Chilly Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 I think what both candidates are doing is absolutely ridiculous. Cheney keeps implying that Kerry will seduce another terror attack on the US. You have to be freaking kidding me. Just because Kerry is elected means that the US will be attacked again? If they are planning an attack, and are successful, they will be able to attack within the next 4 years no matter who the president is. The Bush doctrine isn't going to win the war on terror within 4 years, and neither is Kerry's. Or how about Kerry implying that Bush is going to bring back the draft? Come on Kerry, get your head out of your ass. I think he's a better candidate then Bush, but all he's doing by saying stuff like this is perpetuating the belief that he'll say anything to get elected. I think the Bush/Cheney tactic is much more effectively personally, because it scares people of all ages. The draft just scares some moms and younger voters. However, they are both idiotic and I think the American public is stupid for listening to both of them and making a vote based off of scare tactics and not each candidate's policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 I think what both candidates are doing is absolutely ridiculous. Cheney keeps implying that Kerry will seduce another terror attack on the US. You have to be freaking kidding me. Just because Kerry is elected means that the US will be attacked again? If they are planning an attack, and are successful, they will be able to attack within the next 4 years no matter who the president is. The Bush doctrine isn't going to win the war on terror within 4 years, and neither is Kerry's. Or how about Kerry implying that Bush is going to bring back the draft? Come on Kerry, get your head out of your ass. I think he's a better candidate then Bush, but all he's doing by saying stuff like this is perpetuating the belief that he'll say anything to get elected. I think the Bush/Cheney tactic is much more effectively personally, because it scares people of all ages. The draft just scares some moms and younger voters. However, they are both idiotic and I think the American public is stupid for listening to both of them and making a vote based off of scare tactics and not each candidate's policies. 80024[/snapback] I think Kerry's "Bush has a secret plan to reinstitute the draft" is particularly disingenious. One reason is that he's going to the "Bush has a secret plan..." well far too many times (my personal favorite was his speech in Wisconsin when he said Bush has a secret plan to screw dairy farmers after the election). The other reason is...well, he's the one talking about adding two combat divisions to the army. Where's he think he's going to get the warm bodies to fill them? Yet again just another example of what a poorly run campaign his is. If he had an even remotely rational and coherent message, this wouldn't be a neck-and-neck race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 et again just another example of what a poorly run campaign his is. If he had an even remotely rational and coherent message, this wouldn't be a neck-and-neck race. And what is the scarier thought......That Kerry is incapable of such an act or the fact that 48-50% of Americans are behind him.......Be afraid...be very afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alg Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 And what is the scarier thought......That Kerry is incapable of such an act or the fact that 48-50% of Americans are behind him.......Be afraid...be very afraid. 80068[/snapback] What he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 I think Kerry's "Bush has a secret plan to reinstitute the draft" is particularly disingenious. One reason is that he's going to the "Bush has a secret plan..." well far too many times (my personal favorite was his speech in Wisconsin when he said Bush has a secret plan to screw dairy farmers after the election). The other reason is...well, he's the one talking about adding two combat divisions to the army. Where's he think he's going to get the warm bodies to fill them? Yet again just another example of what a poorly run campaign his is. If he had an even remotely rational and coherent message, this wouldn't be a neck-and-neck race. 80043[/snapback] I think that when its all over no matter the outcome the Kerry Campaign will go down as one of the most inept ever created. I think a fundamental problem is somehow his handlers felt they needed to almost say the same things the conservatives spew god, country blah, blah, blah. If he had just run on the economy and the improper ways this administration executed the war in Iraq this race would be over game set match. What mostly concerns me about this entire election that NOT ONE person in the republican party spoke up and challenged this president in the primaries to try to reshape the agenda and message to the more moderate/centrist message that most of the party and american public believes in. As I read more and more of the posts on why people align themselves to republican party I realize its time to change my party affiliation since the brainwashing by the right wing is much deeper than I ever imagined it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 I think Kerry's "Bush has a secret plan to reinstitute the draft" is particularly disingenious. One reason is that he's going to the "Bush has a secret plan..." well far too many times (my personal favorite was his speech in Wisconsin when he said Bush has a secret plan to screw dairy farmers after the election). The other reason is...well, he's the one talking about adding two combat divisions to the army. Where's he think he's going to get the warm bodies to fill them? Yet again just another example of what a poorly run campaign his is. If he had an even remotely rational and coherent message, this wouldn't be a neck-and-neck race. 80043[/snapback] Actually, I beleive what Kerry has said is that if Bush gets a second term, there is a "great potential" for a draft (great potential). People on the right however have accused Kerry of having a "secret draft plan" (Blogs for Bush). The more wars we are in at once and the longer they last increases the possibility that we will run out of manpower does it not? If one believes that under Bush we are more likely to be involved in additional conflicts (Iran is one example) and/or that the conflicts we are now engaged in are more likely to last longer, it is reasonable to conclude that under Bush, a draft is more likely than it would be under Kerry. The very same conclusion could be reached if one believes that under Kerry additional war and prolonged conflict is more likely than if Bush were elected. The fact is that being unable to predict the future course of events, we can't know for certain if a draft will become a necessity. For people of draft age, to the extent this issue is critical for them and I see no reason why it wouldn't be, they are going to have to decide for themselves who is more likely to get us into a situation where a draft is necessary. That decision will have to be based largely on speculation and each candidate has to make their best pitch to these voters and then they will make their decision. Saying that there is a "great potential" for a draft under Bush is just speculation and sales puffing but it is no more disingenuous than Bush promising that there will be no draft. Certainly, if a draft were absolutely necessary for our security, Bush would have a draft and so would Kerry. Promises now on that issue mean very little because obviously, if events in the future require it, there will absolutely be a draft. I think it is a fair issue for people to consider, the relative likelihood of a draft under Bush vs. under Kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Actually, I beleive what Kerry has said is that if Bush gets a second term, there is a "great potential" for a draft (great potential). People on the right however have accused Kerry of having a "secret draft plan" (Blogs for Bush). The more wars we are in at once and the longer they last increases the possibility that we will run out of manpower does it not? If one believes that under Bush we are more likely to be involved in additional conflicts (Iran is one example) and/or that the conflicts we are now engaged in are more likely to last longer, it is reasonable to conclude that under Bush, a draft is more likely than it would be under Kerry. The very same conclusion could be reached if one believes that under Kerry additional war and prolonged conflict is more likely than if Bush were elected. The fact is that being unable to predict the future course of events, we can't know for certain if a draft will become a necessity. For people of draft age, to the extent this issue is critical for them and I see no reason why it wouldn't be, they are going to have to decide for themselves who is more likely to get us into a situation where a draft is necessary. That decision will have to be based largely on speculation and each candidate has to make their best pitch to these voters and then they will make their decision. Saying that there is a "great potential" for a draft under Bush is just speculation and sales puffing but it is no more disingenuous than Bush promising that there will be no draft. Certainly, if a draft were absolutely necessary for our security, Bush would have a draft and so would Kerry. Promises now on that issue mean very little because obviously, if events in the future require it, there will absolutely be a draft. I think it is a fair issue for people to consider, the relative likelihood of a draft under Bush vs. under Kerry. 80329[/snapback] You make a valid point, but neglected to factor in Kerry's own words that he will add 40,000 more troops to our armed forces (maybe it was in the blog, but I am not going to waste my time reading that drivel). Where is he going to get the troops if he does not have a draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 You make a valid point, but neglected to factor in Kerry's own words that he will add 40,000 more troops to our armed forces (maybe it was in the blog, but I am not going to waste my time reading that drivel). Where is he going to get the troops if he does not have a draft? 80345[/snapback] Which of course will cost a small fortune and is logistically virtually impossible to do within the time frame of the term. But at least the wheels would be in motion when he left office. The enlistees who joined just after September 11th and qualified for Special Forces training are just about ready to join the fight TODAY. It takes alot longer to train a SEAL than it does to club one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 I think that when its all over no matter the outcome the Kerry Campaign will go down as one of the most inept ever created. I think a fundamental problem is somehow his handlers felt they needed to almost say the same things the conservatives spew god, country blah, blah, blah. If he had just run on the economy and the improper ways this administration executed the war in Iraq this race would be over game set match.What mostly concerns me about this entire election that NOT ONE person in the republican party spoke up and challenged this president in the primaries to try to reshape the agenda and message to the more moderate/centrist message that most of the party and american public believes in. As I read more and more of the posts on why people align themselves to republican party I realize its time to change my party affiliation since the brainwashing by the right wing is much deeper than I ever imagined it was. 80182[/snapback] I could never switch to Republican because the conservatives have a stranglehold on the party that once represented common sense and good stability. The successive tenures of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover shifted the focus away forever. Hoover, like Bush in his stubbornness to be resolute and infallible, went down with his failed policies and empty words. One day the party of Lincoln and TR will wake up and dump the far right for good from its highest positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts