Pat Buchanan Sums it up...

[JimBob2232]

Endorses Bush, but its not what you think
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html

"in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing."

I think he hit the nail on the head with this one.

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]

"in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing."

I think he hit the nail on the head with this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush is definitely right on taxes. Pat must of missed the debate when they asked each candidate about appointing a Supreme Court justice, because Kerry gave the correct answer, that you nominate the best judge, while Bush basically said he'd appoint someone who agreed with his views. As for sovereignty, I don't know what the hell that's supposed to mean--anyone who thinks either candidate would let another country dictate how our country defends itself should probably check themselves in for a psych evaluation immediately. I'm not very impressed by either man's values with regards to being president, but from a moral perspective, Kerry is slightly closer to being morally correct, because he clearly has better family values than Bush.

Basically the election breaks down like this. If your #1 worry is the economy, then vote for Bush. If your #1 worry is foreign policy, then vote for Kerry.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Pat must of missed the debate when they asked each candidate about appointing a Supreme Court justice, because Kerry gave the correct answer, that you nominate the best judge, while Bush basically said he'd appoint someone who agreed with his views

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement alone makes me think you might need to take your advice regarding the psych ward. Kerry made it quite clear he was for appointing judges who support his views. Did you miss his rant about Roe v. Wade?

[ QUOTE ]
but from a moral perspective, Kerry is slightly closer to being morally correct, because he clearly has better family values than Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what are you basing that assessment on?

[nothumb]

If by 'values' he means writing divisive, petty exclusions into the Constitution without need or demand, or repeatedly insisting that things are true when they are demonstrably false, or refusing to admit mistakes in the face of dire consequences, or having one of the most mendacious, dirty tricksters in US politics as his number one aide, then yeah, I guess he's right.

I'm sorry, I'm sick of all these conservatives talking to me about 'values.' The only legitimate issue here is abortion. All the other stuff - family values, gay marriage, the culture war, etc - is outrageous and invasive. There are too many people in Congress who are on their second or third wife trying to tell me how to run my family.

As far as I'm concerned the issue where Kerry is most clearly right is on abortion (which I believe should be up to the woman) and values, because he doesn't try to legislate his family values into the Constitution. On most others, I wouldn't like either of their positions, but Bush can take his Bible-thumping, gay-hating, creationist crap back to Texas.

NT

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
a Supreme Court justice, because Kerry gave the correct answer, that you nominate the best judge, while Bush basically said he'd appoint someone who agreed with his views.

[/ QUOTE ]

You err.

Bush said he would nominate constructionist. Kerry basically said he would nominate activists. One of the reasons I will vote for Bush is because I want to see constructionists nominated instead of activists. Therefore from my prespective Bush gave the correct answer. If you want to see activist judges then Kerry gave the correct answer to garner your vote.

[ QUOTE ]
As for sovereignty, I don't know what the hell that's supposed to mean--anyone who thinks either candidate would let another country dictate how our country defends itself should probably check themselves in for a psych evaluation immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically Bush was saying Kerry doesn't have the balls to make politically risky decision and because of that national security would suffer. I agree with Bush, Kerry is a political eunuch.

[ QUOTE ]
but from a moral perspective, Kerry is slightly closer to being morally correct, because he clearly has better family values than Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but you must have a warped conscience to believe that.

Stu

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pat must of missed the debate when they asked each candidate about appointing a Supreme Court justice, because Kerry gave the correct answer, that you nominate the best judge, while Bush basically said he'd appoint someone who agreed with his views.

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement alone makes me think you might need to take your advice regarding the psych ward. Kerry made it quite clear he was for appointing judges who support his views. Did you miss his rant about Roe v. Wade?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make my point clear. Both candidates are going to appoint people who agree with their strongest views. I think everyone knows this. When I say Kerry gave the correct answer, I’m basing this on his statement during the debate when he said (I’m paraphrasing): The mark of a good judge is when you read their rulings, you cannot tell if it was written by a man or woman, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, libertarian or traditionalist, etc.

If the Supreme Court is going to exist as an effective check and balance, then these are the type of judges when need to serve on the bench. I don’t believe Bush is lucid about this. When the high court ruled on the Florida election debacle, it appeared every judge voted down party lines. This shouldn’t be happening—there wouldn’t have been as much controversy had say Thomas voted for Gore, and Ginsberg voted for Bush. The Supreme Court’s credibility and image have been tarnished as a result.


I’ll explain in detail my “warped” [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] family values assertion later, when I respond to Stu's post.

[jakethebake]

You really believe that about Kerry (aka the UN's Bit*h)?

[ QUOTE ]
anyone who thinks either candidate would let another country dictate how our country defends itself should probably check themselves in for a psych evaluation immediately.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
If by 'values' he means writing divisive, petty exclusions into the Constitution without need or demand, or repeatedly insisting that things are true when they are demonstrably false, or refusing to admit mistakes in the face of dire consequences, or having one of the most mendacious, dirty tricksters in US politics as his number one aide, then yeah, I guess he's right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny when I first read this paragraph I thought you were talking about Kerry.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I'm sick of all these conservatives talking to me about 'values.' The only legitimate issue here is abortion. All the other stuff - family values, gay marriage, the culture war, etc - is outrageous and invasive. There are too many people in Congress who are on their second or third wife trying to tell me how to run my family.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly. But they're on both sides of the fence, not just the Religious Right. There are just as many whacko democrats that want to control our ability to teach our children our values rather than theirs (and no I'm not talking about racism or some other fringe crap).

[jakethebake]

How do most people spell "definitely"?

[CarlSpackler]

[ QUOTE ]
You err.

Bush said he would nominate constructionist. Kerry basically said he would nominate activists. One of the reasons I will vote for Bush is because I want to see constructionists nominated instead of activists. Therefore from my prespective Bush gave the correct answer. If you want to see activist judges then Kerry gave the correct answer to garner your vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would choose a good constructionist judge over a good activist judge every time. When faced with choosing a poor constructionist judge and a good activist judge, then I’d have to choose the latter.

The big red flag with Bush is his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This is a flaming anti-conservative amendment. His proposed amendment is against state rights, against separation of church and state, and frankly, against the spirit of the Constitution. What happened to Bush being against abortion? If Bush so strongly opposed to abortion, wouldn’t it make sense for him to propose an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion? Isn’t this a significantly more serious issue? Instead he proposes this ill-thought, caustic, anti-gay amendment, which happens to be in direct conflict with the heart of conservatism. Think about it this way--if you add some poop to the Constitution, then the whole thing is going to stink. I’m not strongly convinced that Kerry will nominate a good activist judge, but I am absolutely certain Bush will nominate a poor constructionist judge.

[ QUOTE ]

Basically Bush was saying Kerry doesn't have the balls to make politically risky decision and because of that national security would suffer. I agree with Bush, Kerry is a political eunuch.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I love your use of the word eunuch. I’m definitely going to work this word into my vocabulary asap. Before talking about “politically risky decisions,” let me make a point about reacting properly when our country is under attack. When informed of the 9/11 attacks, Bush did nothing for at least 7 full minutes, which is an eternity in these perilous modern times. He was stunned, just sitting in that classroom in Florida. Safe to say that Kerry, me, and you (I hope) would have reacted properly be getting up and finding out what exactly was going on, and then doing something about it. We’re just lucky no one lobbed a nuclear bomb at us that time. Secondly, don’t confuse balls with incompetence. The initial invasion of Iraq was planned and executed flawlessly, IMO. The failure to adequately plan for stabilizing Iraq after our victory, however, was inexcusable and reeking of pure incompetence, with regards to the Bush administration.

For the record, the Bush administration did NOT take the terrorist threat that faced our nation seriously before 9/11, and the USA paid the ultimate price. I’m convinced that had McCain or Gore been elected president, that 9/11 almost definitely would have been prevented, because the writing was on the wall. A similar terrorist attack was prevented on the eve of the millennium, because proper action was taken. Frankly, it would be pretty damn hard for Kerry to do worse on this issue, if he were elected, even if he tried.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but from a moral perspective, Kerry is slightly closer to being morally correct, because he clearly has better family values than Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]
No offense, but you must have a warped conscience to believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense taken. Let me clarify. With regards to exclusively their personal lives, I think Bush has much better family values than Kerry, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately Bush’s personal family values don’t carry over to his leadership of this country. The anti-gay amendment I previously mentioned is a perfect example. This negatively effects the lives of at least 1 million families in this country, including his running mate Dick Cheney’s, because it blatantly violates the civil rights of gay Americans. If Bush were a true conservative, he would leave this issue up to the states, and propose an anti-abortion amendment instead. Kerry meanwhile, is not trying to divide American families in an immoral way (like Bush), and therefore has better family values than Bush with regards to leading our country. It’s pretty cut and dry.