden remains at large because the person who killed 3,000 Americans on american soil was religated to mission #2 behind Iraq. Based on absolutely no information of substance, as we know now.

In the meantime, Americans continue to lose jobs in major sectors, and the only job growth of significance is in very low paying, low benefit bearing service markets.

Of course, those low benefits aren't a problem for families because health care costs are under control . . . oh wait, that's not true. Guess those employment issues might be an issue after all.

But we need not worry, because those republicans who ran on fiscal responsibility have kept spending under control and the government is in healthy shape, right? Ummm nope, sorry, wrong again. The republicans abandoned their base and went on a spending orgy that is producing crippling deficits.

GWB will lose because he doesn't understand that you can not ignore your promises to the electorate. They remember those promises the next time you run. Moreover, even if you do ignore your promises to the electorate, you sure aren't going to get any votes if they lost their job under your watch.

GWB's Daddy didn't get it, and he doesn't either.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Terrorism has increased under GWB worldwide by leaps and bounds. Real, politically and economically significant terrorist organizations in the western hemisphere are all but ignored as we go after Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong.

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/


42% drop in two years is not leaps and bounds.

If we are ignoring groups, name them. Also, we aren't ignoring Iran or North Korea. We are trying very hard to get UN action. If you think we should do something more, say something more concrete. I'll never understand people that can both criticize people for taking action, and at the same time criticize for not taking action. If you have a better plan, say it!


[ QUOTE ]
Ossama Bin Laden remains at large because the person who killed 3,000 Americans on american soil was religated to mission #2 behind Iraq. Based on absolutely no information of substance, as we know now.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this? What was based on no substance?

[nothumb]

I'm starting to get a teensy bit frustrated by people on the right who talk about the 'liberal elite' and how they have pre-judged anyone on the opposite side of the fence. These people, while complaining about the gross generalizations made by their opponents, are committing the same offense in the process. What makes it worse is when conservatives give the "I know a liberal, I like him, he just has these effete, contemptuous views and doesn't understand other human beings." It's sort of like when people try to prove they aren't racist by talking about their black friend.

By the way, a lot of liberals agree that national security is the #1 issue, and they think Bush has mismanaged it catastrophically. John Kerry is one such person, and he has said so repeatedly. Beyond this, they argue that Bush's domestic agenda is simply wretched and crafted to appeal to the lowest common political denominators while catering to the interests of campaign contributors.

BTW, Jesus said "Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do." Seems like a fairly generous sentiment given the guy was nailed to a [censored] cross at the time.

And why do you call this a logical and serious argument when it is peppered with hateful name-calling, ad hominem attacks and apparently random, stereotypical attacks (i.e. "despicable anti-semites")??

Your political posts continue to disappoint.

Oh, BTW, please try to stay on topic! Wrong forum. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

NT

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
But we need not worry, because those republicans who ran on fiscal responsibility have kept spending under control and the government is in healthy shape, right? Ummm nope, sorry, wrong again. The republicans abandoned their base and went on a spending orgy that is producing crippling deficits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, look at these stats:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3225083.stm
France and Germany in 2003: 4.2% of GDP

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=148
USA in 2004: 4.5%

The deficit has been much higher in the past.

I agree it's still too high, but we are in a war. Besides, Bush has promised to cut the deficit in 1/2 in 2 years. Exceptions must be made.

If you are going to be posting facts like you have, you better provide links.

[Victor]

Even if one agrees with your assumption that the only thing that matters in this presidential race is safety and security in this War on Terror, in no place in your ramblings do you present any sort of evidence or pertinent points that Bush will do a better job than Kerry.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
These people, while complaining about the gross generalizations made by their opponents, are committing the same offense in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the best thing I've heard you say.

Dr. Wogga has even insulted me before, calling me a pinko. I don't take offense to it though, for some reason he makes me laugh. It's just the way he talks that does it I guess. But you are right.

But with Dr. Wogga, you just have to do the same back to him. Try it, he likes it!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if one agrees with your assumption that the only thing that matters in this presidential race is safety and security in this War on Terror, in no place in your ramblings do you present any sort of evidence or pertinent points that Bush will do a better job than Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is, can you even guess what Kerry will do in the future? Then again, does Kerry even know? How can you compare Bush to Kerry when you don't even know what Kerry will do?

[Cyrus]

Didn't you catch the drift? Wogga visited the house of his son's friends and got a roasting from assorted parents for his (Wogga's) yahooish ideas. Then Wogga promptly unloads his frustration on this page. I'd say this is indeed the right place for Garden Party Anxieties, Barbecue Insults and Other Levities.

So let the Wogga carry on, in his natural habitat.


"Forgive them father. They mean well. Afterall, their liberals." (Dr Wogga, 2004AD)

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Dr Wogga]

....didn't realize the new politics forum. Unlike cyrus, I continue to struggle with walking on water /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Dr Wogga]

.....the only thing missing was your buddies in hoods reading some scroll in arabic. Butactually, its wonderful to argue with liberals. They're (thanks from Jesus, BTW) taken aback by anyone disagreeing with them, as the only views they are exposed to are the university sheep marching in liberal lock-step (a new dance Jesus Ferguson is teaching during his latest "Square Dancing Tour"). This election has become a problem for liberals because more and more average Americans are tuning out main-stream network news and getting both sides of election issues reported by cable news organizations other than cnn (al-jazeera in atlanta). As such, there is a lot more anti-pompous fodder at the disposal of conservative, non-leftist, non-arab-loving, red, white, and blue, non-pinko(props to Wacki BTW) Americans.

Puff!!! You lose!!! Ha ha, ha....double digits.....Foe' mo' yo'

[Dr Wogga]

....if granny is hot, I don't know about you, but I want her strip searched . And believe me, you won't care about unemployment when you come home to your wife with her face covered by sheets. Of course, you could argue about rising healthcare costs just before your beheading. Oops, sorry......we're only supposed to be talking liberal issues here and not reality. Sorry, my bad /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Anyway, glad we agree for once /images/graemlins/confused.gif I mean "that's the thinking that will cost Bush the election...." I guess that explains Bush's double digit lead. Thank you.

[Dr Wogga]

....I had fogotten the rumors that there are a few non-despicable anti-semites around.........my bad /images/graemlins/blush.gif Kinda like searching for the abominable snowmen of the northwest - we know they exist, just having a hard time finding one to bring home to mother

[Kopefire]

And given Bush's track record of violating every major promise of his previous election run, we can of course say with certainty what he will do.

[Dr Wogga]

....and obviously, the American public agrees with you.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it's still too high, but we are in a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its fine to run up a deficit when you expect the war to end at some point, but...

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree it's still too high, but we are in a war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its fine to run up a deficit when you expect the war to end at some point, but...

[wacki]

pokerjo22
[ QUOTE ]
Its fine to run up a deficit when you expect the war to end at some point, but...

[/ QUOTE ]


But what? The actual Iraq invasion was relatively cheap. It's the reconstruction that is expensive. With luck, that will end within a couple of years. Russia is finaly getting on the ball, and Japan is starting to get in gear with North Korea. The IAEA demanded last weekend that Iran freeze uranium enrichment and all related activities, such as building centrifuges and reprocessing uranium, within two months. Failure to do so could prompt the IAEA to pass Iran’s nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions. The UN is still a wash, but there is signs of some improvement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6012416/

It isn't perfect, nor will it ever be, but hopefully it will be good enough.


Seriously? What are you suggesting? We will be spending billions upon billions of dollars per year rebuilding Iraq forever? Yes? No? What are you suggesting? We stop the reconstruction of Iraq because it's too expensive? Look what that did after WWI, and afghanistan! If you have something to say, say it.

Also, we know we can't deal with North Korea, Iran, and Iraq alone. That is why Japan, Britain, many others, and now finally Russia is stepping in. They realize this too. What do you suggest we do? Let Iran build a nuke? Do you have any idea what kind of organizations they PUBLICALLY FUND!?!?

This war may well go on forever, but it won't be as intense forever. Bush promised to cut the deficit in 1/2 in 2 years. I already said that. You should of read that. If he doesn't, there will be another election in 4. Untill then you will just have to vote for different Senators and Congressmen who ratify Bush's spending! But, to say we should just sit back and hope Iran doesn't give one of the terrorist groups( THEY FUND! ) a nuke is ridiculous.

Dr. Wogga might be a little eccentric and maybe even crazy but he is right. A good happy little America that tries to isolate itself from the rest of the world and live in pure happy joy joy harmony SIMPLY WILL NOT SURVIVE. WWII taught us that. People are trying to kill us, do you not understand that? Thank god they are incompetent, but who knows how long that will last. They have a very sophisticated communication and financial network.

If you have a better plan, SAY IT!!!!!!! Or stop b!tching.

If you are against the invasion, but for sanctions on Iraq, I can respect that even if I disagree. Atleast you are putting out other ideas. B!tching about people who have a very difficult job, and then not supplying any alternative methods is simply b!tching just to b!tch. Your not helping anyone.

[Dr Wogga]

....Props, my fellow American

[Cyrus]

Wacki > "A good happy little America that tries to isolate itself from the rest of the world and live in pure happy joy joy harmony SIMPLY WILL NOT SURVIVE."

The Monroe Doctrine was not, as misinformed opinion has it, a "call for isolation". Rather, the doctrine expressed in straightforward terms the new Republic's superpower aspirations, in that the whole hemisphere would be its realm. The "fear of isolationism" was never real, not then, not now.

And the reasons given then are still valid now. They are purely economic reasons and nothing else. (I'm not sayung that, a succession of American presidents are on record in revealing the various adventures' true objectives. It was a time when straight talk was more prevalent.)

Wacki > "WWII taught us that."

The second World War was not waged by the United States in defence of anything more than its aspirations in the Pacific and East Asia. (If you want the official quotes about America ogling China, just whistle.) It was one imperialist power, Japan, attacking another, the US, for the loot of the region. The other Axis powers then obeyed their treaty's provisions and declared war on the United States -- because it had declared war on Japan.

Hitler or Moussolini had no beef against America. It's a matter of historical record, this, and not up for any debate.

Wacki > "People are trying to kill us, do you not understand that?"

(sigh) I could throw in, as a bonus, along with the above-mentioned quotations, a list of America's military interventions abroad, for any century. The United States has been invading other countries almost from its inception. The only one who wanted to kill Americans in the past was the native person that American soldiers, after landing on his country, were shootng at!

Now, of course, there are some terrorists in the bargain - who "want to kill you". Tough luck, you shouldn't have been bankrolling and arming them when the "liberals" were warning you of the long-term implications of such folly...

Wacki > "Wogga might be a little eccentric and maybe even crazy."

Wogga > "Very, very well said."

I second that. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

OBVIOUSLY, this cant be the case, as ALL those prisoners at Abu Gharib that were abused and tortured were terrorists, right? Or does saying "international" terrorism is down exclude Iraq. What ever happened to the "If an Iraqi Plants a bomb along the roadside to blow up a US vehicle, he's a terrorist", mentality? Surely those instances boost Terrorist attacks to over 1000 for 2003 and 2004.

Flip flop, flip flop.

[dsm]

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler or Moussolini had no beef against America. It's a matter of historical record, this, and not up for any debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean that Hitler didn't have any beef with us (or even Britain for that matter), since we were primarily an aryan society, and felt we could live together in relative peace after he had finished his conquest?

I ask this because to say that Hitler had no beef whatsoever with America prior to December 7th, 1941 is just plain wrong. Hitler had a TREMENDOUS beef with America prior to that date. Holy sh!#, we had been selling/providing munitions and supplies to Britain since the beginning of the war, not to mention American distroyers which had started escorting convoys to Britain in the summer of '41.

"On 11th March 1941, Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act. The legislation gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt the powers to sell, transfer, exchange, lend equipment to any country to help it defend itself against the Axis powers. A sum of $50 billion was appropriated by Congress for Lend-Lease, with Britain receiving over $31 billion. Hitler knew that Lend-Lease would be a turning point in the War. Britain alone without Lend-Lease simply did not have the economic and industrial potential of resisting a NAZI Europe. Lend-Lease would provide the British the ability to continue the war!"

"In September 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt approved the transfer of 50 destroyers to Britain"

"In the summer of 1941, Roosevelt ordered the Navy to escort merchant convoys as far as Iceland. This order resulted in an undeclared war between American destroyers and German submarines, and led to the sinking of the destroyer Reuben James by the Germans on 31 October 1941."

Anyway, if I misinterpreted what you were saying to your good buddy wacki, my apologies. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-dsm

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

OBVIOUSLY, this cant be the case, as ALL those prisoners at Abu Gharib that were abused and tortured were terrorists, right? Or does saying "international" terrorism is down exclude Iraq. What ever happened to the "If an Iraqi Plants a bomb along the roadside to blow up a US vehicle, he's a terrorist", mentality? Surely those instances boost Terrorist attacks to over 1000 for 2003 and 2004.

Flip flop, flip flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

International terrorism is excatly that, international terrorism. It's different from intranational terrorism. Look up the definition at:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/

You know what I mean, and you know what they mean. Play word games like that with me, and any conversation we have will simply be a waste of time Daliman.

No flip flop.

[wacki]

"The United States has been invading other countries almost from its inception."
- like who? What country have we invaded,taken over, and reapped profits from like the romans have? Where are our colonies?


cyrus
Wacki > "Wogga might be a little eccentric and maybe even crazy."

Wogga > "Very, very well said."

Being eccentric and crazy isn't necessarily a bad thing. You need a little of both to be great. And I don't, always agree with him, but atleast he knows when to stand up.

"They are purely economic reasons and nothing else. (I'm not sayung that, a succession of American presidents are on record in revealing the various adventures' true objectives. It was a time when straight talk was more prevalent.)"

-What are you trying to say?

The second World War was not waged by the United States in defence of anything more than its aspirations in the Pacific and East Asia.

- Are you serious? So we have colonies in asia and Hitler had nothing to do with it? The one billion dollar defense appropriation bill that loaned destroyers to Great Britain was all about Asia? Do you have proof that our interests in asia were the only thing that mattered?

[MaxPower]

National security and terrorism is definitely the most important issue and that is exactly the reason I am voting against George W. Bush.

Bush has shown a serious lack of judgment in dealing with terrorism both before and after 9/11.

I live in New York City and saw the World Trade Centers fall with my own eyes. I worked only a few blocks away. I smelt the destruction and lived in fear for weeks after. I hope that I never have to go through something like that again. It was the worst time of my life. So I have thought very hard about the threat of terrorism and I do not feel safer because of the policies of this administration.

I know that Bush believes in his policies, but the problem is that his policies are based upon what he believes rather than basing what he believes on the facts. Had he done that he would never have gone to war in Iraq. So that conviction that you admire is actually a weakness. Our actions in Iraq actually make us appear weak to our enemies and to our allies.

The problem with your argument is that you seem to be guilty of many of the same things that you accuse liberals of doing.

[nothumb]

You either intentionally or unintentionally missed my point. I did not suggest that 'despicable' is not an adjective that applies to all anti-semites. I was pointing out that you just started calling random liberals anti-semites and communists rather than make a logical and substantive argument. Not that this surprises me.

Yawn. Next.

NT

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

OBVIOUSLY, this cant be the case, as ALL those prisoners at Abu Gharib that were abused and tortured were terrorists, right? Or does saying "international" terrorism is down exclude Iraq. What ever happened to the "If an Iraqi Plants a bomb along the roadside to blow up a US vehicle, he's a terrorist", mentality? Surely those instances boost Terrorist attacks to over 1000 for 2003 and 2004.

Flip flop, flip flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

International terrorism is excatly that, international terrorism. It's different from intranational terrorism. Look up the definition at:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/

You know what I mean, and you know what they mean. Play word games like that with me, and any conversation we have will simply be a waste of time Daliman.

No flip flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Impressive. Quibble my point using slightly different prefixes, then attach a link that doesn't include the "definition" of international terrorism.

Your differentiation is akin to saying the stock market is way up since Bush came in among all stocks showing an increase.

Selective information dissemination. A republican Hallmark for decades.
"Don't look behind that curtain!"

[Cyrus]

Hitler had no beef with America. He had no "geopolitical aspirations" against the United States. I challenge anyone to come up with any speech or writing of Hitler, prior to the war with Amerca, whereby he threatened it or otherwise posed demands on it.

Granted, the failed architect-cum-paintman included it among the countries that are influenced by Jews, and all that crap, but Germany, according to ol' Adolph, was content with Russia's plains without needing Kansas...

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I challenge anyone to come up with any speech or writing of Hitler, prior to the war with Amerca, whereby he threatened it or otherwise posed demands on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does his declaration of war against the United States count?